/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140123.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, January 23, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 16
Headlines
A1A SOD: Fails to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages, Suit Claims
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Sued Over Red Light Camera Monitoring Systems
B.E.S.T. PACKING: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says
BLUE BIRD: Recalls 17 Buses Due to Parking Brake Pedal Arm
BLUE DIAMOND: Sued Over All Natural & Evaporated Cane Juice Claims
BUMBLE BEE: Judge Pares Down Omega-3 False Ad Class Action
CHECKCARE GROUP: Invades Consumers' Privacy, "Rawlins" Suit Says
CIGNA CORP: Can Proceed With Appeal Over ERISA Suit Coverage
CITIBANK NA: Called Plaintiffs' Phones Without Consent, Suit Says
COLLECTO INC: Faces "Rosenzweig" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
CRANE CO: Settlement of Suit Over Merrimac Acquisition Approved
CRANE CO: Plaintiffs in NJ Environmental Suits Assert New Claims
CVS CAREMARK: Proceedings in Suit Over 1999 Settlement Stayed
CVS CAREMARK: Certification Motions in Antitrust Suit Pending
CVS CAREMARK: Pursues Bid to Dismiss N.H. Securities Action
CYBEX INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Olympic Decline Free Weight Benches
DEL MONTE: Appeals Court Rejects Wage-and-Hour Class Action Appeal
DRILL CUTTINGS: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Premium
DURGA MANAGEMENT: Has Policy of Not Paying Overtime, Suit Says
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces Suit Over Debt Collection Act Violations
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: American Sales Sues Over Lidoderm Product
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Pension Fund Sues Over Lidoderm Product
FACEBOOK INC: Users May Get $10,000 Each in Privacy Class Action
FITNESS INT'L: Training Managers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FMR LLC: Participants Seek to Recover Plan Losses & Illegal Fees
GRENFELL HANDICRAFTS: Recalls Children's Upper Outerwear
GUESS INC: Faces Class Action in California Over TCPA Violations
HALLIBURTON CO: Employers Await SC Ruling in "Erica P. John Fund"
HIGHER ONE: Reaches Agreement to Settle Suit for $15 Million
HINO: Recalls 403 Trucks Due to Steering Wheel Defect
HITACHI LTD: Wins Prelim. OK of $13MM Antitrust Suit Settlement
HOECHST CELANESE: Polluted Groundwater in So. Carolina, Suit Says
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in Texas Court
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Settles Securities Lawsuits for $12 Million
JACKSON, CA: ADA Class Action Nears Settlement
JPMORGAN CHASE: Madoff Settlement Sends Message on Bank Compliance
LAND ROVER: Issues Recall on Range Rover SUVs Over Airbag Issue
LIBERTY MEDIA: Claims in Sirius XM Shareholder Suit Dismissed
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Conceals Info About Sale of Policy, Suit Says
LINKEDIN CORP: Sues Spambots Over Fake Accounts Amid Class Action
LINNCO LLC: Facing Shareholder Litigation in Several States
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Still Faces Suits Over Hardboard Trim Product
MCAFEE INC: Overcharges Auto-Renewal Program Customers, Suit Says
MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT: Recalls Youth Jackets With Drawstrings
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Not Allowed to Intervene in Supreme Ct. Case
NEW YORK, NY: Settlement in Suit Over NYPD Pension Approved
NEW YORKER: Recalls Home Heating Boilers Due to CO Hazard
NUTRO COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Claims on Dog Food With Bacilli
PACER INT'L: Being Sold for Too Little to XPO, Suit Claims
PINNACLE RENEWABLE: Pellet Plant Opponents Mull Class Action
PREVOST: Recalls 235 Motorhomes Due to Defective Windshield Wipers
RUNNORTH: Recalls Polo Pyjamas (SAGA Label) Due to Fire Hazard
SEARS HOLDINGS: Supreme Court to Hear "Butler" Class Action
SRAM LLC: Recalls Bicycle Chain Derailleurs Due to Loose Pivot Pin
STARCRAFT RV: Recalls 21 Comet Trailers Due to Wrong Tire Info
TARGET CORP: Attorneys Seek to Consolidate Data Breach Suits
TARGET CORP: Amherst Woman Joins Class Action in Ohio
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement Objectors Agree to Drop Challenge
TREK BICYCLES: Recalls Madone Bikes Due to Loose Front Brake Bolts
U.S. BOILER: Recalls Home Heating Boilers Due to CO Hazard
UNITED STATES: Sen. Rand Paul to File Class Action v. NSA
UNITED STATES: Microsoft Challenges NSA Data-Mining Program
UNUM GROUP: Appeals Filed Over Damage Award in "Merrimon" Suit
UNUM GROUP: "Ruben Don" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. Court
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Faces Shareholder Suits in New York
*********
A1A SOD: Fails to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Rodriguez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. A1A Sod, Sand & Soil Inc, Andy Diaz and Ismael Oria,
Case No. 1:14-cv-20073-KMW (S.D. Fla., January 7, 2014) arises
under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he
and others have not been paid overtime and minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours in a week.
A1A Sod, Sand & Soil Inc is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Dade County. The Company is the Plaintiff's
employer during the relevant time period. The Individual
Defendants are corporate officers, owners or managers of the
Company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305) 865-6766
Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Sued Over Red Light Camera Monitoring Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claire F. Leder, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.; ATS Consolidated,
Inc.; Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency; and
Defendant Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-00103 (E.D.N.Y., January 7,
2014) challenges the Defendants' alleged uniform policy of
operating unlawful red light camera monitoring systems installed,
maintained and operated by American Traffic Solutions, Inc. and
ATS Consolidated, Inc. in Nassau County and other counties within
New York State.
According to the complaint, from 2009 through the present, the
operation of the red light camera system has failed to conform to
mandated guidelines, thus, resulting in issuance of invalid or
voidable violation notices, during the period from January 1,
2009, through the present and continuing. Hence, Ms. Leder
asserts she brings this action under the New York Civil Rights Law
for fines and fees imposed without proper cause; and the New York
Constitution for insufficient due process and violation of equal
protection laws, among other laws.
American Traffic Solutions, Inc. is a Kansas corporation
headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. The Company is one of the
two largest traffic camera vendors/operators in the United States
along with Redflex. ATS Consolidated, Inc. is a corporation also
based in Scottsdale, Arizona, and is the sole shareholder of ATS.
Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency is an agency
of Nassau County charged with implementing the Red Light Camera
Program in Nassau County. The Doe Defendants are other Red Light
Areas whose RLCP are maintained and operated by ATS.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com
- and -
George Nager, Esq.
231 Mineola Boulevard
Mineola, NY 11501
Telephone: (516) 742-0700
B.E.S.T. PACKING: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yaskarina Pena Batista, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, 506 E Wyoming Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19120 v. B.E.S.T.
Packing Services, Inc., 2230 N. Front Street, Philadelphia, PA
19133, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-00041 (E.D. Pa.,
January 7, 2014) seeks redress for the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law.
Ms. Batista asserts that the Defendants failed to pay her and the
Class members minimum wage and proper overtime compensation. She
adds that the Defendants failed to implement a system to track the
number of hours she and the Class worked each workweek.
B.E.S.T. Packing Services, Inc. is an entity operating a temporary
employee placement business. The identities of the Doe Defendants
are presently unknown.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1878 Marlton Pike East, Ste. 10
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
rswartz@swartz-legal.com
mmiller@swartz-legal.com
BLUE BIRD: Recalls 17 Buses Due to Parking Brake Pedal Arm
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 6, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Brakes
Units affected: 17
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2013465
TC ID number: 2013465
Manufacturer recall
number: R13WT-C
On certain vehicles, the parking brake pedal arm could fail,
allowing the parking brake to release without warning. This could
result in unintended vehicle movement and increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or property damage.
Dealers will install a new parking brake pedal arm assembly.
Affected products:
Maker Model Model year(s) affected
----- ----- ----------------------
BLUE BIRD ALL AMERICAN SCHOOL BUS 2014, 2015
BLUE BIRD VISION SCHOOL BUS 2014, 2015
BLUE DIAMOND: Sued Over All Natural & Evaporated Cane Juice Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levon Tchayelian, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Blue Diamond Growers, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-00091-HRL (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2014)
alleges that the Company exploits the market for natural products
by representing that its products are "All Natural." The lawsuit
seeks redress on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers, who
purchased Blue Diamond Products, which claimed to be "All Natural"
and claimed to contain "Evaporated Cane Juice."
Blue Diamond is a producer of food products and is the world's
largest almond processing and marketing company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chant Yedalian, Esq.
CHANT & COMPANY, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
1010 N. Central Ave.
Glendale, CA 91202
Telephone: (877) 574-7100
Facsimile: (877) 574-9411
E-mail: chant@chant.mobi
BUMBLE BEE: Judge Pares Down Omega-3 False Ad Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that U.S. District Judge
Lucy H. Koh on Jan. 2 pared down a proposed class action accusing
Bumble Bee Foods LLC of misleading consumers about the health
benefits of its products. In a 34-page order, Judge Koh found
that lead plaintiff Tricia Ogden did not have standing to pursue
claims concerning the Vitamin A and iron content in a Bumble Bee
sardine product, granting the seafood company summary judgment on
those claims and other claims over health benefits statements that
appeared on the website of its King Oscar brand.
The judge, however, denied Bumble Bee summary judgment with
respect to some of the central claims in the complaint, rejecting
the company's argument that statements concerning the omega-3
content of its products comported with U.S. Food and Drug
Administration regulations.
Ms. Ogden sued Bumble Bee in April 2012, arguing that the company
made inaccurate statements concerning the nutritional value and
benefits of its tuna and sardine products while failing to
disclose excessive levels of saturated fat, cholesterol and
sodium. The company also mislabeled its products as "rich in
natural omega-3" or "excellent source of omega-3," according to
the complaint.
In the Jan. 2 order, Judge Koh also let stand Ms. Ogden's claims
that Bumble Bee failed to accompany its omega-3 boasts with a
label directing consumers to check the products' nutritional
information for fat and cholesterol content. But the judge
limited the remedies sought by the plaintiff in the complaint,
finding that the total amount of money Ms. Ogden spent on Bumble
Bee products was not enough to support a claim for restitution.
A hearing on the plaintiff's motion for class certification is
scheduled for February 27.
Ms. Ogden is represented by Pratt & Associates, Nelson & Nelson PC
and Lovelace Law Firm PA, among others.
Bumble Bee is represented by Forrest A. Hainline III --
fhainline@goodwinprocter.com -- of Goodwin Procter LLP.
The case is Ogden v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, case number 5:12-cv-
01828, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
CHECKCARE GROUP: Invades Consumers' Privacy, "Rawlins" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Rawlins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Checkcare Group, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-
00028-AG-RNB (C.D. Cal., January 7, 2014) accuses the Company of
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Company negligently and willfully contacted her
on her cellular telephone, thereby, invading her privacy.
The Checkcare Group, LLC is a limited liability company operating
in 40 states nationwide.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.e.
369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: NBontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
- and -
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
CIGNA CORP: Can Proceed With Appeal Over ERISA Suit Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Albert J. Snite Jr.,
cleared the way for Cigna to proceed with its appeal from a ruling
that it could not sue its liability insurers for coverage of an
ERISA class action, in an order Jan. 2 adopting his Oct. 18
opinion.
Judge Snite in December denied Cigna's motion for reconsideration.
In the October opinion, Judge Snite ruled to bar Cigna from suing
its insurers, Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. and Nutmeg Insurance
Co., in Cigna v. Executive Risk Indemnity.
Cigna sued its insurers for coverage relating to employee
benefits. Judge Snite noted that a federal court found that Cigna
deliberately misled its employees about pension and retirement
information.
Judge Snite based his ruling on the decision of U.S. District
Judge Mark R. Kravitz of the District of Connecticut in the
underlying case, Amara v. Cigna. In that case, Judge Kravitz
found Cigna liable for misleading conduct. According to the
docket, the Amara case is still in litigation.
