/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140108.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 8, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 5 Headlines AIC LTD: Canada Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Certification AMERICAN EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle Two Antitrust Class Actions BELL POTTER: Court Rejects Attempt to Revive Class Action CARNIVAL CRUISE: Refutes Claims in Triumph Class Action CHEMED CORP: Insurer to Pay $6MM in Securities Lawsuit Accord CHURCH & DWIGHT: Still Faces Suit Over ARM & HAMMER Deodorant Ad DIEBOLD INC: March 19 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Wants Incentive Compensation Suit Nixed EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Court Agrees to Stay "Bushansky" Lawsuit ELECTRONIC ARTS: Intends to Defend Securities Class Action EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Provides Update on MERS-Related Suits GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Approves $40M Settlement of Stock Suit GPT: Court Approves $8.5-Mil. Class Action Disbursements KKR & CO: Del. Chancery Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Primedia Suit KRR & CO: Shareholder Suits in Georgia Stayed Pending Del. Case KRR & CO: Mass. Court Denied Summary Judgment Bid in Stock Suit LINCOLN NATIONAL: Cert. Hearing in "Bezich" Suit in 1st Half 2014 LINCOLN NATIONAL: Response in Lawsuit v. BofA Due Mid 2014 MADISON SQUARE: N.Y. Antitrust Lawsuit Now in Discovery Phase NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Ill. Court Certifies Class in Merger Suit NVR INC: No Class Treatment in "Tracy" Labor Suit OLD NATIONAL: Mediation Ordered in Suit v. Old National Bank OLD REPUBLIC: Certification Ruling in "Ahmad" Suit Reversed OLD REPUBLIC: No Class Certification Yet in Lawsuits Against RMIC OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Face "Friedman" Suit in California PORTLAND GENERAL: March 2014 Oral Argument Set Over Refund Order PVR PARTNERS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Pennsylvania SANOFI: Lieff Cabraser Launches Class Action Over Lemtrada Drug SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: No Class Filing for Former Wichita Workers SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Boeing Still Faces "Harkness" Suit in Kansas SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Motions to Name Lead Plaintiff Pending TARGET CORP: JTB Law Group Files Data Breach Class Action TARGET CORP: May Face Costly Consumer Class Suits Over Data Breach TECO ENERGY: Denial of Class Certification in Suit v. PGS Upheld TESLA MOTOR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Suit Settlement Awaits Approval VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing in Obagi Suit Continued to Jan 29 VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Wellbutrin Suit Accord Wins Final OK VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Wants 13 Solodyn Suits Consolidated VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Jan. 16 Hearing Set in Suit Over Cold-FX VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Awaits DC Court's Okay of Accord VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Suits Over MoistureLoc Now Dismissed VITAS HEALTHCARE: Settles Labor Suit for $10.3 Million ********* AIC LTD: Canada Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Kain, Esq. -- bkain@mccarthy.ca -- at McCarthy Tetrault LLP reports that the Supreme Court of Canada released two judgments of interest to Canadian businesses and professions. In the first, AIC Limited v. Fischer, 2013 SCC 69, the Court upheld the certification of a class action by investors against mutual fund managers, who alleged that they suffered losses when the defendants engaged in "market timing" activities. The issue for the Court was whether a class action could be the preferable procedure, as required under s. 5(1)(d) of Ontario's Class Proceedings Act, 1992, when the defendants had already entered into settlement agreements with the Ontario Securities Commission that paid large sums to the investors. The Court concluded that a class action was the preferable procedure, because there was some basis in fact to believe that procedural and substantive access to justice concerns continued to remain after the settlements which a class action could address. In doing so, the Court substantially reformulated the second branch of the preferable procedure test, which asks whether a class action would be preferable to any other reasonably available means of resolving the class members' claims. The second decision of interest this week is IBM Canada Limited v. Waterman, 2013 SCC 70. In IBM, the Court held that pension benefits which are paid to a wrongfully dismissed employee during the legal notice period are not to be deducted from the employee's wrongful dismissal damages. The Court reasoned that pension benefits are a form of deferred compensation and retirement savings, and not an indemnity for wage loss due to unemployment. As a result, the Court held they were analogous to private insurance benefits, which are also not deductible from damages awards. While the majority's judgment is largely focused on the "collateral benefits" principle, it also makes several important observations of interest to contract law more generally, including this statement regarding the role of reasonable expectations in measuring contractual damages: This is not to say, however, that the approach to damages does or should ignore the underlying purposes of the substantive obligations the breach of which they seek to remedy. If, for example, an important purpose of the law of contracts is to protect the reasonable expectations of the parties to a contract, it is appropriate to consider how well the award of damages furthers that purpose in a particular case: see, e.g., A. Swan and J. Adamski, Canadian Contract Law (3rd ed. 2012) at Sec. 1.27. This consideration may be taken into account along with the other principles of damages law in order to ensure that there is a good "remedial fit" between the breach of obligation and the remedy. (para. 72) AMERICAN EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle Two Antitrust Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- American Express on Dec. 19 disclosed that it has agreed to settle two putative antitrust class actions filed by U.S. merchants that challenged the company's Card acceptance agreements. The settlement agreement will address certain merchant concerns, while helping to ensure that American Express Card Members are treated fairly at the point of sale. It will also limit the Company's exposure to future legal claims. The first lawsuit, In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation, challenges the Non-Discrimination Provisions in the company's merchant contracts. The lawsuit dates back to 2006 and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The second lawsuit, In re Marcus Corporation, challenges American Express' Honor All Cards Provisions. This lawsuit dates back to 2004 and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Under the terms of the agreement: -- Merchants continue to agree that if they decide to surcharge their customers using credit or charge cards, any surcharge on American Express Card transactions would be no more than the surcharge on credit or charge card products issued on competing networks. -- Similarly, merchants agree that if they surcharge customers paying with prepaid or debit cards, they would not surcharge American Express prepaid cards more than any competing prepaid or debit cards issued on competing networks. -- Merchants would be allowed to surcharge charge and credit cards, even if they do not surcharge prepaid and debit card transactions. -- Merchants would agree not to pursue further legal challenges to American Express' Non-Discrimination and Honor All Cards Provisions for at least 10 years after these changes are implemented. -- American Express would agree to pay reasonable attorneys fees for both cases up to a maximum total of $75 million, as approved by the Court. -- If merchants choose to pursue individual lawsuits or arbitrations for alleged damages relating to the Non- Discrimination and Honor All Cards Provisions, they would agree that any potential recovery would be limited to damages for the period prior to the implementation of the changes. The company's card acceptance agreements will continue to require merchants to honor all American Express cards with the exception of U.S. issued traditional debit cards, should the company or its affiliates or partners decide to issue them at a future date. The agreements will also continue to prohibit merchants from steering customers away from using American Express cards to competing products. The changes to the Non-Discrimination and Honor All Cards Provisions will take effect after the resolution of any appeals to the final approval of the settlement, unless voluntarily implemented by American Express at an earlier date. If the settlement terms are approved by the Court, all merchants who accept American Express cards in the United States will be bound by the changes to American Express' Non-Discrimination and Honor All Cards Provisions and by the agreement not to make any future claims relating to these contract provisions for a period of at least 10 years after the changes are implemented. Tim Heine, Managing Counsel of American Express, said: "We believe the terms of the settlement continue to balance the interests of Card Members and merchants. "While the modification of our contract provisions gives merchants some additional flexibility, many merchants continue to believe, as we do, that surcharging is fundamentally anti-consumer. Few merchants have taken advantage of earlier opportunities to surcharge out of concern that it could risk alienating customers, and drive them to patronize competitors who do not surcharge. "Merchants choose to accept American Express because we help them reach millions of customers who value the convenience, rewards, and world class service that our payment products provide. Unlike Visa and MasterCard, we do not have market power. We operate a competitive, dynamic business with a unique business model. Resolving these lawsuits will allow us to stay focused on helping merchants build their business and strengthen their customer relationships." American Express will reimburse the class plaintiffs' costs of notifying merchants of the settlement up to $2 million and will provide an additional $2 million fund for plaintiffs to communicate to merchants about the terms of the settlement. The settlement agreement has been submitted to the Court for approval. Costs associated with the settlement will be recognized in the fourth quarter. American Express has been named in a number of separate merchant cases. American Express is a global services company, providing customers with access to products, insights and experiences that enrich lives and build business success. BELL POTTER: Court Rejects Attempt to Revive Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Antoon, Esq., at King & Wood Mallesons, writing for The Lawyer, reports that a Federal Court rejected an attempt to reconstitute the Bell Potter class action as a representative proceeding, finding that the person proposed as representative applicant was not a group member and as such could not represent the class: Meaden v Bell Potter Securities Ltd (No 6) [2013] FCA 1176. While the court found that it had the power to make an order reconstituting the class action, it could not exercise that power in circumstances where the proposed new representative applicant was never a group member in the class action. The attempt to reconstitute the class action illustrates the clear choice of plaintiff law firms and litigation funders for class actions as a vehicle for advancing related claims, over more traditional procedures such as multi-applicant proceedings. In October 2010, Ms. Meaden commenced the class action against Bell Potter on behalf of a group of the stockbroking firm's clients who acquired shares in Progen Pharmaceuticals. The price of the shares collapsed after trials of the company's drug were suspended. The proceedings alleged market manipulation and misleading or deceptive conduct. CARNIVAL CRUISE: Refutes Claims in Triumph Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- CruiseShipNews reports that it seems as though Carnival Cruise Lines is not happy with some of the claims being made in regard to the Carnival Triumph class-action lawsuit, as they have recently refuted claims that have been made. They were also unhappy with how the issue was used in a recent CNN Anderson Cooper 360 segment. New Carnival Triumph class-action lawsuit twist The story of the Carnival Triumph has been well documented since the fire broke out on the ship, and we also know that Carnival has spent several hundred million dollars on making certain that such an issue would not happen again. However, that does not help the lawsuit because those issues were not addressed, but things have taken a new twist because there are confusing reports that the ship was already at risk from fuel leaks because of how the fuel line was shielded. It seems that the CNN report points out the fact that the affected fuel line was not shielded, when it should have been following issues that happened with a Costa ship before the Triumph incident. However, Carnival Cruise Lines says that this is not true and that it was shielded where it needed to be, and if it were not then the ship would not have been able to meet SOLAS requirements. Cruise Critic takes an in-depth look into this lawsuit, and explains why Carnival is refuting these latest claims. CHEMED CORP: Insurer to Pay $6MM in Securities Lawsuit Accord ------------------------------------------------------------- Chemed Corp. executed a Settlement Term Sheet to settle in full and with prejudice In re Chemed Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-28 (S.D. Ohio) for a payment of $6.0 million by the company's insurer, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On January 12, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Company, Kevin McNamara, David Williams, and Timothy O'Toole, In re Chemed Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12- cv-28 (S.D. Ohio). On June 18, 2012, an amended complaint was filed alleging violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants, and violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. McNamara, Williams, and O'Toole. The suit's allegations concern the VITAS hospice segment of the Company's business. Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Chemed Capital Stock, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and expenses, arising from Defendants' alleged failure to disclose an alleged fraudulent scheme at VITAS to enroll ineligible hospice patients and to fraudulently obtain payments from the federal government. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which were pending when the parties reached an agreement to settle the action. On June 7, 2013, following the filing of U.S. v. VITAS, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants oppose this motion. On September 16, 2013, Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Chemed Capital Stock between February 15, 2010, and May 3, 2013, inclusive, executed a Settlement Term Sheet with Defendants ("Settlement"), reaching an agreement in principle to settle this case in full and with prejudice, and to provide Defendants with full releases of all claims that are or could have been asserted by Plaintiffs in exchange for payment of $6.0 million by the company's insurer into a settlement fund for the benefit of the putative class. The Settlement has been recorded as an accrual and offsetting prepaid in the accompanying Balance Sheet. This Settlement is subject to final documentation by the parties as well as Court approval. Defendants agreed to enter into this Settlement to eliminate the burden, expense and distraction of further litigation. CHURCH & DWIGHT: Still Faces Suit Over ARM & HAMMER Deodorant Ad ---------------------------------------------------------------- Church & Dwight Co., Inc. continues to face suit alleging unfair, deceptive and unlawful business practices with respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural Deodorant, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. The Company has been named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit alleging unfair, deceptive and unlawful business practices with respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural Deodorant. Specifically, on March 9, 2012, Plaintiffs Stephen Trewin and Joseph Farhatt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and breach of implied warranty. The original complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company used a marketing and advertising campaign that is centered around the claim that the ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural Deodorant is a "natural" product that contains "natural" ingredients and provides "natural" protection. The complaint alleges the advertising and marketing campaign is false and misleading because the product contains artificial and synthetic ingredients. Among other things, the complaint seeks an order certifying the case as a class action, appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives and appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class. The complaint also seeks restitution and disgorgement of all amounts obtained by the Company as a result of the alleged misconduct, compensatory, actual, statutory and other unspecified damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs and the purported class, up to treble damages for alleged violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, punitive damages for alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, an order requiring the Company to immediately cease its alleged wrongful conduct, an order enjoining the Company from continuing the conduct and acts identified in the complaint, an order requiring the Company to engage in a corrective notice campaign, an order requiring the Company to pay to Plaintiffs and all members of the purported class the amounts paid for ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural Deodorant, statutory prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. DIEBOLD INC: March 19 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division: LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. KPMG, LLP, et al., Defendants. No. 1:10-cv-01461-BYP CLASS ACTION Judge Benita Y. Pearson TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED DIEBOLD, INC. ("DIEBOLD") COMMON STOCK AND/OR PUT AND CALL OPTIONS BETWEEN JUNE 30, 2005 AND JANUARY 14, 2008, INCLUSIVE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, a hearing will be held on March 19, 2014, at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable Benita Y. Pearson, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, 313 Thomas D. Lambros United States Federal Building and Courthouse, 125 Market Street, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the Litigation for the sum of $31,600,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of November 8, 2013; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Litigation, together with interest thereon. If you purchased Diebold common stock, and/or put and call options, between June 30, 2005 and January 14, 2008, inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Litigation and the settlement thereof. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Diebold Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 5100, Larkspur, CA 94977-5100, or by downloading this information at http://www.gilardi.com/dieboldinc If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form postmarked no later than April 21, 2014, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to the Claims Administrator at the above address, postmarked by March 5, 2014. Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than March 5, 2014, and received by the following no later than March 5, 2014: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP DEBRA J. WYMAN JEFFREY D. LIGHT 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Lead Counsel for Class Representatives BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP JOHN J. CARNEY FRANCESCA M. HARKER 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Attorneys for Defendant Kevin J. Krakora JONES DAY JOHN M. NEWMAN, JR. GEOFFREY J. RITTS ADRIENNE FERRARO MUELLER KRISTIN S.M. MORRISON North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Attorneys for Defendant Diebold, Inc. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP STEVEN S. SCHOLES WILLIAM P. SCHUMAN JEFFREY A. ROSSMAN JEFFREY BALTRUZAK 227 W. Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60606-5096 Attorneys for Defendant Gregory T. Geswein VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP DAVID J. TOCCO RAJEEV K. ADLAKHA 2100 One Cleveland Center 1375 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44114-1742 Attorneys for KPMG LLP PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: November 20, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Wants Incentive Compensation Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------- Education Management Corporation disclosed in its Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013, that a shareholder derivative class action captioned Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed on May 21, 2012, against the directors of the Company in state court located in Pittsburgh, PA. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's shareholders due to the Company's violation of the U.S. Department of Education's prohibition on paying incentive compensation to admissions representatives, engaging in improper recruiting tactics in violation of Title IV of the HEA and accrediting agency standards, falsification of job placement data for graduates of its schools and failure to satisfy the U.S. Department of Education's financial responsibility standards. The Company previously received two demand letters from the plaintiff which were investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors and found to be without merit. The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice on August 13, 2012. In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making substantially the same allegations as the initial complaint on September 27, 2012. The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 17, 2012. On July 16, 2013, the Court dismissed the claims that the Company engaged in improper recruiting tactics and mismanaged the Company's financial well- being with prejudice and found that the Special Litigation Committee could conduct a supplemental investigation of the plaintiff's claims related to incentive compensation paid to admissions representatives and graduate placement statistics. The Special Litigation Committee filed a supplemental report on October 15, 2013, finding no support for the incentive compensation and graduate placement statistic claims. The Court tentatively set argument on the defendants' supplemental motion to dismiss the case for December 3, 2013. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Court Agrees to Stay "Bushansky" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The federal district court in the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the motion by Education Management Corporation to stay the case Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. in light of the ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System case, according to Education Management Corporation's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On August 3, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed against certain of the directors of the Company in federal district court in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's shareholders due to the Company's use of improper recruiting, enrollment admission and financial aid practices and violation of the U.S. Department of Education's prohibition on the payment of incentive compensation to admissions representatives. The Company previously received a demand letter from the plaintiff which was investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors and found to be without merit. The Company believes that the claims set forth in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company and the named director defendants filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the resolution of the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System shareholder derivative case or, alternatively, dismiss the case on October 19, 2012. On August 5, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay the case in light of the ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System case. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Intends to Defend Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Alex Wawro, writing for Gamasutra, reports that securities law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 17 filed a complaint that will likely lead to a class action lawsuit against Electronic Arts in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of Ryan Kelly and anyone else who purchased EA stock between July 24 and December 4, 2013. The complaint names EA as an entity as well as a few top EA men -- including Peter Moore, Andrew Wilson, and Blake Jorgensen -- as defendants, alleging that they violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and knowingly or recklessly made false or misleading public statements about the quality of Battlefield 4 in a gambit to juice sales. The complaint alleges that senior EA executives knew -- and did not disclose to the public or public shareholders -- that Battlefield 4 was a buggy, incomplete mess that would not be able to function as advertised if it was released on schedule. Instead, they continually asserted that the game was of excellent quality, both in public interviews and during conference calls with investors. There are tons of quoted examples of these allegedly misleading or reckless statements compiled in the legal paperwork, including Peter Moore's statement -- during a call meant to update investors on the quality of EA products -- that "We couldn't be happier with the quality of the games our teams are producing or the early reception those games are getting from critics and consumers," on the evening of July 23, 2013, three months before Battlefield 4 came out. When the game went live, players and critics quickly began complaining of game-breaking bugs, including horrendous clipping issues and the inability to reliably find and stay connected to a multiplayer match. It got so bad that DICE felt the need to publish a public bug tracker that would let players know exactly what problem(s) it was working on fixing, as well as the status of said fix. EA stock took a dive and the company went on the defensive immediately, issuing public statements that it was pulling people off other projects in order to focus its resources on fixing Battlefield 4. The complaint alleges that this decision ruined EA's financial prospects for the coming quarters, costing investors more lost revenue on top of the devalued stock. Once again, there are a few good quotes cited in the complaint, including a statement from an EA representative to Polygon's Dave Tach that read: "First, we want to thank the fans out there that are playing and supporting us with Battlefield 4. We know we still have a ways to go with fixing the game -- it is absolutely our No. 1 priority. [. . .] We're not moving onto future projects or expansions until we sort out all the issues with Battlefield 4. We know many of our players are frustrated, and we feel their pain. We will not stop until this is right." The complaint further alleges that EA senior executives sold stock at inflated prices prior to the release of Battlefield 4, thus profiting from hype surrounding the game. For example, the complaint alleges that EA CEO Andrew Wilson sold 40,000 shares of stock at a share price of $25.50 on July 26, with proceeds from the sale totaling more than $1 million -- $1,020,000, to be exact. The complaint does not go into detail about exactly what portion of the proceeds from sales of EA stock by the defendants is alleged to be ill-gotten. Gamasutra estimates that if Wilson had tried to sell the same amount of stock three days earlier, before EA's stock price jumped up in response to the aforementioned (allegedly) misleading conference call that included Moore's statement about the quality of Battlefield 4, proceeds would have been roughly $953,200 -- or an estimated $50,000 in profit on company stock traded at allegedly inflated prices. EA disputes this complaint. When reached for comment, EA Senior Director of Corporate Communications John Reseburg told Gamasutra via email that "We believe these claims are meritless. We intend to aggressively defend ourselves, and we're confident the court will dismiss the complaint in due course." For what it's worth, we couldn't find a lot of evidence in the filing that anyone at EA knew that Battlefield 4 wasn't ready for primetime when it came out in October. Instead, it appears as though the plaintiffs are alleging the defendants must have known what state Battlefield 4 was in thanks to their senior positions, thus rendering their positive statements about the game's quality false and misleading. The plaintiffs hope to make EA pay for all damages sustained as a result of the defendants' wrongdoing -- which will be decided during the course of the trial -- plus interest, on behalf of everyone who bought EA common stock between July 24 and December 4. EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Provides Update on MERS-Related Suits --------------------------------------------------------- In its Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013, Everbank Financial Corp. provided updates on class action lawsuits filed against it where the plaintiffs allege improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure to pay recording fees in violation of state recording statutes, Mortgage Electronic Registration Services Related Litigation MERS, EverHome Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and servicers that have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the following class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure to pay recording fees in violation of state recording statutes: (1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et al. filed in October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio, later removed to federal court and subsequently remanded to state court; (2) State of Iowa, by and through Darren J. Raymond, Plymouth County Attorney v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al., filed in March 2012 in the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, later removed to federal court and now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; (3) Boyd County, ex. rel. Phillip Hedrick, County Attorney of Boyd County, Kentucky, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al. f iled in April 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky; (4) St. Clair County, Illinois v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP, Inc. et al., filed in May 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois; (5) Macon County, Illinois v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al. filed in July 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon County, Illinois and later removed to federal court; (6) County of Multnomah v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in December 2012 in an Oregon state court, later removed to federal court and subsequently remanded to state court; (7) County of Union Illinois, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al. filed in April 2012 in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Union County, Illinois, later removed to federal court and now pending on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; (8) County of Ramsey and County of Hennepin, Minnesota v. MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., et al. filed in February 2013 in the Second Judicial District Court, subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota and now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and (9) Jackson County, Missouri v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc., et al., filed in April 2012 in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri and later removed to federal court where the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and now stayed due to the bankruptcy filing of defendant GMAC. In these class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in each case generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the defendants to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs. The company believes the plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to contest all such claims vigorously. EverBank was previously subject to one additional lawsuit: (1) Christian County Clerk, et al. v. MERS and EverHome Mortgage Company filed in April 2011 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, which was the subject of an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that upheld the lower court's dismissal of the complaint. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Approves $40M Settlement of Stock Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a $40 million settlement of a securities suit filed against General Electric Company, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In March and April 2009, shareholders filed purported class actions under the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants GE, a number of GE officers (including the company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer) and the company's directors. The complaints, which were subsequently consolidated, sought unspecified damages based on allegations related to statements regarding the GE dividend and projected losses and earnings for GECC in 2009. In January 2012, the District Court granted in part, and denied in part, the company's motion to dismiss. In April 2012, the District Court granted a portion of the company's motion for reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Act of 1933. In July 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion seeking to amend their complaint to include the alleged claims under the Securities Act of 1933. In January 2013, plaintiffs attempted unsuccessfully to file a new amended complaint. Also in January 2013, the company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In April 2013, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement under which (i) GE has paid $40 million, inclusive of attorneys' fees and expenses and the cost of notice to the putative settlement class and (ii) all claims of the settlement class were fully and finally released. GE, as stated in the settlement agreement, continues to maintain that the plaintiffs' claims were without merit, and has settled to avoid the expenditure of significant litigation costs and management burdens in connection with defense of the lawsuit. In September 2013, the District Court approved the settlement. GPT: Court Approves $8.5-Mil. Class Action Disbursements -------------------------------------------------------- Hugh Atkin, Esq., at King & Wood Mallesons, writing for The Lawyer, reports that a Federal Court on November 15, 2013, approved $8.5 million for costs and disbursements of the GPT class action, some $770,000 less than had originally been claimed by Slater & Gordon. The litigation funder, Comprehensive Legal Funding (CLF), was granted leave to intervene on the application; however, its submissions were largely rejected. As discussed in the Q3 issue of Class Action, Justice Gordon approved the settlement of the GPT class action in June this year, but was not satisfied that there was a proper basis to approve the $9,338,865 claimed in respect of Slater & Gordon's fees and disbursements or the $53,530.85 claimed for the applicant's (or rather its director's) own time and expenses. Instead, her Honour referred those claims to the registry for assessment. Registrar Allaway reported back to the court on August 30 and Justice Gordon heard the renewed application for approval on September 19. The registrar rejected the 'expense' claim of $53,530.85 put forward by the applicant's director, Mr. Robinson, and reported that an amount of $10,000 would be fair and reasonable compensation for the time he had committed to the representative aspects of the proceeding. Mr. Robinson did not seek to challenge that determination before Justice Gordon. KKR & CO: Del. Chancery Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Primedia Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware denied the motion to dismiss a securities complaint against Primedia Inc. board members, KKR & Co. L.P. and certain KKR affiliates, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On May 23, 2011, KKR, certain KKR affiliates and the board of directors of Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose directors at that time included certain KKR personnel) were named as defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was completed on July 13, 2011. These actions allege, among other things, that Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price and failing to disclose all material information about the merger. Plaintiffs also allege that the merger price was unfair in light of the value of certain shareholder derivative claims, which were dismissed on August 8, 2011, based on a stipulation by the parties that the derivative plaintiffs and any other former Primedia shareholders lost standing to prosecute the derivative claims on behalf of Primedia when the Primedia merger was completed. The dismissed shareholder derivative claims included allegations concerning open market purchases of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock by KKR affiliates in 2002 and allegations concerning Primedia's redemption of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock in 2004 and 2005, some of which were owned by KKR affiliates. With respect to the pending shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia merger, on June 7, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger. On July 18, 2011, the Court of Chancery consolidated the two pending shareholder class actions and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs. On October 7, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated shareholder class action. The operative complaint seeks, in relevant part, unspecified monetary damages and rescission of the merger. On December 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which similarly alleges that the Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates breached their respective fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price in light of the value of the dismissed shareholder derivative claims. That amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages. On January 31, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 10, 2013, the Court of Chancery denied the motion to dismiss the complaint as it relates to the Primedia board members, KKR and certain KKR affiliates. On July 1, 2013, KKR and other defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. KRR & CO: Shareholder Suits in Georgia Stayed Pending Del. Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Two shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia Inc. merger were filed in Georgia state courts in May 2011, asserting similar allegations and seeking similar relief as initially sought by the Delaware shareholder class actions. Both Georgia actions have been stayed in favor of the Delaware action, according to KKR & Co. L.P.'s Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. KKR, certain KKR affiliates and the board of directors of Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose directors at that time included certain KKR personnel) were named as defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action complaints filed on May 23, 2011, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was completed on July 13, 2011. The Delaware actions allege, among other things, that Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price and failing to disclose all material information about the merger. Plaintiffs also allege that the merger price was unfair in light of the value of certain shareholder derivative claims, which were dismissed on August 8, 2011, based on a stipulation by the parties that the derivative plaintiffs and any other former Primedia shareholders lost standing to prosecute the derivative claims on behalf of Primedia when the Primedia merger was completed. KRR & CO: Mass. Court Denied Summary Judgment Bid in Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied a motion for summary judgment filed by KKR & Co. L.P. in a lawsuit by shareholders in certain public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003, according to KKR's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003. In August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported consolidated amended class action complaint. The suit alleges that from mid-2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged buyouts. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions. The first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010. On August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery as to eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight specified transactions. On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the original nine transactions. The fourth amended complaint also includes eight purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new separate claims against two of the original nine challenged transactions. On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion filed by KKR and certain other defendants to dismiss all claims alleged by a putative damages sub-class in connection with the acquisition of PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief related to the PanAmSat transaction. The second phase of discovery permitted by the court is completed. On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint that seeks to challenge ten additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified in the previous complaints. Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion. On September 7, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court granted a third stage of limited discovery as to the ten additional transactions identified in plaintiffs' proposed fifth amended complaint but denied plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint. On June 14, 2012, following the completion of the third phase of discovery, plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint which, like their proposed fifth amended complaint, seeks to challenge ten additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified in the previous complaints. On June 22, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain claims asserted in the fifth amended complaint. On July 18, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing certain previously released claims against certain defendants. On March 13, 2013, the United States District Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the count involving KKR. However, the court narrowed plaintiffs' claim to an alleged overarching agreement to refrain from jumping other defendants' announced proprietary transactions, thereby limiting the case to a smaller number of transactions subject to plaintiffs' claim. Pursuant to the court's grant of permission to re-file, KKR filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on April 16, 2013, which the court denied on July 18, 2013. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Cert. Hearing in "Bezich" Suit in 1st Half 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on class certification is expected in the suit Peter S. Bezich v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company in the first half of 2014, according to Lincoln National Corporation's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On June 13, 2009, a single named plaintiff filed a putative national class action in the Circuit Court of Allen County, Indiana, captioned Peter S. Bezich v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company ("LNL"), No. 02C01-0906-PL73, asserting he was charged a cost-of-insurance fee that exceeded the applicable mortality charge, and that this fee breached the terms of the insurance contract. The company disputes the allegations and are vigorously defending this matter. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification. The company expects a hearing on class certification in the first half of 2014. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Response in Lawsuit v. BofA Due Mid 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------- The response of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company in Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-03547 (JMP) and instituted under In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York is due by the middle of 2014, according to Lincoln National Corporation's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On July 23, 2012, LNL was added as a noteholder defendant to a putative class action adversary proceeding ("adversary proceeding") captioned Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-03547 (JMP) and instituted under In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. seeks to (i) overturn the application of certain priority of payment provisions in 47 collateralized debt obligation transactions on the basis such provisions are unenforceable under the Bankruptcy Code; and (ii) recover funds paid out to noteholders in accordance with the note agreements. The adversary proceeding is stayed through January 20, 2014, and LNL's response is currently due by the middle of 2014. MADISON SQUARE: N.Y. Antitrust Lawsuit Now in Discovery Phase ------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against The Madison Square Garden Company is now in the discovery phase, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In March 2012, the Company was named as defendant in two purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the National Hockey League and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports networks and cable and satellite distributors. The complaints, which are substantially identical, primarily assert that certain of the NHL's current rules and agreements entered into by defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to provide certain territorial and other exclusivities with respect to the television and online distribution of live hockey games, violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaints seek injunctive relief against the defendants' continued violation of the antitrust laws, treble damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. On July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated for procedural purposes). On December 5, 2012, the Court issued an Opinion and Order largely denying the motion to dismiss and the case is now in the discovery phase. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims against the Company. Management does not believe this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company. NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Ill. Court Certifies Class in Merger Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Buchanan Camden, Esq., at McDermott Will & Emery reports that Judge Edmond Chang of the Northern District of Illinois on December 10, 2013, certified a class of plaintiffs who filed a proposed class action against NorthShore University Health System (formerly Evanston Northwestern Healthcare) on behalf of all end- payors who purchased inpatient and outpatient healthcare services directly from NorthShore. In 2000, Evanston Northwestern acquired rival Highland Park Hospital. The FTC successfully challenged the consummated merger in 2004, but did not order divestiture because the hospitals had already been merged and was functioning as a single entity for several years. After the FTC's decision, the plaintiffs brought their class action, alleging that NorthShore illegally monopolized the market and caused the plaintiffs and the putative class to pay artificially inflated prices for healthcare services. A previously assigned judge denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the Rule 23(b)(3) "predominance" prerequisite to class certification -- i.e., that there are questions of law or fact common to class members that predominate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). On interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs did satisfy predominance, then vacated the district court's order and remanded. On remand, Judge Chang held that the only remaining issue as to class certification was whether the plaintiffs had satisfied the Rule 23(b)(3) "superiority" prerequisite to class certification, i.e., that a class action must be "superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). NorthShore argued that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the superiority prerequisite because: 1) arbitration is superior to class action litigation (with respect to the payors who NorthShore alleged are bound by arbitration provisions in the payor contracts); 2) managed care organizations have an interest in individually controlling any claim against NorthShore; and 3) class certification would be unmanageable because a trial would require "hundreds of mini-trials analyzing many individual [NorthShore contracts with payors]". Judge Chang disagreed, finding, among other things, that the parties disagreed as to whether all of NorthShore's contracts with payors even contained arbitration provisions. Moreover, Judge Chang noted that the payors had not yet taken a position as to whether they wanted to exercise their individual right to control the litigation, despite ample opportunity to do so. Finally, Judge Chang commented that the "Seventh Circuit credited the ability of the plaintiffs' expert . . . to use common evidence to show that all of the class members suffered some antitrust impact," which would eliminate the need for hundreds of mini-trials on liability. Accordingly, Judge Chang found that the plaintiffs had satisfied the superiority prerequisite and certified the class. This is a unique case because most hospital mergers are challenged pre-consummation, where an injunction is the only remedy available to plaintiffs. In fact, this is the first private antitrust class action related to a hospital merger. NVR INC: No Class Treatment in "Tracy" Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York ruled that the claims asserted in Tracy v. NVR, Inc. were not appropriate for class action treatment, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt from overtime wages. These lawsuits are similar in nature to another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004 by another former employee in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York captioned Tracy v. NVR, Inc. The lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina have been stayed pending further developments in the Tracy action. The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other fees and interest, and where available, multiple damages. While the suits were filed as purported class actions, none of them have been certified as such. On April 29, 2013, the Western District of New York ruled that the claims asserted in the Tracy case were not appropriate for class action treatment and dismissed a number of individuals who had filed consents to join that action from the case. The trial on the remaining individual plaintiff's claims was held in October 2013. On October 23, 2013, the jury in that trial ruled in the Company's favor that the plaintiff was an exempt outside salesman. On May 29, 2013, attorneys representing the individuals dismissed from the Tracy action filed another lawsuit on behalf of those individuals in the New York Supreme Court for Monroe County captioned Anderson v. NVR, Inc. The Company removed the Anderson action to the Western District of New York on June 18, 2013. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to stay the Anderson action pending final disposition of the Tracy action, which the Company opposed. The Company also filed a motion to sever the multitude of individuals participating in the Anderson action, leaving each plaintiff to pursue his or her claim individually to the extent that they chose to do so. The Company believes that its compensation practices in regard to sales and marketing representatives are entirely lawful and in compliance with two letter rulings from the United States Department of Labor ("DOL") issued in January 2007. Courts that have considered similar claims against other homebuilders have acknowledged the DOL's position that sales and marketing representatives were properly classified as exempt from overtime wages and the only court to have directly addressed the exempt status of such employees concluded that the DOL's position was valid. In addition, the jury verdict in the Tracy v. NVR, Inc. matter in October 2013 upheld the Company's classification of the position. Accordingly, the Company has vigorously defended and intends to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. The Company has not recorded any associated liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets in conjunction with the Anderson v. NVR, Inc. case or any other legal challenges to the exempt status of the Company's sales and marketing representatives. In June 2010, the Company received a Request for Information from the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. The request sought information about storm water discharge practices in connection with homebuilding projects completed or underway by the Company in New York and New Jersey. The Company cooperated with this request, and provided information to the EPA. The Company was subsequently informed by the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") that the EPA forwarded the information on the matter to the DOJ, and the DOJ requested that the Company meet with the government to discuss the status of the case. Meetings took place in January 2012 and August 2012 with representatives from both the EPA and DOJ. It is as yet unclear what next steps the DOJ will take in the matter. The Company intends to continue cooperating with any future EPA and/or DOJ inquiries. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry, nor can it reasonably estimate the potential costs that may be associated with its eventual resolution. On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits against the company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior Court in New Jersey, alleging that the company incorrectly classified the company's sales and marketing representatives as being exempt from overtime wages. These lawsuits are similar in nature to another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004 by another former employee in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York captioned Tracy v. NVR, Inc. The lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina have been stayed pending further developments in the Tracy action. The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other fees and interest, and where available, multiple damages. While the suits were filed as purported class actions, none of them have been certified as such. On April 29, 2013, the Western District of New York ruled that the claims asserted in the Tracy case were not appropriate for class action treatment and dismissed a number of individuals who had filed consents to join that action from the case. The trial on the remaining individual plaintiff's claims was held in October 2013. On October 23, 2013, the jury in that trial ruled in the company's favor that the plaintiff was an exempt outside salesman. OLD NATIONAL: Mediation Ordered in Suit v. Old National Bank ------------------------------------------------------------ The Vanderburgh County Circuit Court ordered mediation in a suit challenging Old National Bank's checking account practices, according to Old National Bancorp's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuit in Vanderburgh County Circuit Court challenging Old National Bank's checking account practices associated with the assessment of overdraft fees. The theory set forth by plaintiffs in this case is similar to other class action complaints filed against other financial institutions in recent years and settled for substantial amounts. On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff was granted permission to file a First Amended Complaint which named additional plaintiffs and amended certain claims. The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief, including restitution. On June 13, 2012, Old National filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which was subsequently denied by the Court. On September 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was granted on March 20, 2013, and provides for a class of "All Old National Bank customers in the State of Indiana who had one or more consumer accounts and who, within the applicable statutes of limitation through August 15, 2010, incurred an overdraft fee as a result of Old National Bank's practice of sequencing debit card and ATM transactions from highest to lowest." Old National sought an interlocutory appeal on the issue of class certification on April 2, 2013, which was subsequently denied. Old National does not believe there is a cause of action under Indiana law to support the plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, on June 11, 2013, Old National moved for summary judgment. On September 16, 2013, a hearing was held on the summary judgment motion and on September 27, 2013, the Court ordered the parties to mediation and informed the parties that "Court will be denying the motion for summary judgment upon receiving the report of the mediator." The case is not currently set for trial. Old National believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the plaintiffs. At this phase of the litigation, it is not possible for management of Old National to determine the probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss. OLD REPUBLIC: Certification Ruling in "Ahmad" Suit Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reversed the earlier class certification in Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District, Texas, Dallas Division, according to Old Republic International Corporation's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company's principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in federal courts in two states - Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and Texas (Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District, Texas, Dallas Division, filed February 8, 2008). The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities. The Pennsylvania suit also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). The Court in the Texas suit dismissed similar RESPA allegations. Classes have been certified in the Pennsylvania suit, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the earlier class certification in the Texas case. OLD REPUBLIC: No Class Certification Yet in Lawsuits Against RMIC ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class has not been certified in purported class action suits alleging violations of The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) by Republic Mortgage Insurance Company; and RMIC has filed motions to dismiss the cases, according to Old Republic International Corporation's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries. (White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same law firms, all of which were substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions to dismiss the cases. OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Face "Friedman" Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Friedman v. Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc. remains pending in the Superior Court of California for Riverside County, according to Old Republic International Corporation's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On September 26, 2012 a purported national class action suit was filed against Old Republic Home Protection Company in the Superior Court of California for Riverside County. (Friedman v. Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc.). The suit alleges that the Company operates in breach of its home warranty contracts, in breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, in violation of various provisions of the California Civil Code and Business and Professions Code and is guilty of false advertising. The stated class period is from November 24, 2004 through the present. The suit seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, restitution, damages, costs and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. The firm representing the plaintiff had previously filed similar suits against the Company, which were unsuccessful. The Company succeeded in having the case removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 24, 2012, and believes it has strong defenses to the allegations and to the certification of any class in this matter. PORTLAND GENERAL: March 2014 Oral Argument Set Over Refund Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' petition seeking review of the February 6, 2013 Oregon Court of Appeals decision regarding refunds to customers of Portland General Electric Company and oral argument is scheduled for March 4, 2014, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. OPUC issued an order in 2008 that required PGE to provide refunds, including interest from September 30, 2000, to customers who received service from the Company during the period from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. The Company recorded a charge of $33.1 million in 2008 related to the refund and accrued additional interest expense on the liability until refunds to customers were completed in the first quarter of 2010. The URP and the plaintiffs in the class actions described separately appealed the 2008 Order to the Oregon Court of Appeals. On February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that upheld the 2008 Order. On May 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the appellants' request for reconsideration of the decision. On October 18, 2013, the Oregon Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' petition seeking review of the February 6, 2013 Oregon Court of Appeals decision. Oral argument is scheduled for March 4, 2014. Class Actions In two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in Marion County Circuit Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes of electric service customers. The class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan. In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings until the OPUC responded to the 2002 Order. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the OPUC has primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy can be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices. The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part. The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded OPUC proceedings. The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court. As noted, on February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the 2008 Order. Because the Oregon Supreme Court has granted the plaintiffs' petition seeking review of that decision, and the class actions described remain pending, management believes that it is reasonably possible that the regulatory proceedings and class actions could result in a loss to the Company in excess of the amounts previously recorded and discussed. Because these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to determine PGE's potential liability, if any, or to estimate a range of potential loss. PVR PARTNERS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 19 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all holders of common units of PVR Partners, L.P. as of November 8, 2013, against PVR Partners, PVR GP, Edward B. Cloues II, James L. Gardner, Robert J. Hall, Thomas W. Hofmann, E. Bartow Jones, Marsha R. Perelman, Williams H. Shea, Jr., John C. Van Roden, Jr., Andrew W. Ward, Jonathan B. Weller, Regency Energy Partners LP, RVP LLC and Regency GP LP for violations of state and federal law, breaches of fiduciary duty, and/or breaches of express and implied contractual duties, and/or aiding and abetting thereof, in connection with the proposed sale of PVR Partners to Regency, pursuant to which PVR Partners unitholders will receive a one-time cash payment valued at approximately $40 million in the aggregate, as well as 1.02 Regency units, which values the total consideration at $28.68 per common unit. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from December 16, 2013. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Mark S. Reich of Robbins Geller at 631/367-7100, or via email at mreich@rgrdlaw.com Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges that Defendants failed to disclose material information in a proxy statement filed with the SEC and publicly disseminated in connection with the proposed sale of PVR Partners to Regency. PVR Partners is a publicly traded master limited partnership focused on owning and operating a network of natural gas midstream pipelines and processing plants and owning and managing coal and natural resource properties. The Partnership's midstream assets, located principally in Texas, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania, provide gathering, transportation, compression, processing, dehydration and related services to natural gas producers. Its coal and natural resource properties, located in the Appalachian, Illinois, and San Juan basins, are leased to experienced operators in exchange for royalty payments. According to the complaint, the proxy statement was materially false and misleading because it made numerous misleading statements and material omissions about the process leading up to the agreement between PVR Partners and Regency and the work performed by PVR Partners' financial advisors, Evercore Partners and Citigroup Global Markets, who were retained by PVR Partners to evaluate the fairness of Regency's offer and to effectuate the proposed acquisition. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all PVR Partners unitholders as of November 8, 2013. Plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers across ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. SANOFI: Lieff Cabraser Launches Class Action Over Lemtrada Drug --------------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Huet, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. law firm is launching a class action against France's Sanofi over what it calls misleading statements on the safety and efficacy of its multiple sclerosis drug Lemtrada. Sanofi acquired Lemtrada when it bought U.S. biotech firm Genzyme for $20.1 billion in 2011. The drug's prospects took center-stage in a drawn-out takeover battle and led to a deal in which Genzyme shareholders received listed contingent value rights (CVRs) linked to Lemtrada's future success. Law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP said on Dec. 20 it was bringing litigation on behalf of all purchasers of the CVRs between March 6, 2012 and November 7, 2013. The firm alleged that over this period, Sanofi and some of its senior executives made false and misleading statements about its business and the prospects for Lemtrada, and misled investors over the design of its clinical trials on the drug. A spokesman for Sanofi said the company does not comment on pending litigation. The complaint comes after U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) experts voiced concerns in November over Lemtrada's safety and the quality of its clinical studies, prompting CVRs on the drug to shed over 60 percent of their value in one day. Lemtrada, an injectable treatment also known as alemtuzumab, is one of Sanofi's two new drugs for MS, an autoimmune disease that attacks the central nervous system and affects more than 2 million people worldwide. The drug was approved by European regulators in September and the FDA is expected to rule by December 27 on whether to approve the treatment for marketing in the United States, the world's biggest pharmaceutical market. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: No Class Filing for Former Wichita Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas has set certain deadlines for certain prospective plaintiffs to bring individual claims against Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. over an allege age discrimination in the hiring of employees by Spirit when The Boeing Company sold its Wichita commercial division to Onex Corp., according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2013. In December 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Spirit, Onex and Boeing alleging age discrimination in the hiring of employees by Spirit when Boeing sold its Wichita commercial division to Onex. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas and sought class-action status, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and more than 1.5 billion dollars in punitive damages. The asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition requires Spirit to indemnify Boeing for damages resulting from the employment decisions that were made by the company with respect to former employees of Boeing Wichita, which relate or allegedly relate to the involvement of, or consultation with, employees of Boeing in such employment decisions. On June 30, 2010, the U.S. District Court granted defendants' dispositive motions, finding that the case should not be allowed to proceed as a class action. Following plaintiffs' appeal, on August 27, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling in all respects. The district court has now set certain deadlines for certain prospective plaintiffs to bring individual claims. In the event this litigation continues, the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself. Management believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Boeing Still Faces "Harkness" Suit in Kansas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas entered an order dismissing all claims against Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. in Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al., but claims against Boeing entities remain pending, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2013. On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The defendants were served in early July 2007. The defendants included Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. Retirement Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita Technical and Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with Boeing and Boeing retirement and health plan entities. The named plaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of whom were or are employees of Spirit. The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and general contract law and brought the case as a class action on behalf of similarly situated individuals. The putative class consists of approximately 2,500 current or former employees of Spirit. The parties agreed to class certification. The sub-class members who asserted claims against the Spirit entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005, were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had at least 10 years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in jobs represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55, and who went to work for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005. Although there were many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs' claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under various theories, were (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed to determine that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early retirement "bridging rights" to pension and retiree medical benefits that were allegedly triggered by their separation from employment by Boeing and (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits were unlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed early retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded these individuals as a result of their separation from Boeing, thereby decreasing their benefits. The plaintiffs initially sought a declaration that they were entitled to the early retirement pension benefits and retiree medical benefits, an injunction ordering that the defendants provide the benefits, damages pursuant to breach of contract claims and attorney fees. On June 20, 2013, the district court entered an order dismissing all claims against the Spirit entities with prejudice. Plaintiffs' claims against Boeing entities remain pending in the litigation. Boeing has notified Spirit that it believes it is entitled to indemnification from Spirit for any "indemnifiable damages" it may incur in the Harkness litigation, under the terms of the asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition between Boeing and Spirit. Spirit disputes Boeing's position on indemnity. Management believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Motions to Name Lead Plaintiff Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Motions to name a lead plaintiff are pending in a securities suit filed against Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2013. On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced against Holdings, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The named plaintiff, who alleges that he is a purchaser of Holdings securities, alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations and omissions in the Company's public disclosures about the circumstances underlying the Company's accrual of $590 million in forward loss charges in the third quarter of 2012. The lawsuit seeks certification of a class of all persons other than defendants who purchased Holdings securities between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the putative class. Currently pending are motions to name a lead plaintiff. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these allegations, and management believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. TARGET CORP: JTB Law Group Files Data Breach Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- JTB Law Group, LLC filed a class action on Dec. 19 against Target for alleged compromising of 40 million customers credit card data. The case was filed in Federal Court in Boston, Docket Number 1:13- cv-13212, Tirado v. Target Corporation. Target admitted via a press release that, "Approximately 40 million credit and debit card accounts may have been impacted between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15, 2013." Consumer Advocate and Class Action Lawyer Jason T. Brown stated that consumers who used their credit cards during that time period need to be vigilant in monitoring their credit to make sure no one has exploited their identity. According to Attorney Brown what is particularly troubling is that the thieves have had the benefit of time, while the victims may still be unaware that their identity and credit information has been compromised. "I'm hoping that Target will do the right thing here and immediately contact the specific individuals who have had their data compromised and make sure the company has their back. Identity fraud can be particularly devastating to someone who is living on credit," Counselor Brown warned. "Additionally, be equally aware of anyone who calls up claiming to be from Target and don't confirm or give any credit card information over the phone." Anyone with information regarding the data breach should call The JTB Law Group, LLC at 1 (877) 561-0000 and also speak with the authorities. Similarly, any concerned customer who used their credit card during that time period should call the office as well. TARGET CORP: May Face Costly Consumer Class Suits Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Sunnucks, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reports that Target Corp. could face costly class action lawsuits from consumers as well as litigation from banks and state attorneys general after its massive data breach in which hackers gained access to credit and debit card data for as many as 40 million customers. Patrick Fowler -- pfowler@swlaw.com -- a partner and business liability attorney with the Snell & Wilmer LLP law firm in Phoenix, said the legal costs to Target could easily be in the tens of millions of dollars. "It is about as bad as it can get in terms of credit and debit card information," Mr. Fowler said. He said hackers may have been able to obtain unencrypted point-of- sale information with consumers' personal information, account numbers, credit card expiration dates and security codes. He cited a 2007 data breach case involving TJX Cos, the parent company of T.J.Maxx and Marshalls. That hacking case compromised 45 million consumers and ended up costing the retailer $256 million, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Consumers could sue Target if hackers rack up charges and impact their credit. Banks