Judge Snite wrote in his opinion that a clause excluding coverage
for deliberately fraudulent acts in the policy between Cigna and
its insurers was binding in the case.
"The district court's opinion was a final judgment that Cigna's
actions were fraud, and therefore the deliberately fraudulent acts
exclusion in the defendants' insurance policies applies,"
Judge Snite said.
The national class-action case in Amara was initiated by current
and former employees of Cigna seeking payment of benefits relating
to Cigna's amendment of its retirement plan in 1998, according to
Judge Snite.
The district court found that "Cigna's deficient notice led to its
employees' misunderstanding of the contract, that instead of
taking steps to correct its mistake Cigna affirmatively misled and
prevented employees from obtaining the information that they
needed to evaluate the distinctions between the old and new
plans," Judge Snite said.
"As a result of Cigna's actions, its employees were mistaken as to
their retirement benefits," Judge Snite added.
The policy was originally handled by certain underwriters of
Lloyd's of London from March 1999 to March 2002. Judge Snite said
the defendants in the present case are "part of the first layer of
insurance excess to the Lloyd's policy."
Judge Kravitz issued two opinions in the case, one regarding
Cigna's liability, and the other pertaining to remedies and
reformation of the retirement plan in regard to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, in 2004 and 2008, respectively,
Snite said.
Judge Kravitz's ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit. Cigna subsequently appealed the remedies
opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Judge Kravitz's judgment, ruling
that Cigna's retirement plan should not have been reformed based
on ERISA, Judge Snite said.
However, the Supreme Court determined that "substantially similar
relief" could be derived from ERISA, and remanded the case to the
district court to determine if reforming the plan could constitute
"other equitable relief" under Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA.
The case went before U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton, who
handled the case after Judge Kravitz's death, Judge Snite said.
Judge Arterton found the employees did establish a basis for the
court to reform the retirement plan due to Cigna's fraud coupled
with the employees' "unilateral mistake."
Cigna argued that the second set of remedies, offered by
Judge Arterton, couldn't serve as grounds to bar coverage under
the deliberately fraudulent acts exclusion, according to
Judge Snite.
Cigna asserted that despite the Supreme Court's remand of the
remedies decision to Judge Arterton's courtroom, the original
district court ruling on Cigna's liability still remained as
controlling in the liability facet of the case, according to
Judge Snite. Therefore, Cigna claimed, Judge Arterton's ruling
"nonbinding dictum."
Judge Snite said the finding of fraud was integral to the court's
decision and not dicta.
"Judge Arterton was not able to find that reformation was an
appropriate remedy . . . unless she made the determination of
Cigna's fraudulent acts and its employees' resulting mistake,"
Snite wrote.
Francis J. Deasey -- fjdeasey@dmvnlaw.com -- of Deasey, Mahoney,
Valentini & North in Philadelphia represented Cigna and did not
return calls seeking comment. Ronald P. Schiller --
rschiller@hangley.com -- and Daniel J. Layden --
dlayden@hangley.com -- of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin &
Schiller represented the defendants in the case.
Mark Schussel, a spokesman for Chubb, Executive Risk Indemnity's
parent company, declined to comment.
The Hartford is the parent company of Nutmeg Insurance Co. A call
to Thomas Hambrick of The Hartford's media relations office was
not returned.
CITIBANK NA: Called Plaintiffs' Phones Without Consent, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Trainor and Isaac Trainor, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Citibank, National Association, Case
No. 0:14-cv-00062-PAM-JSM (D. Minn., January 7, 2014) is brought
for damages, injunctive relief, and other available remedies,
resulting from the alleged illegal actions of Citibank in
negligently and intentionally contacting the Plaintiffs on their
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Citibank telephoned their cellular phone using an automatic
telephone dialing system on seven occasions and without their
prior express consent, the Plaintiffs contend.
Citibank, National Association, is a National Bank operating from
an office in North Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Telephone: (651) 770-9707
E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com
COLLECTO INC: Faces "Rosenzweig" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenzweig, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Collecto, Inc., doing business as: EOS CCA,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00014-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y., January 7, 2014) alleges
that Collecto, Inc. violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791-4400
Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
CRANE CO: Settlement of Suit Over Merrimac Acquisition Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for Essex County granted final approval to a
settlement of a securities suit filed against Crane Co. over
acquisition of Merrimac, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.
On January 8, 2010, a lawsuit related to the acquisition of
Merrimac was filed in the Superior Court of the State of New
Jersey. The action, brought by a purported stockholder of
Merrimac, names Merrimac, each of Merrimac's directors, and Crane
Co. as defendants, and alleges, among other things, breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Merrimac directors, aided and abetted by
Crane Co., that resulted in the payment to Merrimac stockholders
of an allegedly unfair price of $16.00 per share in the
acquisition and unjust enrichment of Merrimac's directors. The
complaint seeks certification as a class of all Merrimac
stockholders, except the defendants and their affiliates, and
unspecified damages. Simultaneously with the filing of the
complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion that sought to enjoin the
transaction from proceeding. After a hearing on January 14, 2010,
the court denied the plaintiff's motion. All defendants thereafter
filed motions seeking dismissal of the complaint on various
grounds.
After a hearing on March 19, 2010, the court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss and ordered the case to proceed to
pretrial discovery. All defendants have filed their answers and
deny any liability. The Court certified the class, and the parties
engaged in pre-trial discovery. Fact discovery closed in July
2012, and expert discovery, including the exchange of expert
reports and depositions of expert witnesses, closed on November
30, 2012. Summary judgment motions were due to be submitted on or
before January 15, 2013. However, on December 26, 2012,
plaintiff's counsel proposed a settlement figure that was
substantially less than had previously been proposed. This led to
negotiations which culminated, on January 11, 2013, in an
agreement, in principle, to resolve the case on the following
terms, which are subject to Court approval.
In consideration of the establishment of a settlement fund in the
amount of $2 million, to be funded almost entirely from the
insurance policy covering the former officers and directors of
Merrimac, and with a single contribution of $150,000 by Crane Co.,
the plaintiffs agreed (1) to withdraw the single claim asserted in
the Complaint against Crane Co., (2) that all plaintiff's
attorney's fees and expenses associated with the case will come
from the settlement amount, and (3) that all costs of notification
of the settlement to the members of the class, costs related to
the distribution of pro rata amounts to class members, and any
other administrative costs, will also come from the settlement
amount.
In addition, all defendants, including Crane Co., will receive
full class-wide releases.
On January 15, 2013, with the consent of counsel for Crane Co. and
the other defendants, plaintiff's counsel notified the Court that
the parties had reached a provisional agreement to resolve the
case, subject to court approval, and asked that the case be stayed
for all purposes except for settlement-related proceedings. On
July 1, 2013, the settlement of this case received final approval
by the Superior Court for Essex County.
All claims against all defendants, including the single claim
alleged against Crane, have been dismissed with prejudice.
CRANE CO: Plaintiffs in NJ Environmental Suits Assert New Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in environmental cases related to a former
manufacturing facility of Crane Co. in Roseland, New Jersey
recently amended their complaints to assert claims under New
Jersey's Environmental Rights Act for the Company's alleged
failure to properly remediate the site, according to the company's
Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.
Pursuant to recently enacted environmental regulations in New
Jersey, the Company performed certain tests of the indoor air
quality of approximately 40 homes in a residential area
surrounding a former manufacturing facility in Roseland, New
Jersey, to determine if any contaminants (volatile organic
compound vapors from groundwater) from the facility were present
in those homes.
The Company installed vapor mitigation equipment in three homes
where contaminants were found. On April 15, 2011, those three
homeowners, and the tenants in one of those homes, filed separate
suits against the Company seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for their lost property value and nuisance. In
addition, a homeowner in the testing area, whose home tested
negative for the presence of contaminants, filed a class action
suit against the Company on behalf of himself and 141 other
homeowners in the surrounding area, claiming damages in the nature
of loss of value on their homes due to their proximity to the
facility. The plaintiffs in these cases recently amended their
complaints to assert claims under New Jersey's Environmental
Rights Act for the Company's alleged failure to properly remediate
the site.
CVS CAREMARK: Proceedings in Suit Over 1999 Settlement Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings in the case over a 1999 settlement of various
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
are stayed by statute pending a decision on the appeal and cross-
appeal against a court decision appointing a class
representatives, according to CVS Caremark Corporation's Nov. 5,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.
Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly
on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
and others. Other defendants include insurance companies that
provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion
in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed. A similar
lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in
Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others, Caremark
and several insurance companies involved in the 1999 settlement.
This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but
McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello
action. Following the close of class discovery, the trial court
entered an Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil
Procedures 23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also
be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1). In addition, the August
15, 2012 Order appointed class representatives and class counsel.
The defendants' appeal and plaintiffs' cross-appeal are pending
before the Alabama Supreme Court. The proceedings in the trial
court are stayed by statute pending a decision on the appeal and
cross-appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court.
CVS CAREMARK: Certification Motions in Antitrust Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for class certification in In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers
Antitrust Litigation remain pending, according to CVS Caremark
Corp.'s Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.
Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has
violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining
retail pharmacy networks for client health plans.
In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a
Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs
#4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community
Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against
Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and
injunctive relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration
based on the contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark.
In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson
Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc.,
filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court
against Caremark and two PBM competitors, seeking treble damages
and injunctive relief. The North Jackson Pharmacy case against two
of the Caremark entities named as defendants was transferred to
Illinois federal court, and the case against a separate Caremark
entity was sent to arbitration based on contract terms between the
pharmacies and Caremark. The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed
by the parties pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy
court case.
In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs. Caremark appealed the decision
which vacated an order compelling arbitration and staying the
proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the appeal, the
Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling arbitration of
the Bellevue case. Following remand, plaintiffs in the Bellevue
case sought dismissal of their complaint to permit an immediate
appeal of the reinstated order compelling arbitration and pursued
an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2012,
the Third Circuit Court reversed the district court ruling and
directed the parties to proceed in federal court. Motions for
class certification in the coordinated cases within the
multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy
case, remain pending, and the court has permitted certain
additional class discovery and briefing. The consolidated action
is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust
Litigation.
CVS CAREMARK: Pursues Bid to Dismiss N.H. Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation has filed a new motion to dismiss a
securities lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Hampshire, according to the company's Nov. 5,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.
In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation
stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009. The lawsuit names
the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes
allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures
made by the Company concerning the PBM business and allegations of
insider trading.
In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in
December 2009 in the same court against the directors and certain
officers of the Company. A derivative lawsuit is a lawsuit filed
by a shareholder purporting to assert claims on behalf of a
corporation against directors and officers of the corporation.
This lawsuit, which was stayed pending developments in the related
securities class action, includes allegations of, among other
things, securities fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary
duties and further alleges that the Company was damaged by the
purchase of stock at allegedly inflated prices under its share
repurchase program.
In January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In June
2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
securities class action. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the
court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. In May 2013, the First
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the prior ruling and remanded the
case to the district court for further proceedings. The Company
has filed a new motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The derivative
lawsuit will remain stayed pending the outcome of any subsequent
ruling on a renewed motion to dismiss the securities class action.
CYBEX INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Olympic Decline Free Weight Benches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cybex International, Inc., of Medway, Mass., announced a voluntary
recall of 234 Olympic Decline free weight bench. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.
The frame of the bench can collapse forward onto the user, posing
fall and injury hazards.
The firm received nine reports of frames fatiguing near the weld
point. No injuries were reported.
The Decline model free weight benches are designed for use in
professional gyms and come in three model numbers: 16060, 16061
and 16062. The Decline model free weight bench is a traditional
Olympic bench which accommodates a 7' wide Olympic bar, and the
back pad declines from the knee to the shoulders at a 15 degree
angle. The model numbers can be found on the bottom of the tube
near where the feet are placed with serial numbers C1208 through
H0913 which stand for the manufacture dates, December 2008 through
September 2013.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/MNIFFx
The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Cybex or its distributors directly to gyms from December 2008
through September 2013 for about $1,100.
Consumers should stop using the benches immediately and contact
Cybex to arrange for instructions for inspecting the frames for
cracks or weakness and for installing the free repair.
DEL MONTE: Appeals Court Rejects Wage-and-Hour Class Action Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that an Oregon state
appeals court on Jan. 2 rejected Del Monte Fresh Produce NA Inc.'s
appeal of a special jury verdict and subsequent monetary awards in
a wage-and-hour class action. The appeals court found that the
trial court didn't abuse its discretion in denying Del Monte's
motion to decertify the class.
The plaintiffs, class representatives for a group of minimum wage
production workers who worked at the defendant's fresh-cut produce
plant in Portland, Ore., between January 2006 and June 2007, sued
Del Monte and Staffco Management Group Inc. for alleged violations
of the Oregon wage-and-hour laws.
The production worker plaintiffs said they donned necessary
protective clothing before clocking into work, doffed the clothing
after clocking out of work, and donned and doffed the clothing
during the required 30-minute meal breaks, resulting in
uncompensated work time.
An Oregon state jury returned a special verdict for the class
members on the donning and doffing issues, finding that there was
a "custom or practice of requiring or permitting minimum wage
production workers" at Del Monte's plant to don and doff work
clothes during unpaid time. The jury also found that defendant
was a joint employer of the class members.
The trial court entered a limited judgment in favor of 306 class
members for a total aggregate award of $720,741.86 against Del
Monte. Following further proceedings, the court entered a general
judgment in favor of an additional 32 class members for an
additional aggregate award of $73,358.67.
Del Monte is represented by Douglas E. Smith --
desmith@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC, Farleigh Wada Witt
and K&L Gates LLP.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kathryn H. Clarke, the Oregon
Law Center, James E. McCandlish -- jmccandlish@comcast.net -- of
Griffin & McCandlish and the Law Offices of Phil Goldsmith.
The case is Maria Del Pilar Delgado et al. v. Del Monte Fresh
Produce NA Inc., case number A147612, before the Multnomah County
Circuit Court.
DRILL CUTTINGS: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Premium
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Gutierrez, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly
Situated v. Drill Cuttings Disposal Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-
00017 (W.D. Tex., January 7, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Gutierrez relates that the Company pays some of its employees
a flat amount for each day they work. Although these workers
regularly work more than 40 hours a week, he alleges, DCDC does
not pay them overtime. He contends that DCDC's policy of paying
these employees a day rate, with no overtime pay, violates the
FLSA.
Drill Cuttings Disposal Company LLC is a company that provides
drill cuttings disposal services to the oil and gas industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
DURGA MANAGEMENT: Has Policy of Not Paying Overtime, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Gust, Reinaldo Ofarrill, Jarrod Paddock, and Christopher
Shreeves v. Durga Management LLC, d/b/a Rodeway Inn and Suites and
Quality Suites, a Wisconsin Corporation, Sidhivinayak, LLC, a
Wisconsin Corporation, Hetal Patel, and Magan Patel, Case No.
2:14-cv-00015-JPS (E.D. Wis., January 7, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants have refused to pay the Plaintiffs for all hours
worked, including hours spent training and overtime pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 each workweek.
The Plaintiffs are or have been employees of the Defendants,
performing odd jobs, working in maintenance, and at the front desk
of the hotels. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have a
policy of "not paying overtime," and firing employees when they
complain about this practice.
The Defendants own and operate two local hotels, Quality Suites
and Rodeway Inn and Suites, both located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
where the Plaintiffs worked.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Janice M. Pintar, Esq.
Katherine M. Gaumond, Esq.
Danielle Bailey, Esq.
CROSS LAW FIRM, S.C.
The Lawyers' Building
845 North 11th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Telephone: (414) 224-0000
Facsimile: (414) 273-7055
E-mail: jpintar@crosslawfirm.com
kgaumond@crosslawfirm.com
dbailey@crosslawfirm.com
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces Suit Over Debt Collection Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Halberstam, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-00013-ARR-VMS (E.D.N.Y., January 7, 2014) alleges that the
Company violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791-4400
Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: American Sales Sues Over Lidoderm Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Sales Company, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teikoku Pharma
USA, Inc., Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Actavis, Inc., Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Anda, Inc., Anda
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Valmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-00022 (M.D. Tenn., January 7, 2014) is a civil antitrust
action seeking treble damages arising from an alleged scheme to
monopolize the market for lidocaine 5% patch products sold by Endo
under the brand name Lidoderm.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania. The Company is a
specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the research,
development, sale and marketing of prescription pharmaceuticals.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
BARRETT & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
Nashville, TN 37205
Telephone: (615) 515-3393
Facsimile: (615) 515-3395
E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com
- and -
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
David S. Nalven, Esq.
Ed Notargiacomo, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
davidn@hbsslaw.com
edwardnotargiacomo@hbsslaw.com
- and -
John Radice, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM
34 Sunset Boulevard
Long Beach, NJ 08008
Telephone: (646) 386-7688
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Pension Fund Sues Over Lidoderm Product
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health & Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.; Teikoku Seiyaku
Co., Ltd.; Actavis, Inc.; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Watson
Laboratories, Inc.; Anda, Inc.; Anda Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Valmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00057-GP (E.D. Pa.,
January 7, 2014) is brought on behalf of a class of end-payors,
who purchased, reimbursed or otherwise paid for lidocaine patch,
5%, that Endo sold under the brand name "Lidoderm."
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated antitrust laws
through an overarching anticompetitive scheme to delay illegally
the entry onto the market of a less-expensive, generic Lidoderm.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania. The Company is a
specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the research,
development, sale and marketing of prescription pharmaceuticals
used primarily to treat and manage pain.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
Stewart L. Cohen, Esq.
COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH
Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900
2001 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 567-3500
E-mail: scohen@cprlaw.com
jgoldberg@cprlaw.com
FACEBOOK INC: Users May Get $10,000 Each in Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbie Crafts, writing for Knoxville Social Media Examiner,
reports that Facebook users in the United States may potentially
be awarded over $10,000 each as part of a class action lawsuit
filed against the social media giant.
Examiner reports that according to CNN Money on Jan 3, Facebook is
being sued for scanning their users' private messages to glean
information they can sell to be used in targeted marketing
programs. The particular messages being discussed in this suit
included a private link or URL within the message, and this URL
triggered the scan.
The lawsuit was filed in California by Mathew Campbell and Michael
Hurley, and they have petitioned the judge to make it a "class-
action" lawsuit. This would open the door to 166 million Facebook
users in the United States to take part in the settlement.
FITNESS INT'L: Training Managers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rudolph Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fitness International, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-20065-MGC
(S.D. Fla., January 7, 2014) alleges that while employed by the
Defendant, Mr. Taylor and those similarly situated are made to
work tremendous amounts of overtime on a consistent basis but are
not paid time and a half for this work. Hence, he now brings this
complaint for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees for all training managers, who have
worked or still work for the Defendant over the last three years.
Headquartered in Irvine, California, L.A. Fitness operates fitness
clubs, which require membership to access its facilities.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A.
100 North Biscayne Boulevard,
29th Floor, Suite 2902
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 222-7850
Facsimile: (305) 384-4676
E-mail: erosenberg@ffmlawgroup.com
FMR LLC: Participants Seek to Recover Plan Losses & Illegal Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aiden Yeaw, Alex C. Brown, and all others similarly situated v.
FMR LLC; FMR LLC Retirement Committee; and John and Jane Does 1-
25, Case No. 1:14-cv-10035-DJC (D. Mass., January 7, 2014) is a
civil enforcement action under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, to recover losses to the FMR LLC
Profit Sharing Plan and to compel disgorgement of unlawful fees
and profits taken by the Defendants.
Rather than fulfilling their fiduciary duties, the Defendants
caused the Plan to forego tens of millions of dollars in revenue-
sharing rebates that FMR LLC, more commonly known as Fidelity
Investments, kept for itself, the Plaintiffs contend. The
Plaintiffs also accuse the Defendants of engaging in prohibited
transactions with Plan assets.
FMR LLC is a financial services conglomerate headquartered in
Boston, Massachusetts. FMR is the Plan sponsor and the Plan
administrator. FMR and its subsidiaries also provide trustee,
recordkeeping, and administrative services to the Plan. FMR also
created a committee, the FMR LCC Employee Retirement Committee, to
administer the Plan. The names and identities of the Doe
Defendants are not presently known to the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Roddy, Esq.
Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
125 Summer Street, Suite 1030
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 439-6730
Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Gabriel Siegle, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
910 17th Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
- and -
Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
Daniel Carr, Esq.
PEIFFER ROSCA ABDULLAH & CARR, LLC
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4610
New Orleans, LA 70170-4600
Telephone: (504) 523-2434
Facsimile: (504) 523-2464
E-mail: jpeiffer@praclawfirm.com
dcarr@praclawfirm.com
- and -
Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
Michael C. McKay, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
8501 North Scottsdale Rd., Suite 270
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
Telephone: (480) 428-0142
Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
mmckay@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Peter Mougey, Esq.
Laura Dunning, Esq.
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR
316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 435-7121
Facsimile: (850) 436-6147
E-mail: pmougey@levinlaw.com
GRENFELL HANDICRAFTS: Recalls Children's Upper Outerwear
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 8, 2014
Posting date: January 8, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Strangulation Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-37431
Affected products:
Grenfell Handicrafts Children's Upper Outerwear with Drawstrings
The recall involves the following Grenfell Handicrafts products:
Grenfell Handicraft product Drawstring location
-------------------------- -------------------
Infant Splash suit Drawstring at hood and waist
Infant/Toddler Snowsuit Drawstring in hood
Children's Parka Drawstring in hood
All products can be identified with the Grenfell Handicrafts
label.
Drawstrings on children's upper outerwear can become caught on
playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in
strangulation, or in the case of a vehicle, the child being
dragged.
Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of these products.
For more information on the hazards related to drawstrings on
children's upper outerwear and for tips to help consumers
eliminate these hazards, see Health Canada's:
Approximately 70 products were sold in Canada.
The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold from
April 2012 until December 2013 through on-line sales and the
Grenfell Handicrafts gift shop.
Companies:
Manufacturer Grenfell Handicrafts
St. Anthony
Newfoundland and Labrador
Canada
Consumers should remove the drawstrings from the clothing
immediately.
GUESS INC: Faces Class Action in California Over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, reports that clothing retailer
Guess Inc. was hit with a putative class action in California
federal court on Jan. 3 by a consumer who claims the company sent
thousands of illegal text messages in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Farideh Haghayeghi alleges the Los Angeles-based retail company
invaded her privacy when it littered her cellphone with numerous
text messages without her permission for the past four years.
The text messages constituted "calls" under the TCPA that were not
for emergency purposes, according to the complaint. The unwanted
messages also cost consumers because they were sent to many who
pay for each text message they receive.
According to the complaint, Guess sent the messages through an
automatic service that has the capacity to store or produce and
dial numbers randomly or sequentially. Ms. Haghayeghi seeks to
represent all consumers nationwide who were harmed by Guess'
actions, and the suit seeks damages and injunctive relief.
Ms. Haghayeghi is represented by Karen E. Nakon and Payam Shahian
of Strategic Legal Practices APC.
The case is Farideh Haghayeghi v. Guess Inc., case number 3:14-cv-
00020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.
HALLIBURTON CO: Employers Await SC Ruling in "Erica P. John Fund"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insurance reports that many employers are awaiting the
U.S. Supreme Court's ruling this year in Erica P. John Fund Inc.
v. Halliburton Co., when the court will decide what burden of
proof shareholders alleging monetary losses must meet to qualify
for a class action, rather than individual lawsuits.
Ann Longmore, New York-based executive vice president of FINEX
North America, a unit of London-based Willis Group Holdings
P.L.C., said the court's ruling could significantly affect
companies' vulnerability to securities class action lawsuits.