and credit card companies could take Target to court over the costs of issuing new cards and dealing with fraudulent purchases. Target announced the breach started Nov. 27 and ran through Dec.15 and could impact U.S. customers who shopped at stores. The Minneapolis-based chain has 47 stores in Arizona and employs thousands of people here. "We have determined that the information involved in this incident included customer name, credit or debit card number, and the card's expiration date and CVV (the three-digit security code)," the company said in a statement. Mr. Fowler said the Target breach should also be a wake-up call for small and midsize local businesses. He said just because a company is smaller and located in Phoenix does not mean hackers will not go after credit and debit card data. He said hackers are actually going after smaller companies more because it can be easier and quicker to hack into systems and computers. "It's a path of least resistance for hackers," Mr. Fowler said. Mr. Fowler is still not sure the hit Target will take with customers. "They'll never know which customers between now and the end of the holiday season went to another store because of what happened," Mr. Fowler said. Is a Lawsuit Really Necessary? Jennifer LeClaire, writing for CIO Today, reports that a class action suit against Target could open up a Pandora's Box. Security industry analysts are waiting and watching, but it seems a class action suit may be a reach considering the damages. "I did some traditional shopping at Target between November 27 and December 15, and so I am in the affected customer set. Unfortunately, beyond canceling one's credit card -- which is a hassle -- there is not much a customer can do in such a situation," Wolfgang Kandek, CTO of Qualys, told CIO Today. "I have started to log into my credit card account more frequently and check my transactions, but otherwise I am trusting the fraud detection algorithms that my credit card company uses, plus their 60-day claim guarantee. It will be interesting to see how the attackers got into the network Relevant Products/Services and what technical countermeasures were in place, but that will take months to surface as the forensics in such a case are extremely time consuming," he said. The Nature of Modern Threats CIO Today asked Chris Petersen, CTO and co-founder of LogRhythm, a log analysis firm, for his take on the breach. He told CIO Today Target has likely invested heavily in security, in technologies and approaches many would consider modern and right. Unfortunately, he added, today's threats are quickly outpacing current security technologies and approaches -- what was recently modern and right, is quickly becoming outdated and ineffective. "Companies are in an arms race against determined foes, whether they be cybercriminals, hacktivists or nation states," Mr. Petersen said. "Their only hope of defending themselves is to ensure their defenses are truly modern. In some cases, this might mandate running next generation technologies in parallel with their legacy counterparts." As he sees it, one specific area of modern investment is an analytics-driven defense. Only until very recently could companies leverage big data to root out threats they would otherwise be blind to. "When big data is combined with machine-based behavioral analytics, the types of threats able to evade existing defenses can be detected early, prior to a large scale Relevant Products/Services breach occurring," Mr. Petersen said. "When networks are infiltrated and systems inappropriately accessed, normal behaviors within the IT environment will shift. When these behavioral shifts are recognized early, data breaches can be avoided." TECO ENERGY: Denial of Class Certification in Suit v. PGS Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Lee County Circuit Court in Florida denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the ruling that denied a motion for class certification filed in a suit against Peoples Gas System over an outage in the natural gas service to Lee and Collier counties, Florida, according to Teco Energy, Inc.'s Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In June 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying claim. The Court recently denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the ruling. In November 2010, heavy equipment operated at a road construction site being conducted by Posen Construction, Inc. struck a natural gas line causing a rupture and ignition of the gas and an outage in the natural gas service to Lee and Collier counties, Florida. Two commercial PGS customers filed a purported class action in Lee County Circuit Court, Florida against PGS on behalf of PGS commercial customers affected by the outage, seeking damages for loss of revenue and other costs related to the gas outage. Posen Construction, Inc., the company conducting construction at the site where the incident occurred, is also a defendant in the action. In June 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying claim. The Court recently denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the ruling. PGS's suit against Posen Construction in Federal Court for the Middle District of Florida to recover damages for repair and restoration relating to the incident remains pending, as does the Posen Construction counter- claim against PGS alleging negligence. In addition, the suit filed by the Posen Construction employee operating the heavy equipment involved in the incident in Lee County Circuit Court against PGS, Posen Construction and the engineering company on the construction project, seeking damages for his injuries, also remains pending. TESLA MOTOR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Dec. 20 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Tesla Motor, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 3:13-cv-05216, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Tesla securities between May 10, 2013 and November 6, 2013 both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Tesla securities during the Class Period, you have until January 7, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Tesla designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric vehicles, including its flagship Model S, and electric vehicle powertrain components. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Tesla's business, including: (1) Tesla's statements about the Model S's highest safety rating and its lack of prior fire incidents were materially misleading, due to undisclosed puncture and fire risks in its undercarriage and lithium ion battery pack; (2) the Model S suffered from material defects which caused the battery pack to ignite and erupt in flames under certain driving conditions; (3) Tesla's future sales, its next generation Model X introduction, and its stock price were extremely vulnerable to the inherent risk posed by the Model S's undercarriage and battery pack design flaws; (4) Tesla was unable to maintain a level of automobile deliveries sufficient to satisfy analyst concerns and compensate for other declining revenue streams; and, (5) as a result of the foregoing, Tesla's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 2, 2013, a video of a Model S burning on the roadside was widely circulated, which Tesla attributed to a collision with road debris. The same day, Tesla was downgraded by an analyst who pointed to significant execution risks it faced. On this news, Tesla shares declined $12.05 per share, or more than 6%, to close at $180.95. On October 28, 2013 a second Model S fire occurred in Mexico, which Tesla blamed on the car's rate of speed and its crash into a tree. On this news, Tesla shares fell $7.32 per share, or more than 4.3% to close at $162.86 on October 28, 2013. Tesla's stock closed at $176.81 on November 5, 2013. That day, after hours, Tesla announced its Q3 2013 results, which failed to meet analyst expectations on key metrics, including rate of vehicle deliveries. On November 7, 2013, Tesla confirmed a third Model S fire, caused by impact with road debris during normal driving conditions. On this news, Tesla shares opened at $154.81 on November 6, 2013 - $22.00 per share (12.44%) lower than the prior day's closing price, and declined on November 6-7, 2013 to $139.77. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Suit Settlement Awaits Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is awaiting approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery for the settlement of a shareholder lawsuit filed over the company's acquisition of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. The Delaware actions (which were instituted on September 11, 2012 and October 1, 2012, respectively) were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7857-CS (Del. Ch.). Prior to the Company's acquisition of Medicis, several purported holders of then public shares of Medicis filed putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Arizona Superior Court against Medicis and the members of its Board of Directors, as well as one or both of Valeant and Merlin Merger Sub (the wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with the Medicis Acquisition). The Delaware actions (which were instituted on September 11, 2012 and October 1, 2012, respectively) were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7857-CS (Del. Ch.). The Arizona action (which was instituted on September 11, 2012) bears the caption Swint v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, et. al., Case No. CV2012- 055635 (Ariz. Sup. Ct.). The actions all alleged, among other things, that the Medicis directors breached their fiduciary duties because they supposedly failed to properly value Medicis and caused materially misleading and incomplete information to be disseminated to Medicis' public shareholders, and that Valeant and/or Merlin Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The actions also sought, among other things, injunctive and other equitable relief, and money damages. On November 20, 2012, Medicis and the other named defendants in the Delaware action signed a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") to settle the Delaware action and resolve all claims asserted by the purported class. In connection with the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs intend to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount to be determined by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The settlement is subject to court approval and further definitive documentation. The plaintiff in the Arizona action agreed to dismiss her complaint. On January 15, 2013, the Arizona Superior Court issued an order granting the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss the Arizona action. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing in Obagi Suit Continued to Jan 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles continued the "Hearing on Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal" in the suit filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. over the acquisition of Obagi Medical Products, Inc. until January 29, 2014, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. Prior to the acquisition of all of the outstanding common stock of Obagi, the following complaints were filed: (i) a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, dated March 22, 2013, and amended on April 1, 2013 and on April 8, 2013, captioned Michael Rubin v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.; (ii) a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, dated March 22, 2013, and amended on March 27, 2013, captioned Gary Haas v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.; and (iii) a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, dated March 27, 2013, captioned Drew Leonard v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al. Each complaint is a purported shareholder class action and names as defendants Obagi and the members of the Obagi Board of Directors. The two complaints filed in California also name Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. (the wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with the Obagi acquisition) as defendants. The plaintiffs' allegations in each action are substantially similar. The plaintiffs allege that the members of the Obagi Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Obagi's stockholders in connection with the sale of the company, and the California complaints further allege that Obagi, Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. In support of their purported claims, the plaintiffs allege that the proposed transaction undervalues Obagi, involves an inadequate sales process and includes preclusive deal protection devices. The plaintiffs in the Rubin case in Delaware and in the Haas case in California also filed amended complaints, which added allegations challenging the adequacy of the disclosures concerning the transaction. The plaintiffs sought damages and to enjoin the transaction, and also sought attorneys' and expert fees and costs. On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into an MOU with the plaintiffs to the actions pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the Superior Court of the State of California, pursuant to which Obagi and such parties agreed in principle, and subject to certain conditions, to settle those stockholder lawsuits. The settlement is subject to the approval of the appropriate court and further definitive documentation. In connection with the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs intend to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount to be determined by the appropriate court. On April 24, 2013, having received notice that the parties had reached an agreement to settle the litigation, the California Court scheduled a "Hearing on Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal" for July 31, 2013. On July 31, 2013, the California Court continued the matter for six months, until January 29, 2014, pending completion of definitive documentation and approval proceedings in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. If the MOU is not approved or the applicable conditions are not satisfied, the defendants will continue to vigorously defend these actions. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Wellbutrin Suit Accord Wins Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted final approval to a $49.25 million settlement of a suit in relation to Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Class Actions, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On April 4, 2008, a direct purchaser plaintiff filed a class action antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Biovail Corp., its subsidiary Biovail Laboratories International SRL ("BLS") (now Valeant International Bermuda), GlaxoSmithKline plc, and SmithKline Beecham Inc. (the latter two of which are referred to here as "GSK") seeking damages and alleging that Biovail, BLS and GSK took actions to improperly delay FDA approval for generic forms of Wellbutrin XL. In late May and early June 2008, additional direct and indirect purchaser class actions were also filed against Biovail, BLS and GSK in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, all making similar allegations. After motion practice, the complaints were consolidated, resulting in a lead direct purchaser and a lead indirect purchaser action, and the Court ultimately denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaints. The Court granted direct purchasers' motion for class certification, and certified a class consisting of all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Wellbutrin XL directly from any of the defendants at any time during the period of November 14, 2005 through August 31, 2009. Excluded from the class are defendants and their officers, directors, management, employees, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and federal government entities. Further excluded from the class are persons or entities who have not purchased generic versions of Wellbutrin XL during the class period after the introduction of generic versions of Wellbutrin XL. The Court granted in part and denied in part the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. After extensive discovery, briefing and oral argument, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all but one of the plaintiffs' claims, and deferred ruling on the remaining claim. Following the summary judgment decision, the Company entered into binding settlement arrangements with both plaintiffs' classes to resolve all existing claims against the Company. The total settlement amount payable is $49.25 million. In addition, the Company will pay up to $500,000 toward settlement notice costs. These charges were recognized in the second quarter of 2012, within Legal settlements and related fees in the consolidated statements of (loss) income. The settlements require Court approval. The direct purchaser class filed its motion for preliminary approval of its settlement on July 23, 2012. The hearing on final approval of that settlement took place on November 7, 2012, with the Court granting final approval to the settlement on that day. The hearing on final approval of the settlement with the indirect purchasers took place in June 2013, with the Court granting final approval to the settlement on July 22, 2013. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Wants 13 Solodyn Suits Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation seeking an order transferring and consolidating 13 putative antitrust class action cases over Solodyn, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On July 22, 2013, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, filed a civil antitrust class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:13-CV- 04235-JCJ, against Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, the Company and various manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn, alleging that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants orchestrated a scheme to improperly restrain trade, and maintain, extend and abuse Medicis' alleged monopoly power in the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets to the detriment of plaintiff and the putative class of end-payor purchasers it seeks to represent, causing them to pay overcharges. Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleges that defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys' fees. Additional class action complaints making similar allegations against all defendants, including Medicis and the Company have been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly-situated direct or end-payor purchasers of Solodyn (Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-04270-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed July 23, 2013); Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4642-JCJ (E.D.Pa. filed Aug. 9, 2013); Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13- CV-4659-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 8, 2013); Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-5021-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 27, 2013); Heather Morgan, Case No. 2:13-CV-05097 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 29, 2013); Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 176 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13- CV-05105 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 30, 2013); Ahold USA, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-12225 (D. Mass. filed Sept. 9, 2013); City of Providence, Rhode Island, Case No. 2:13-cv-01952 (D. Ariz. filed Sept. 24, 2013); International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 1:13-cv- 12435 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 2, 2013); Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-12517 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 7, 2013); Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, Case No. 13-cv-06266-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Oct. 25, 2013)). On August 29, 2013, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund voluntarily dismissed the class action complaint it had originally filed on August 1, 2013, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed its class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:13-cv-05108). The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund complaint makes similar allegations against all defendants, including Medicis and the Company, and seeks similar relief, to the other end-payor plaintiff complaints. On October 11, 2013, Medicis and the Company filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation seeking an order transferring and consolidating the thirteen putative class action cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The company is in the process of evaluating the claims and plans to vigorously defend these actions. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Jan. 16 Hearing Set in Suit Over Cold-FX ----------------------------------------------------------------- An additional date was set for January 16, 2014, to finish pleadings in a suit filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. over Cold-FX, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor, Afexa. The proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold-FX to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period and that the class has suffered damages as a result. The Company filed its certification materials on February 6, 2013 and a hearing on certification was held on September 3-6, 2013. An additional date was set for January 16, 2014 to finish the pleadings. The Company denies the allegations being made and is vigorously defending this matter. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Awaits DC Court's Okay of Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Columbia is yet to approve settlement reached by Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation in a suit filed against it by female sales employees, according to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.'s Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In September, 2011, Medicis received a demand letter from counsel purporting to represent a class of female sales employees alleging gender discrimination in, among others things, compensation and promotion as well as claims that the former management group maintained a work environment that was hostile and offensive to female sales employees. Related charges of discrimination were filed prior to the end of 2011 by six former female sales employees with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"). Three of those charges have been dismissed by the EEOC and the EEOC has made no findings of discrimination. Medicis engaged in mediation with such former employees. On March 19, 2013, Medicis and counsel for the former employees signed an MOU to settle this matter on a class-wide basis and resolve all claims with respect thereto. In connection with the agreed-upon settlement, Medicis would pay a specified sum and would pay the costs of the claims administration up to an agreed-upon fixed amount. Medicis would also implement certain specified programmatic relief. The parties have signed a definite settlement agreement in this matter. Approval of the settlement by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is pending. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Suits Over MoistureLoc Now Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc, according to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.'s Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. Valeant also said that B&L has settled approximately 629 cases in connection with MoistureLoc product liability suits. All but one U.S. based fusarium claims have now been resolved and there are less than five active fusarium claims involving claimants outside of the United States that remain pending. The parties in these active matters are involved in settlement discussions. VITAS HEALTHCARE: Settles Labor Suit for $10.3 Million ------------------------------------------------------ Vitas Healthcare Corp. reached agreement subject to Court approval, to settle a labor lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County for $10.3 million, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. VITAS is party to a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County in September 2006 by Bernadette Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White, Bernadette Santos, et al. v. Vitas Healthcare Corporation of California, BC359356. This case alleges failure to pay overtime and failure to provide meal and rest periods to a purported class of California admissions nurses, chaplains and sales representatives. The case seeks payment of penalties, interest and Plaintiffs' attorney fees. In December 2009, the trial court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In July 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of class certification on the travel time, meal and rest period claims, and reversed the trial court's denial on the off- the-clock and sales representation exemption claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision. In September 2012, in response to an order of reconsideration, the Court of Appeals reiterated its previous rulings. In March 2013, the Court granted summary judgment dismissing the sales representatives' claims as they are exempt employees. In October 2013 the company reached agreement, subject to Court approval, to settle the case for $10.3 million plus applicable payroll taxes ($6.5 million after tax). As such, $10.5 million is recorded as other operating expense in the quarter ended September 30, 2013 Statement of Income. ********* 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 G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2014. 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 * * *