The dispute at the heart at the case dates back to 2002, when an
investment fund for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee sued Halliburton,
alleging the company falsely represented its asbestos liability, a
claim Halliburton has denied.
HIGHER ONE: Reaches Agreement to Settle Suit for $15 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. reached an agreement in principle on the
key terms of a preliminary settlement that would resolve a class
action litigation that was filed against it in 2012, referred to
collectively as, In re Higher One OneAccount Multi-District
Litigation, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.
The terms of the preliminary settlement include a payment of
approximately $15.0 million and an agreement to make and/or
maintain certain practice changes. The parties remain in
negotiations and a final settlement agreement is contingent upon
(a) reaching agreement on the remaining terms, (b) obtaining
corporate approvals of the final agreement, and (c) court
approval. There can be no assurance that these conditions will be
satisfied as contemplated in the agreement in principle.
HINO: Recalls 403 Trucks Due to Steering Wheel Defect
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 23, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Steering
Units affected: 403
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2013464
TC ID number: 2013464
On certain vehicles, the steering wheel fastener nut may have been
insufficiently tightened during vehicle assembly. This could
allow the steering wheel to become loose and slip in relation to
the steering column shaft, increasing the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or property damage.
Dealers will re-torque the steering wheel nut.
Affected products:
Maker Model Model year(s) affected
----- ----- ----------------------
HINO NE8J 2013, 2014
HINO NF8J 2013, 2014
HINO XJC700 2013, 2014
HINO XJC710 2013, 2014
HINO XJC720 2013, 2014
HINO XJC740 2013, 2014
HINO NJ8J 2013, 2014
HINO NV8J 2013, 2014
HITACHI LTD: Wins Prelim. OK of $13MM Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge preliminarily approved a $13.4 million
settlement of claims related to the global price-fixing conspiracy
of cathode ray tubes.
A CRT is a vacuum tube with electron guns that shoot rays across a
fluorescent screen to form images.
Hitachi is one in a long list of companies that manufactured
televisions, computer monitors and other electronic devices
containing CRTs before the flat-panel screen made them obsolete.
More than 30 complaints were filed against CRT manufacturers
within six months of the Nov. 8, 2007, announcement from the
European Commission about a worldwide antitrust investigation,
complete with raids, of CRT pricing.
Multidistrict litigation over the claims is ongoing in the
Northern District of California. Whereas direct purchasers bought
the tubes directly, indirect purchasers bought products containing
the tubes.
In the first class action from a direct purchaser in 2007, Crago
Inc. claimed that Sharp, Samsung, Philips, Toshiba and Panasonic
had conspiring over the $19 billion since 1995.
U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Conti gave preliminary approval
of a $25 million settlement between LG Electronics and indirect
purchasers on Dec. 12, 2013. It was the sixth settlement to be
reached in a complaint that names some 14 separate defendant
companies.
Conti's preliminary approval of the $13.4 million settlement with
Hitachi, which involves direct purchasers, is the seventh.
"The court finds that the settlement falls within the range of
possible final approval," Conti wrote.
Under the settlement, plaintiffs will receive $13.45 million cash
in exchange for dismissal of the case with prejudice. The
settlement also provides $300,000 for the cost of notifying class
members and future expenses associated with the administration and
distribution of the settlement payments, according to the
settlement document.
Conti also ordered a fairness hearing set for 120 days following
the order, on April 29.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
Jonathan Mark Watkins, Esq.
Ashlei Melissa Vargas, Esq.
Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-9000
Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
jwatkins@pswplaw.com
avargas@pswplaw.com
asheanin@pswlaw.com
- and -
Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com
dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
- and -
Guido Saveri, Esq.
Cadio R. Zirpoli, Esq.
Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Esq.
Gianna Christa Gruenwald, Esq.
Richard Alexander Saveri, Esq.
David Nathan-Allen Sims, Esq.
SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
706 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 217-6810
Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
E-mail: guido@saveri.com
zirpoli@saveri.com
grushing@saveri.com
gianna@saveri.com
rick@saveri.com
dsims@saveri.com
- and -
Christopher Wilson, Esq.
POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC
Twelve Wyandotte Plaza
120 W. 12th Street
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 421-3355
Facsimile: (816) 374-0509
E-mail: cwilson@polsinelli.com
- and -
Daniel D. Owen, Esq.
Patrick John Brady, Esq.
SHUGHART THOMSON & KILROY, P.C.
Twelve Wyandotte Plaza-Suite 1600
120 W. 12th Street
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 395-0671
Facsimile: (816) 374-0509
E-mail: dowen@polsinelli.com
jbrady@polsinelli.com
- and -
David L. Yohai, Esq.
Steven Alan Reiss, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL, & MANGES, LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
E-mail: david.yohai@weil.com
steven.reiss@weil.com
- and -
Esther L. Klisura, Esq.
SHER LEFF LLP
450 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 348-8300
Facsimile: (415) 348-8333
E-mail: eklisura@sherleff.com
- and -
Anne M. Nardacci, Esq.
Philip J. Iovieno, Esq.
Christopher V. Fenlon, Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
30 South Pearl Street
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518) 434-0600
Facsimile: (518) 434-0665
E-mail: anardacci@bsfllp.com
piovieno@bsfllp.com
cfenlon@bsfllp.com
- and -
Benjamin Daniel Battles, Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
10 North Pearl Street
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518) 434-0600
Facsimile: (518) 434-0665
E-mail: bbattles@bsfllp.com
- and -
Jennifer Milici, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER AND FLEXNER LLP
5301 Wisconsin Avenue N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
E-mail: jmilici@bsfllp.com
wisaacson@bsfllp.com
- and -
Stuart Harold Singer, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 356-0011
Facsimile: (954) 356-0022
E-mail: ssinger@bsfllp.com
- and -
Jessica Lynn Meyer, Esq.
Kelly Laudon, Esq.
LINDQUIST & VENNUM PLLP
80 South 8th Street
4200 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 371-2409
Facsimile: (612) 371-3207
E-mail: jmeyer@lindquist.com
klaudon@lindquist.com
- and -
Betty Lisa Julian, Esq.
Clinton Paul Walker, Esq.
Fred A. Silva, Esq.
Kathy Lee Monday, Esq.
Roger Martin Schrimp, Esq.
DAMRELL, NELSON, SCHRIMP, PALLIOS, PACHE & SILVA
1601 "I" Street, Fifth Floor
Modesto, CA 95354
Telephone: (209) 526-3500
Facsimile: (209) 526-3534
E-mail: bjulian@damrell.com
cwalker@damrell.com
fsilva@damrell.com
kmonday@damrell.com
- and -
Craig C. Corbitt, Esq.
Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Esq.
Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Esq.
Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
Patrick Bradford Clayton, Esq.
Qianwei Fu, Esq.
ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 693-0700
Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
E-mail: ccorbitt@zelle.com
cmicheletti@zelle.com
fscarpulla@zelle.com
jzahid@zelle.com
pclayton@zelle.com
qfu@zelle.com
- and -
Michael Jocobs, Esq.
Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL MASON & GETTE LLP
500 Washington Avenue, South Suite 400
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Telephone: (612) 339-2020
Facsimile: (612) 336-9100
E-mail: mjacobs@zelle.com
- and -
Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
Lori Erin Andrus, Esq.
ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 986-1400
Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com
lori@andrusanderson.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joel Steven Sanders, Esq.
Austin Van Schwing, Esq.
Joel Calcar Willard, Esq.
Rachel S. Brass, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Telephone: (415) 393-8200
Facsimile: (415) 393-8206
E-mail: jsanders@gibsondunn.com
aschwing@gibsondunn.com
jwillard@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Eliot A. Adelson, Esq.
James Maxwell Cooper, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
555 California Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 439-1413
Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
E-mail: eadelson@kirkland.com
max.cooper@kirkland.com
- and -
James Mutchnik, Esq.
Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 862-2000
E-mail: james.mutchnik@kirkland.com
kate.wheaton@kirkland.com
- and -
Christopher M. Curran, Esq.
George L. Paul, Esq.
Lucius Bernard Lau, Esq.
Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, Esq.
Lucius Bernard Lau, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
701 Thirteenth Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 626-3600
Facsimile: (202) 639-9355
E-mail: ccurran@whitecase.com
gpaul@whitecase.com
alau@whitecase.com
twu@whitecase.com
alau@whitecase.com
- and -
Bijal Vijay Vakil, Esq.
Jeremy Kent Ostrander, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: (650) 213-0303
Facsimile: (650) 213-8158
E-mail: bvakil@whitecase.com
jostrander@whitecase.com
- and -
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
Molly Donovan, Esq.
Sofia Arguello, Esq.
Eva W. Cole, Esq.
A. Paul Victor, Esq.
Aldo A. Badini, Esq.
James F. Lerner, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 294-4698
Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
E-mail: jkessler@winston.com
ewcole@winston.com
pvictor@winston.com
abadini@winston.com
jlerner@winston.com
mmdonovan@winston.com
sarguello@winston.com
- and -
Jeffrey Jay Lederman, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street, Suite 3900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-1517
Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
E-mail: jlederman@winston.com
- and -
John M. Taladay, Esq.
Stephen M. Ng, Esq.
Tiffany B. Gelott, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 639-7700
Facsimile: (202) 639-7890
E-mail: john.taladay@bakerbotts.com
stephen.ng@bakerbotts.com
tiffany.gelott@bakerbotts.com
- and -
Jon Vensel Swenson, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
1001 Page Mill Road
Building One, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 739-7500
Facsimile: (650) 739-7699
E-mail: jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com
- and -
Michael W. Scarborough, Esq.
James Landon McGinnis, Esq.
Mona Solouki, Esq.
Dylan Ian Ballard, Esq.
Tyler Mark Cunningham, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
Telephone: (415) 434-9100
Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
E-mail: mscarborough@smrh.com
msolouki@sheppardmullin.com
jmcginnis@sheppardmullin.com
dballard@sheppardmullin.com
tcunningham@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Sharon D. Mayo, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
Telephone: (415) 471-3100
Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
E-mail: sharon.mayo@aporter.com
- and -
Thomas R. Green, Esq.
Christine S. Safreno, Esq.
Jonathan DeGooyer, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: tgreen@morganlewis.com
csafreno@morganlewis.com
jdegooyer@morganlewis.com
- and -
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Esq.
Scott A. Stempel, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 739-3000
E-mail: jeverett@morganlewis.com
sstempel@morganlewis.com
The consolidated case is In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1917, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco). The case's
master file number is 3:07-cv-05944-SC.
HOECHST CELANESE: Polluted Groundwater in So. Carolina, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Easler, individually and as class representative of others
similarly situated v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation , HNA Holdings,
Inc., CNA Holdings, Inc., Hercules, Inc., Ashland, Inc., Hystron
Fibers, Inc., Messer Greishiem, Inc., Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l
d/b/a/ "KoSa", Johns Manville Corporation, INVISTA S.a.r.l d/b/a
"Invista", Teijin Monofilament U.S., Inc., Teijin Holdings USA,
Inc., Auriga Polymers Inc., Indorama Ventures USA, Inc., Case No.
7:14-cv-00048-TMC (D.S.C., January 7, 2014) seeks relief from
health and environmental dangers posed by groundwater and surface
water contamination emanating from the "Hoechst-Celanese"
manufacturing plant in the community of Cannon's Campground, South
Carolina.
The Plaintiff asks the Court to utilize its powers to: 1) restrain
the Defendants from engaging in any activities constituting an
imminent and substantial endangerment to the health or the
environment of Cannon's Campground; 2) order the Defendants to
take all necessary remedial actions to delineate and treat the
existing contamination and to prevent any further migration
beneath private property; and 3) apply any appropriate civil
penalties.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
Graham L. Newman, Esq.
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A.
1410 Laurel Street (29201)
Post Office Box 1090
Columbia, SC 29202
Telephone: (803) 252-4848
Facsimile: (803) 252-4810
E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com
gln@harpootlianlaw.com
- and -
Herbert W. Louthian, Sr., Esq.
Herbert W. Louthian, Jr., Esq.
LOUTHIAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
1116 Blanding Street, Suite #300 (29201)
Post Office Box 1299
Columbia, SC 29202
Telephone: (803) 454-1200
Facsimile: (803) 256-6033
E-mail: herb@louthianlaw.com
bert@louthianlaw.com
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in Texas Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. continues to face a securities suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.
On July 18, 2012, the company announced the company's intention to
restate the company's financial statements for the years ended
December 28, 2009, January 3, 2011 and January 2, 2012 and the
related interim periods. On July 20, 2012, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against us, certain of the company's current
directors and officers and the underwriters in the initial public
offering ("IPO").
The plaintiffs allege that all the defendants violated Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and certain
of the company's directors and officers have control person
liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act, based on
allegations that in light of the July 18, 2012 restatement
announcement, the company's IPO registration statement and
prospectus contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made therein
not misleading, and omitted to state material facts required to be
stated therein. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees.
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Settles Securities Lawsuits for $12 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Holdings, Inc. settled several securities lawsuits for
$12 million, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.
Initially on September 29, 2011, the Company, and certain of its
officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative
securities class action filed in the Circuit Court of the 15th
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, entitled
Martin J. Fuller v. Imperial Holdings, Inc. et al. Also named as
defendants were the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering. That complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, alleging that the
Company should have, but failed to disclose in the registration
statement for its initial public offering purported wrongful
conduct relating to its life finance business that gave rise to
the USAO Investigation. On October 21, 2011, an amended complaint
was filed that asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, based on similar allegations. On October
25, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
On October 31, 2011, another putative class action case was filed
in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida, entitled City of Roseville Employees
Retirement System v. Imperial Holdings, et al, naming the same
defendants and also bringing claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act based on similar allegations. On November
28, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The
plaintiffs in the Fuller and City of Roseville cases moved to
remand their cases back to state court. Those motions were fully
briefed and argued.
On November 18, 2011, a putative class action case was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, entitled Sauer v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al, naming
the same defendants and bringing claims under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 based on similar allegations.
On December 14, 2011, another putative class action case filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, entitled Pondick v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al,
naming the same defendants and bringing claims under Sections 11,
12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on similar
allegations.
On February 24, 2012, the four putative class actions were
consolidated and designated: Fuller v. Imperial Holdings et al. in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, and lead plaintiffs were appointed.
On December 18, 2012, attorneys for the Company, the plaintiffs in
the actions, certain individual defendants, the underwriters in
the Company's initial public offering and the Company's director
and officer liability insurance carriers ("D&O Carriers") signed a
Term Sheet for Global Settlement Regarding Imperial Holdings, Inc.
Matters (the "Term Sheet") setting forth the terms upon which each
of the parties to the matters would be willing to settle the class
action litigation and derivative actions as well as the
declaratory relief action filed by Catlin, respectively.
On July 29, 2013, the parties to the Term Sheet executed
definitive settlement agreements in respect of the class action
litigation, derivative action and insurance coverage declaratory
relief complaint. The class action litigation and derivative
action settlements are subject to court approval and all of the
settlements are contingent on effectiveness of the other
settlements.
On August 6, 2013, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida entered an order preliminarily
approving the class action settlements and setting a settlement
hearing for December 16, 2013. On August 13, 2013, the Circuit
Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida entered an order preliminarily approving the derivative
action settlement and setting a final fairness hearing for
December 17, 2013. Final court approval of the Securities Class
Action and Derivative Action settlements could be delayed by
appeals or other proceedings.
The terms of the class action settlement include a cash payment of
$12.0 million, of which $11.0 million is to be contributed by the
Company's primary and excess D&O Carriers and the issuance of two
million warrants for shares of the Company's stock with an
estimated fair value of $3.1 million at the date of the signing of
the Term Sheet. The value of the warrants were reassessed during
the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and resulted in an
increase in fair value of $2.5 million. The estimated fair value
at September 30, 2013 was $5.6 million. The warrants will have a
five-year term with an exercise price of $10.75 and will be issued
on or about when the settlement proceeds are distributed to the
claimants. In addition, the underwriters in the Company's initial
public offering are to waive their rights to indemnity and
contribution by the Company. The Company recorded a reserve at
September 30, 2013 related to the proposed settlement of $17.6
million, which is included in other liabilities and cash received
as insurance recoverable from the Company's D&O Carrier of $11.0
million, which is included in restricted cash. $4.1 million net
effect of the proposed settlement is included in legal fees in the
statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2012 and
an additional $2.5 million is included in the nine month period
ended September 30, 2013.
JACKSON, CA: ADA Class Action Nears Settlement
----------------------------------------------
Nichole Manna, writing for The Jackson Sun, reports that City of
Jackson Mayor Jerry Gist said the city soon may be settling a
lawsuit that's been going on for more than 10 years. The lawsuit
came after a class-action suit was filed against the cities of
Jackson, Bartlett and Dyersburg alleging the cities' streets and
curb ramps weren't up to code with the Americans With Disabilities
Act.
The class-action lawsuit then turned into a case against the city
of Jackson only with two lawyers out of Nashville representing the
plaintiff, Randy Oliver.
One of those attorneys, Todd Faulkner, said on Jan. 3 that the
lawsuit was filed jointly between him and attorney Cody Allison on
behalf of several plaintiffs.
Jackson was included in the class-action lawsuit when it was found
the city's curb ramps weren't up to code.
Mr. Faulkner said the city has been working on improving the
street conditions since 2003, when the lawsuit was filed.
Mr. Faulkner said that cities were supposed to become compliant
with the laws in the mid-1990s, but it takes time and money to
become compliant.
If Jackson agrees to the lawsuit settlement, the city will have to
follow certain terms and conditions that come with it.
Those include making sure all future street, intersection or
sidewalk projects are compliant with the Americans With
Disabilities Act; turning in annual progress reports listing what
ramps have been added or corrected to make sure the city stays
compliant between the years of 2015 and 2034; and by the end of
2033, the city will have to ensure that all utility poles,
barriers and other obstructions are removed in order to ensure
unobstructed sidewalk coverage.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Madoff Settlement Sends Message on Bank Compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
JPMorgan Chase Bank, the nation's largest bank, and Southern
District U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara on Jan. 7 announced a $1.7
billion forfeiture and a two-year deferred prosecution agreement
for violating two counts of the Bank Secrecy Act -- a settlement
Mr. Bharara hailed as sending a critical message about compliance
to banks on reporting requirements.
The $1.7 billion represents the largest forfeiture by a U.S. bank
and the largest Department of Justice penalty for a Bank Secrecy
Act violation, the government said.
In addition, the bank will have to pay a $350 million civil fine
to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
People at JPMorgan saw a number of red flags over the years,
Mr. Bharara said at an afternoon press conference, but failed to
take action or file, as required by the act, "suspicious
activities reports" concerning Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC.
"It's not a tip," Mr. Bharara said of compliance with the act.
"It's not a suggestion. It's a legal requirement."
"To be sure, there were failures by lots of people, in lots of
places outside the bank," he said, but the reason for requiring
the reports under the act is to alert regulators and investigators
and stop a crime in progress.
"The victim's of Bernard Madoff's epic fraud are $1.7 billion
closer to being made whole," he said.
Mr. Madoff was arrested on Dec. 11, 2008, at a time when he had
4,000 client accounts and claimed to have a balance of $65 billion
that turned out to be a mere $300 million. He pleaded guilty on
March 12, 2009 to securities fraud, money laundering, wire fraud
and other related offenses. Judge Denny Chin later sentenced him
to 150 years in prison.
Under the deferred prosecution agreement JPMorgan cannot seek a
tax deduction or tax credit to offset any of the penalty.
The bank agrees to "cooperate fully" with the Southern District
U.S. Attorney's office with the government and "bring to the
Office's attention all criminal conduct by JPMorgan or any of its
employees."
The agreement also states that the Southern District U.S.
Attorney's office "cannot, and does not, make any promises or
commitments with respect to the prosecution of JPMorgan for
criminal tax violations," but if the bank is fully compliant, none
of the testimony or information it provides will be used against
JPMorgan.
The U.S. Attorney's Office retains the discretion to prosecute the
bank if it finds that it has given false, incomplete or misleading
information, committed any crime or violated the agreement.
The deal was hammered out for JPMorgan by John Savarese --
JFSavarese@wlrk.com -- Stephen DiPrima -- SRDiPrima@wlrk.com --
and Emil Kleinhouse -- EAKleinhaus@WLRK.com -- partners at
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Steven Peikin --
peikins@sullcrom.com -- a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell. The
agreement was also signed by Stephen Cutler, general counsel at
JPMorgan.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Arlo Devlin-Brown and Matthew Schwartz
represent the government.
'Too Good to Be True'
The recitation of facts in the agreement includes an Oct. 16, 2008
memo from a JPMC analyst at the bank's London-based Equity Exotics
Desk that "described JPMC's inability to validate Madoff's trading
activity or even custody of assets; questioned Madoff's 'odd
choice' of a small, unknown accounting firm; and reported that
JPMC 'seem[ed] to be relying on Madoff's integrity' with little to
verify that such reliance was well-placed."
It also notes that the bank reported to the United Kingdom Serious
Organised Crime Agency on Oct. 29, 2008 that the investment
performance of the Madoff securities funds "is so consistently and
significantly ahead of its peers year-on-year, even in the
prevailing market conditions, as to appear too good to be true --
meaning that it probably is."
Mr. Bharara said on Jan. 7 there were "plenty of reasons to be
uniquely suspicious" about Madoff, including the "sheer volume" of
"round-tripping transactions" -- large checks being withdrawn and
placed in the accounts each day to give the appearance of activity
and make more money on the interest paid by the bank.
While the October 2008 revelations came late in the game, the
statement in the agreement also says that employees in several
divisions of JPMC and its predecessor entities raised questions at
"various times" between the late 1990s and 2008 about Madoff,
"including questions about the validity of Madoff Securities's
investment returns" but no one shared their concerns with the
bank's anti-money laundering compliance personnel and no
suspicious activities reports were filed in the United States
The Madoff Securities various accounts at JPMC, organized under a
"concentration account," called the 703 account, received deposits
and transfers of about $150 billion between 1986 and Madoff's
arrest. Mr. Bharara on Jan. 7 referred to it as the "Ponzi-scheme
enabling 703 account."
The balance in the account peaked at about $5.6 billion in
August 2008 and then was drawn down almost immediately as Madoff
hurriedly paid off investors pressuring him for their money. On
the date of the Oct. 16 memo, the balance was down to $3.7
billion, and it had fallen to $3 billion when the Oct. 29 report
was filed.
By the time Madoff was arrested in December, there was a balance
of only $234 million.
The deferred charges against the bank are a willful failure to
establish an anti-money laundering program, Title 31 U.S.C.
Secs. 5318(h) and 5322(a); and Title 12, Code of Federal
Regulations Sec. 21.21 and failing to file a suspicious activity
report, Title 31 U.S.C. Secs. 5318(g) and 5322(a); and Title 12,
Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 21.11.
And JPMorgan Chase failed to meet its legal obligations, the
agreement said, after being warned by another bank about
suspicious round-tripping transactions. The second bank that
warned Chase, Mr. Bharara noted on Jan. 7, filed a suspicious
activity report under the Banking Secrecy Act and closed out
Mr. Madoff's account.
Between October 2008 and Mr. Madoff's arrest, JPMorgan redeemed
$275 million of its own money from Mr. Madoff, demonstrating,
Mr. Bharara said, that "the bank connected the dots when it came
to its own profits."
Chase released a statement saying, "We recognize we could have
done a better job pulling together various pieces of information
and concerns about Madoff from different parts of the bank over
time."
"We do not believe that any JPMorgan employee knowingly assisted
Madoff's Ponzi scheme," which the bank called "an unprecedented
and widespread fraud that deceived thousands, including us, and
caused many people to suffer substantial losses."
The bank said it had already strengthened its compliance practices
as required by the agreement.
The $1.7 billion criminal penalty is only part of what JPMorgan
Chase is required to pay out in relation to the Madoff affair.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency will collect a $350
million civil fine and the Trustee for the liquidation of
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, Irving Picard of
BakerHostetler announced settlement agreements with the bank to
pay out $543 million for the benefit of customers taken in the
Ponzi scheme.
Mr. Picard filed two motions in the bankruptcy court seeking
approval to settle avoidance claims by the bank as well as common
law claims brought separately by Picard and in a class action
lawsuit.
The settlement, according to a statement from David Sheehan,
chief counsel to the Trustee, brings Picard's recovery to date to
$9,783 billion for the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
Customer Fund, or 55.9 percent of the estimated $17.5 billion in
principal that was lost by Madoff customers who filed claims.
Unrelated Legal Challenges
The JPMorgan settlement is the latest in a series of major deals
it has made to resolve its legal troubles. In November, the bank
agreed to pay $13 billion over risky mortgage securities it sold
before the financial crisis -- the largest settlement to date
between the Justice Department and a corporation.
JPMorgan still has several lawsuits pending against it related to
the high-risk mortgage bonds that soured after the housing market
collapsed in 2007. There's also an ongoing criminal investigation
led by the office of U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner in Sacramento,
Calif.
The bank may be negotiating or litigating over the issue for years
and has set aside $23 billion to cover those costs. JPMorgan told
regulators in a filing in October that it may need as much as $5.7
billion more.
LAND ROVER: Issues Recall on Range Rover SUVs Over Airbag Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Viknesh Vijayenthiran, writing for MotorAuthority, reports that
Land Rover has issued a recall on certain versions of its Range
Rover SUV due to a connector that may come loose and in the
process render an airbag inoperative. The recall affects Range
Rovers from the 2013 and 2014 model years, of which there are said
to be 3,912 examples in the country.
In the affected vehicles, the Supplemental Restraint System (SRS)
connector located in the seats of the driver and front passenger
may become disconnected due to insufficient clearance in the
connector's housing.
Should the connector become detached, side airbags for either the
driver or front seat passenger may not function. In the event of
a crash necessitating side airbag deployment, those sitting up
front are faced with increased risk of injury.
Land Rover is in the process of notifying owners of the affected
vehicles. The solution calls for dealers to modify the area
around the connector to prevent it from becoming detached, a
service they will offer free of charge.
For further information you can contact the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration at 1-888-327-4236 (reference recall
campaign number 13V607000) or Land Rover at 1-800-637-6837. Land
Rover's number for this recall campaign is P037.
LIBERTY MEDIA: Claims in Sirius XM Shareholder Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued an order
dismissing all claims in In re Sirius XM Shareholder Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 7800-CS (Del. Ch.), according to Liberty Media
Corporation's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.
On August 21, 2012, plaintiff City of Miami Police Relief and
Pension Fund (the "Fund") filed a complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against Liberty, SIRIUS XM,
Liberty Radio LLC and certain Liberty designees on the board of
directors of SIRIUS XM (David J.A. Flowers, Gregory B. Maffei,
John C. Malone, Carl E. Vogel, and Vanessa A. Wittman (together,
the "Sirius Designees")).
On August 23, 2012, plaintiff Brian Cohen filed a complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the same
individuals and seeking substantially similar relief as set forth
in the complaint filed by the Fund. By Order of the Court dated
October 2, 2012, the two actions were consolidated under the
caption In re Sirius XM Shareholder Litigation. On January 28,
2013, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Verified Class Action and
Derivative Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") in the
consolidated action. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that
Liberty and the Sirius Designees breached their alleged fiduciary
duties to the SIRIUS XM stockholders by exerting control over
SIRIUS XM to facilitate a takeover without providing stockholders
with a fair price. On or about, September 27, 2013, the Court of
Chancery issued an order dismissing all claims against all of the
defendants.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Conceals Info About Sale of Policy, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Grill, Joan Grill, and Steven E. Grill, in his capacity as
Trustee of the Grill Irrevocable Trust 2004 dated September 2,
2004, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-00051-
JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., January 9, 2014) concerns a common and
systematic practice by the Company of failing to inform and
actively concealing from their insureds the option of a life
settlement in connection with their life insurance policies.
When the Plaintiffs and similarly situated Class members inquire
to the Defendant about retaining or modifying their existing life
insurance policies, the Defendant -- as a regular practice or
policy -- fails to advise them that they can sell all or part of
their policy to a third party for more than its cash surrender
value (a life settlement), the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs
argue that the Defendant purposely omits this information from
them and Class members because it knows that other options, such
as surrendering the policy, or letting it lapse, will generate
greater profits to the Defendant than a life settlement would.
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company is the primary life
insurance subsidiary of holding company Lincoln National
Corporation, a Fortune 250 company that operates multiple
insurance and retirement businesses nationwide. The Company is an
Indiana corporation headquartered in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Alexander R. Safyan, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
asafyan@pswlaw.com
- and -
George S. Trevor, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-9000
Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
E-mail: gtrevor@pswlaw.com
LINKEDIN CORP: Sues Spambots Over Fake Accounts Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Allison, writing for The Recorder, reports that LinkedIn
Corp., based in Mountain View, filed suit in the Northern District
of California on Jan. 6 alleging that unknown intruders used
automated software programs to create thousands of fake LinkedIn
accounts and scrape data from legitimate user profile pages. The
company, which believes the abuse began in May 2013, has nearly
260 million members.
"We're a members-first organization and we feel we have a
responsibility to protect the control that our members have over
the information they put on LinkedIn," a spokesman for the company
said in a statement.
In a 16-page complaint filed by Munger Tolles & Olson, LinkedIn
says those involved not only breached the company's user
agreement, but also violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and California's Comprehensive
Computer Access and Fraud Act. The alleged infiltration
"undermines the integrity and effectiveness of LinkedIn's
professional network by polluting it with thousands of fake member
profiles," the suit states. Moreover, LinkedIn contends that the
defendants are using information scraped from its site to compete
with the company's Recruiter product, a fee-generating premium
service that allows headhunters to locate and recruit candidates.
LinkedIn says it employed numerous defenses against fraud that the
intruders managed to circumvent. The company launched an
investigation after observing thousands of seemingly fake accounts
rapidly viewing numerous profiles.
Its probe showed that the defendants operated through a cloud
platform offered by Amazon Web Services, which allows users to
rent virtual computers to run programs. Amazon was not targeted
in the suit, but LinkedIn says it will serve the company with a
subpoena in order to identify those behind the spambot program.
Munger Tolles partners Jerome Roth -- Jerome.Roth@mto.com -- and
Jonathan Blavin -- Jonathan.Blavin@mto.com -- filed the complaint.
The suit, which asks for expedited discovery to identify those
responsible, seeks an injunction against the defendants as well as
damages and attorney fees.
LinkedIn also turned to Mr. Roth to defend the company in a
Northern District privacy class action, in which the company is
accused of misappropriating user identities and contact lists for
marketing purposes.
LINNCO LLC: Facing Shareholder Litigation in Several States
-----------------------------------------------------------
LinnCo, LLC is facing several lawsuits filed by purported
stockholders in several states, according to the company's
Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.
On March 21, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
Nancy P. Assad Trust v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in
the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado,
No. 13-CV-31365. The action names as defendants Berry, the members
of its board of directors, Bacchus HoldCo, Inc., a direct wholly
owned subsidiary of Berry ("HoldCo"), Bacchus Merger Sub, Inc., a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of HoldCo ("Bacchus Merger Sub"),
LinnCo, LINN Energy and Linn Acquisition Company, LLC, a direct
wholly owned subsidiary of LinnCo ("LinnCo Merger Sub").
On April 5, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which alleges
that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the transactions by engaging in an unfair sales
process that resulted in an unfair price for Berry, by failing to
disclose all material information regarding the transactions, and
that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty. The amended complaint seeks a declaration that the
transactions are unlawful and unenforceable, an order directing
the individual defendants to comply with their fiduciary duties,
an injunction against consummation of the transactions, or, in the
event they are completed, rescission of the transactions, an award
of fees and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees and
expenses, and other relief. On May 21, 2013, the Colorado District
Court stayed and administratively closed the Nancy P. Assad Trust
action in favor of the Hall action that is pending in the Delaware
Court of Chancery.
On April 12, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
David Hall v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 8476-VCG. The complaint names
as defendants Berry, the members of its board of directors,
HoldCo, Bacchus Merger Sub, LinnCo, LINN Energy and LinnCo Merger
Sub. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions by
engaging in an unfair sales process that resulted in an unfair
price for Berry, by failing to disclose all material information
regarding the transactions, and that the entity defendants aided
and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.
The complaint seeks a declaration that the transactions are
unlawful and unenforceable, an order directing the individual
defendants to comply with their fiduciary duties, an injunction
against consummation of the transactions, or, in the event they
are completed, rescission of the transactions, an award of fees
and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses,
and other relief. After expedited discovery, the plaintiffs in
this case made a settlement proposal and the parties are currently
engaged in settlement discussions. The Company is unable to
estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any, at
this time.
On July 9, 2013, Anthony Booth, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas,
against LINN Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David B.
Rottino (the "Booth Action"). On July 18, 2013, the Catherine A.
Fisher Trust, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against the
same defendants (the "Fisher Action"). On July 17, 2013, Don
Gentry, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, against LINN Energy,
LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A.
Alcorn, David D. Dunlap, Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn,
Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and the various
underwriters for LinnCo's initial public offering (the "Gentry
Action") (the Booth Action, Fisher Action, and Gentry Action
together, the "Texas Federal Actions").
The Texas Federal Actions each assert claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") based on allegations that the Company made false or
misleading statements relating to its hedging strategy, the cash
flow available for distribution to unitholders, and the Company's
energy production. The Gentry Action asserts additional claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
alleged misstatements relating to these issues in the prospectus
and registration statement for LinnCo's initial public offering.
The cases are in their preliminary stages and it is possible that
additional similar actions could be filed. As a result, the
Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of
possible loss, if any.
On July 10, 2013, David Adrian Luciano, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against LINN Energy, LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja
Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A. Alcorn, David D. Dunlap,
Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C.
Swoveland, and the various underwriters for LinnCo's initial
public offering (the "Luciano Action"). On July 12, 2013, Frank
Donio, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, against the same
defendants (the "Donio Action").
On July 19, 2013, John Cottrell, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, against LINN Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David
B. Rottino (the "Cottrell Action"). On July 23, 2013, Kevin
Feldman, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, against the same
defendants as in the Luciano Action (the "Feldman Action") (the
Luciano Action, Donio Action, Cottrell Action, and Feldman Action
together, the "New York Federal Actions"). The Donio Action and
the Cottrell Action assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act based on allegations that the Company made
false or misleading statements relating to its hedging strategy,
the cash flow available for distribution to unitholders, and the
Company's energy production. The Luciano Action and the Feldman
Action assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements relating to these
issues in the prospectus and registration statement for LinnCo's
initial public offering.
The cases are in their preliminary stages and it is possible that
additional similar actions could be filed.
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Still Faces Suits Over Hardboard Trim Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation continues to face lawsuits related
to the nontreated hardboard trim product, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.
The company was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania during the third quarter of 2013. The case, Harbison
v. Louisiana Pacific, 2:13-CV-00814-AJS (W.D. PA) is related to
nontreated hardboard trim product formerly manufactured at the
company's Roaring River, North Carolina hardboard plant.
In 2012, the company was named in six putative class action
lawsuits related to the nontreated hardboard trim product: Brown
v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation., Case No. 4:12-CV-00102-RP-TJS
(S.D. Iowa); Holbrook v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 3:12-CV-00484-JGC (N.D. Ohio); Bristol Village Inc. v.
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:12-CV-00263
(W.D.N.Y.), Prevett v. Louisiana-Pacific, Case No. 6:12-CV-348-
ORL-18-KRS (M.D. Fla) , Riley v. Louisiana-Pacific, Case No. 6:12-
CV-00837-18 (M.D. Fla), and Eugene Lipov v. Louisiana-Pacific,
Case 1:12-CV-00439- JTN (W.D. Mich). Prior to 2012, the company
was named in two state-wide putative class action lawsuits filed
in United States District Courts involving the same discontinued
nontreated hardboard trim product: Ellis, et al. v. Louisiana-
Pacific Corp., Case No. 3:11-CV-191 (W.D.N.C.); and Hart, et al.
v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Case No. 2:08-CV-00047 (E.D.N.C.).
The Prevett lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs
shortly after filing. The Ellis and Hart cases were dismissed by
the federal trial judges and plaintiffs have appealed both cases
to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits generally seek to certify classes
consisting of all persons that own structures within the
respective states in which the lawsuit were filed (or, in some
cases, within the United States) on which the hardboard trim in
question is installed. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and
injunctive and other relief under various state law theories,
including negligence, violations of consumer protection laws, and
breaches of implied and express warranties, fraud, and unjust
enrichment. While some individual owners of structures within the
putative classes may have valid warranty claims, the company
believes that the claims asserted on a class basis are without
merit and it intends to defend these matters vigorously.
MCAFEE INC: Overcharges Auto-Renewal Program Customers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Williamson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. McAfee, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00158 (N.D. Cal.,
January 10, 2014) alleges that McAfee, Inc. has systematically
charged customers enrolled in its software "auto-renewal" program
higher prices than it charges other customers for identical
products, in violation of its contractual obligations and contrary
to its express representations concerning its Auto-Renewal
program.
McAfee, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Santa
Clara, California. McAfee is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Intel
Corporation. McAfee is one of the largest computer security
software companies in the United States and the world.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
Roger N. Heller, Esq.
Nicole D. Sugnet, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
rheller@lchb.com
nsugnet@lchb.com
- and -
Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
HATTIS LAW
1134 Crane Street, Suite 216
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 980-1990
E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT: Recalls Youth Jackets With Drawstrings
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 10, 2014
Posting date: January 10, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Strangulation Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-37437
Affected products: Various Youth Jackets with Drawstrings
The recall involves various youth jackets with these product
numbers:
Model Name Product Number
---------- --------------
Watershed Jacket 5027-855
Aquanator Jacket 5029-177, 5029-178, 5024-092
Freefall Jacket 5029-180
Apres Ski Parka 5029-182
Neve Down Jacket 5029-183
Neve Vest 5029-184
The recalled jackets have drawstrings at the neck, which pose a
strangulation hazard to children.
Neither Mountain Equipment Co-op nor Health Canada has received
reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these
jackets.
Approximately 11,729 jackets were sold at Mountain Equipment Co-op
locations across Canada.
The recalled jackets were manufactured in China and sold from
January 2012 to August 2013.
Companies:
Distributor Mountain Equipment Co-op
Vancouver
British Columbia
Canada
Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the jacket
to eliminate the hazard.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Not Allowed to Intervene in Supreme Ct. Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Supreme Court battle over college athletes' image rights may be
over before it even started after the justices rejected key
motions January 13, 2014.
Brewing since 2009, the case at hand involves a group of former
student-athletes challenging the National Collegiate Athletic
Association's use of their images in video games, merchandise and
other promotional materials.
Former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon filed the first
complaint in the case, alleging that the NCAA violated his and
other athletes' right to make money off their likenesses.
The NCAA's licensing arm, Collegiate Licensing Co., and the video
game company Electronic Arts were also named as defendants.
There are 25 named plaintiffs involved in the litigation today.
Four of the athletes claim that the NCAA violated their rights of
publicity by misappropriating their names and likeness, while the
other 21 say the NCAA violated antitrust laws by conspiring to
ensure they made no money off their likenesses.
Electronic Arts petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 23,
2013, regarding a similar case brought by former college football
quarterback Sam Keller, but three days later it and the CLC
settled with the athletes.
Since the NCAA had not been involved in the appeal, it told the
Supreme Court a month later that EA's settlement may mean "that
there will not be a party in the Supreme Court to raise the First
Amendment issues, as EA had done in the Ninth Circuit."
"The court should therefore allow the NCAA to enter the case and
continue to press the important First Amendment arguments," the
NCAA added.
In November, A&E Television Networks supported the NCAA's motion
alongside the Associated Press, National Public Radio, Bloomberg
and others.
The Supreme Court shot both the NCAA and the media groups down
without comment January 13, 2014.
Seth Waxman, an attorney for the NCAA who used to serve as
solicitor general, called the order "disappointing."
"But it is extremely rare for the court to grant a motion to
intervene," Waxman added in a statement. "The denial does not
speak to the court's views of the merits of the NCAA's First
Amendment arguments. We will continue to press those arguments
and our position in this important case more generally, as the
case proceeds."
The athletes' third amended consolidated class complaint remains
pending in the San Francisco courtroom of U.S. District Judge
Claudia Wilken.
Should EA withdraw its petition in light of the settlement, the
NCAA says it can again ask the Supreme Court to hear the case
after trial.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 840-5900
Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
E-mail: leonard@hbsslaw.com
rob@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Celeste H.G. Boyd, Esq.
THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
1340 Environ Way
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Telephone: (505) 501-8176
E-mail: cboyd@smplegal.com
- and -
Stuart McKinley Paynter, Esq.
THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
1200 G Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 626-4486
E-mail: stuart@smplegal.com
- and -
Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
Facsimile: (224) 632-4519
E-mail: doug@fklmlaw.com
rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Allan Steyer, Esq.
Donald Scott Macrae, Esq.
Gabriel Dash Zeldin, Esq.
STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
One California Street, Ste 300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 421-3400
E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
smacrae@bamlawlj.com
gzeldin@steyerlaw.com
- and -
Amanda Heather Kent, Esq.
Robert William Finnerty, Esq.
Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
GIRARDI AND KEESE
1126 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 977-0211
Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
E-mail: amarz@girardikeese.com
rfinnerty@girardikeese.com
tgirardi@girardikeese.com
- and -
Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
ARTHUR N. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES
111 West Second Street, Suite 4500
Jamestown, NY 14701
Telephone: (716) 664-2967
Facsimile: (716) 716-2983
- and -
Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Esq.
Bruce J. Wecker, Esq.
Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
Michael Paul Lehmann, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
44 Montgomery, Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: abailey@hausfeldllp.com
bwecker@hausfeldllp.com
mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
- and -
Hilary Kathleen Scherrer, Esq.
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: hratway@hausfeldllp.com
mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com
- and -
Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
Carmen Anthony Medici, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
E-mail: bonnys@rgrdlaw.com
cmedici@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
Thomas Kay Boardman, Esq.
PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-9000
Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
tboardman@pswlaw.com
- and -
Carl A. Taylor Lopez, Esq.
LOPEZ & FANTEL
1510 14th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122-4024
Telephone: (206) 322-5200
E-mail: clopez@lopezfantel.com
- and -
Catherine Rosato Reilly, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
1627 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 912-4836
E-mail: creilly@cozen.com
- and -
Christopher Theo Hellums, Esq.
PITTMAN DUTTON AND HELLUMS, P.C.
2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 322-8880
E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
- and -
Daniel Cohen, Esq.
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
507 C Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: danielc@cuneolaw.com
jonc@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Daniel Simon Mason, Esq.
Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Esq.
ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 633-1920
E-mail: ahou@zelle.com
dmason@zelle.com
- and -
Shawn D. Stuckey, Esq.
Mitchell J. Rapp, Esq.
ZELLE HOFFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
500 Washington Ave South, Suite 4000
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Telephone: (612) 339-2020
E-mail: sstuckey@zelle.com
mrapp@zelle.com
- and -
Derek G. Howard, Esq.
MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
360 Post Street, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 788-9000
Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
E-mail: dhoward@minamitamaki.com
- and -
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 923-9300
Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
- and -
Edgar Dean Gankendorff, Esq.
PROVOSTY & GANKENDORF LLC
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 410-2795
Facsimile: (504) 410-2796
E-mail: egankendorff@provostylaw.com
- and -
Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
1717 Arch St., Suite 3610
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 864-2144
Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
E-mail: emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 864-2800
Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
Jay S. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
Jeffrey Lawrence Spector, Esq.
William G. Caldes, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, PC
1818 Market Street, 25th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
jcohen@srkw-law.com
jcorrigan@srkw-law.com
jspector@srkw-law.com
bcaldes@srkw-law.com
- and -
Jack Simms, Esq.
Tanya Chutkan, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
5301 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
E-mail: tchutkan@bsfllp.com
wisaacson@bsfllp.com
- and -
Jay L. Himes, Esq.
Morissa R. Falk, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0834
E-mail: jhimes@labaton.com
mfalk@labaton.com
- and -
Joel Cary Meredith, Esq.
MEREDITH & ASSOCIATES
1521 Locust Street, 8th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 564-5182
Facsimile: (215) 569-0958
E-mail: jmeredith@mcgslaw.com
- and -
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
188 The Embarcadero, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 546-6800
Facsimile: (415) 546-6801
E-mail: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com
- and -
Renae Diane Steiner, Esq.
Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
310 Clifton Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Telephone: (612) 338-4605
Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
vesades@heinsmills.com
- and -
Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com
- and -
Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 779-1414
E-mail: aranoff@bernlieb.com
- and -
Seth Rosenthal, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
575 7th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 344-4741
E-mail: sarosenthal@venable.com
- and -
Stanley M. Chesley, Esq.
WAITE SCHNEIDER BAYLESS & CHESLEY
1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
1 West Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 621-0267
Facsimile: (513) 381-2375
- and -
Wilbert Benjamin Markovits, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
- and -
Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: acohen@lfsblaw.com
hsedran@lfsblaw.com
- and -
David Haym Weinstein, Esq.
Jeremy S. Spiegel, Esq.
Steven A. Asher, Esq.
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 545-7200
E-mail: weinstein@wka-law.com
asher@wka-law.com
- and -
Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
E-mail: dperelman@finekaplan.com
- and -
Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE
2001 Market St.
3300 Two Commerce Sq.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-0600
E-mail: grodos@barrack.com
jgittleman@barrack.com
- and -
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
Robert Joseph LaRocca, Esq.
KOHN SWIFT & GRAF P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
rlarocca@kohnswift.com
- and -
Karl Olson, Esq.
RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 433-4949
Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
E-mail: kolson@ramolson.com
- and -
Mindee Jill Reuben, Esq.
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF AND ASHER, LLC
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 545-7200
Facsimile: (215) 545-6535
E-mail: reuben@wka-law.com
- and -
Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
1835 Markel Street, 28th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
- and -
Tracy Tien, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
100 Bush Street, Ste 1450
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 398-8700
E-mail: ttien@finkelsteinthompson.com
- and -
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
505 Montgomery St., Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 398-8700
Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
- and -
Brian Douglas Henri, Esq.
HENRI LAW GROUP
624 University Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (650) 485-2767
Facsimile: (650) 485-2768
E-mail: brianhenri@henrilg.com
- and -
Gordon Ball, Esq.
LAW OFFICE GORDON BALL
7001 Old Kent Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
Telephone: (865) 525-7028
Facsimile: (865) 525-4679
E-mail: gball@gordonball.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert James Slaughter, Esq.
Daniel E. Jackson, Esq.
Robert Adam Lauridsen, Esq.
Robert Addy Van Nest, Esq.
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
E-mail: rslaughter@kvn.com
djackson@kvn.com
alauridsen@kvn.com
rvannest@kvn.com
- and -
Steven A. Hirsch, Esq.
KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
710 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
E-mail: shirsch@kvn.com
- and -
Glenn Douglas Pomerantz, Esq.
Kelly Max Klaus, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON
355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Telephone: (213) 683-9132
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
E-mail: glenn.pomerantz@mto.com
kelly.klaus@mto.com
- and -
Jeslyn A. Miller, Esq.
Justin Paul Raphael, Esq.
Rohit K. Singla, Esq.
Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES OLSON
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 512-4040
E-mail: jeslyn.miller@mto.com
justin.raphael@mto.com
singlark@mto.com
carolyn.luedtke@mto.com
- and -
Juan Carlos Araneda, Esq.
Jason Alex Geller, Esq.
MECKLER BULGER TILSON MARICK & PEARSON LLP
575 Market Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Facsimile: (415) 644-0978
E-mail: juan.araneda@mbtlaw.com
jason.geller@mbtlaw.com
- and -
Robert James Wierenga, Esq.
Frederick Richard Juckniess, Esq.
Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
Jessica Anne Sprovtsoff, Esq.
Kimberly K. Kefalas, Esq.
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
350 South Main Street, Suite 210
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 222-1507
Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
E-mail: rwierenga@schiffhardin.com
rjuckniess@schiffhardin.com
gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com
kkefalas@schiffhardin.com
- and -
Rocky N. Unruh, Esq.
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower, 32nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 901-8700
Facsimile: (415) 901-8701
E-mail: runruh@schiffhardin.com
- and -
David P. Borovsky, Esq.
Glen Robert Olson, Esq.
LONG & LEVITT LLP
465 California Street, Ste 500
San Francisco, CA 94104-1814
Telephone: (415) 397-2222
E-mail: dborovsky@longlevit.com
golson@longlevit.com
- and -
Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-1159
E-mail: mweiler@morganlewis.com
- and -
Suzanne Wahl, Esq.
MILLER CANFIELD PADDOCK & STONE PLC
101 N. Main St., 7th Floor
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 668-8938
Facsimile: (734) 663-8624
E-mail: swahl@schiffhardin.com
- and -
Amber Melia Trincado, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 318-1200
Facsimile: (415) 318-1300
E-mail: atrincado@kslaw.com
- and -
Christina E. Fahmy, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND AND STOCKTON LLP
607 14th Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005-2018
Telephone: (202) 508-5834
E-mail: cfahmy@kilpatricktownsend.com
- and -
Gregory S. Gilchrist, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND AND STOCKTON LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 576-0200
Facsimile: (415) 576-0300
E-mail: ggilchrist@kilpatricktownsend.com
- and -
Cindy Dawn Hanson, Esq.
R. Charles Henn, Jr., Esq.
Sara M. Vanderhoff, Esq.
William Howard Brewster, Esq.
KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 815-6470
E-mail: chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com
chenn@kilpatrickstockton.com
bbrewster@kilpatrickstockton.com
- and -
Constance K. Robinson, Esq.
Peter M. Boyle, Esq.
Svetlana S. Gans, Esq.
KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
607 14th Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 508-5822
E-mail: CRobinson@kilpatrickstockton.com
pboyle@kilpatrickstockton.com
sgans@kilstock.com
- and -
Courtney Elizabeth Curtis
James C. Potepan, Esq.
LECLAIRRYAN LLP
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 488-0503
Facsimile: (213) 624-3755
E-mail: courtney.curtis@leclairryan.com
james.potepan@leclairryan.com
- and -
Robert James Slaughter, Esq.
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
E-mail: rslaughter@kvn.com
The Supreme Court case is Keller, et al. v. Electronic Arts Inc.,
et al., Case No. 13-00377, in the United States Supreme Court.
The appellate case is Keller, et al. v. Electronic Arts Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-15387, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The lower court case is Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:09-cv-01967-CW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (Oakland).
NEW YORK, NY: Settlement in Suit Over NYPD Pension Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
New York City's plan to correct undercalculated pensions for
hundreds of police officers resolves class action claims, reports
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court
ruling.
The United States filed the 2012 lawsuit on behalf of three
officers with the New York City Police Department who were called
into active military service after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Before their retirements, David Goodman was a lieutenant colonel
in the U.S. Army Reserves and former NYPD detective; Michael
Doherty was a former U.S. Coast Guard reservist and NYPD
detective; and Robert Black was a former U.S. Coast Guard
reservist and NYPD sergeant.
Each of the officers said that he regularly worked overtime and
nighttime hours for the NYPD, but had his pension benefits
calculated using only base pay at the time he was called to duty.
The government said the calculations violated the spirit and
letter of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act of 1994. It called for recalculation of the pensions,
plus unspecified damages.
The U.S. Attorney's Office announced this past June that New York
City had agreed to recalculate the pensions for all similarly
situated retired, active or future officers.
There was no mention of monetary damages.
Officers cannot benefit from the settlement unless they were
notified about their pensions after Oct. 10, 2004 because of the
statute of limitations.
At a brief hearing on January 13, 2014, Robert Kwalwasser objected
that this wrongly left him out. He said that he was called to
serve between Sept. 17, 2001, and Feb. 15, 2003.
Kwalwasser retired in June 2003 and collected his first pension
check the next month, but his final agency approval had not
occurred until 2006.
U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan reserved decision on whether
this placed him within or outside the statute of limitations, and
he denied the objections of three other officers who did not
appear in court.
Kwalwasser declined to speak for an interview, saying that he was
awaiting the judge's ruling.
Calling the settlement a "big win" for the plaintiffs, the judge
asked the three named plaintiffs seated at the front table if they
were satisfied with it, and all three agreed that they were.
NEW YORKER: Recalls Home Heating Boilers Due to CO Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
New Yorker Boiler Company Inc., of Hatfield, Penn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 191 Gas-fired hot water boilers.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
The air pressure switch can fail to shut down the burners when
there is a blockage in the vent system, allowing the boiler to
emit excessive amounts of carbon monoxide and posing a CO
poisoning hazard to the consumer.
There is no injury that was reported.
The recall involves New Yorker Boiler PVCGA model cast iron hot
water boilers that use natural gas or liquid petroleum to heat
water for residential space heating. The boilers are green in
color, about 38 inches tall and about 26 inches deep and range
from 11 to 30 inches wide. The front cover of the boiler is
vented and has the New Yorker Boiler logo. Recalled boilers were
manufactured between May 2012 and February 2013. The model
number, serial number and manufacturing date are located on a
silver label on the inside panel. The manufacturing date appears
in the upper right corner of the silver label in the MM/YYYY
format. These model numbers and serial number ranges are included
in the recall:
Model Number Serial Number Range
------------ -------------------
PVCG50ANI 65320695 through 65383954
PVCG60ANI
PVCG70ANI
PVCG80ANI
PVCG90ANI
PVCG30API
PVCG40API
PVCG50API
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/TYD2fa
The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at sold at plumbing and heating wholesale distributors nationwide
from July 2012 through Feb. 2013 for between $1,600 and $3,200.
Consumers with recalled boilers should immediately contact the
installer or distributor from whom they purchased the boiler or
New Yorker Boiler Company to schedule a free in-home safety
inspection and repair. Consumers who continue using the boilers
while awaiting repair, should have a working carbon monoxide alarm
installed outside of sleeping areas in the home.
NUTRO COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Claims on Dog Food With Bacilli
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Nutro Company and Mars Incorporated are facing a class action
lawsuit filed by Damian Monteleone in the Superior Court of New
Jersey for Essex County.
According to Courthouse News Service, the lawsuit arises from the
Defendants' alleged false claims that their dog food contains
bacilli, which are good for dogs.
The Plaintiff is represented by Gordon & Rees LLP.
The case is Monteleone v. The Nutro Company, et al., Case No. L-
009885-13, in the Superior Court of New Jersey for Essex County.
PACER INT'L: Being Sold for Too Little to XPO, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Pacer International, Inc., is facing a purported class action
lawsuit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, in
connection with its proposed acquisition by XPO Logistics, Inc.
According to the companies' statement released on January 6, 2014,
under the terms of the proposed transaction, shareholders of Pacer
will receive $6 in cash and $3 of XPO Logistics common stock for
each share of Pacer common stock, subject to a price collar, for a
total market value of $335 million and a total enterprise value of
$296 million. The transaction is expected to close in the second
quarter of 2014, subject to regulatory clearance, Pacer
shareholder approval and other customary conditions. Pacer's
board of directors unanimously approved the transaction.
Founded in 1997, Pacer facilitates approximately 10% of all
domestic intermodal freight movements, and is the largest provider
of intermodal services between the U.S. and Mexico.
XPO is one of the fastest growing providers of transportation
logistics services in North America: the fourth largest freight
brokerage firm, the largest provider of heavy goods, last-mile
logistics, and the largest manager of expedited shipments, with
growing positions in managed transportation, global freight
forwarding, less-than-truckload brokerage and intermodal. The
company facilitates more than 20,000 deliveries a day throughout
the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
PINNACLE RENEWABLE: Pellet Plant Opponents Mull Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hewlett, writing for Kamloops Daily News, reports that
opponents of a Chase pellet plant say they would consider a class-
action lawsuit against proponent Pinnacle Renewable Energy Group
if the project were to proceed.
Jocelyn Nash is one of many Chase area residents dismayed by
village council's decision to rezone residential land on Aylmer
Road to industrial so the $40-million wood-pellet plant can move
forward. She and the project's other adversaries vowed not to
give up the fight, claiming the operation will pollute the
environment and harm residents and the region.
Village council made its decision at the end of November. Since
then, Ms. Nash has been in touch with West Coast Environmental Law
and representatives from the David Suzuki Foundation, which have
expressed interest in the Chase pellet plant. Ms. Nash said West
Coast Environmental Law would subsidize the lawsuit's legal cost
and connect the opponents with legal counsel.
As for the potential lawsuit, Chase Mayor Ron Anderson wouldn't be
surprised if opponents go down the road. Mr. Anderson believes 70
per cent of Chase residents are in favor of the pellet plant.
Those who don't support it are entitled to their opinion, he said.
The plant is expected to generate a minimum of $75,000 in tax
revenue and employ 25 people directly.
PREVOST: Recalls 235 Motorhomes Due to Defective Windshield Wipers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 7, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome, Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 235
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2013466
TC ID number: 2013466
On certain vehicles, the windshield wipers may fail. Loss of
windshield wiping capability, should it occur during a rainy/snowy
day, may compromise the driver's ability to see the road and its
users, which could result in a crash causing property damage
and/or personal injury. Dealers will replace the wiper motor.
Affected products:
Maker Model Model year(s) affected
----- ----- ----------------------
PREVOST H3-45 COACH 2012, 2013, 2014
PREVOST X3-45 COACH 2012, 2013
PREVOST H3 VIP MOTORHOME 2012, 2013
PREVOST X3-45 VIP MOTORHOME 2012
RUNNORTH: Recalls Polo Pyjamas (SAGA Label) Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 9, 2014
Posting date: January 9, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Affects children, pregnant or breast
feeding women
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Flammability Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-37441
Affected products:
Amerella/RunNorth Inc. polo pyjamas (SAGA Label)
Product description
The recall involves SAGA polo pyjama for boys. The sleepwear is
made of 100% cotton and can be identified by CA 52602. The recall
involves SAGA polo pyjama for boys. The sleepwear is made of 100%
cotton and can be identified by CA 52602. It comes in different
styles and sizes.
Polo pyjamas affected by the recall:
Style Number Description Size
1133249 LB (211-00252) Boy short sleeves V-neck
pyjamas set (SAGA label) 2/3, 4/5, 6/6X
1133535 LB (211-00253) Boy short sleeves V-neck
pyjamas set (SAGA label) 2/3, 4/5, 6/6X
1133249 BB (211-00254) Boy short sleeves C-neck
pyjamas set (SAGA label) 7/8, 9/10,
11/12, 13/14
1133535 BB (211-00255) Boy short sleeves V-neck
pyjamas set (SAGA label) 7/8, 9/10,
11/12, 13/14
Health Canada has determined that these products do not meet the
flammability requirements for children's sleepwear under Canadian
law.
Loose-fitting children's sleepwear can contact ignition sources
such as stove elements, candles, and matches more readily than
tight-fitting sleepwear. Once ignited, the sleepwear can burn
rapidly and cause severe burns to large areas of the child's body,
resulting in shock and sometimes death. Cotton is not permitted
in loose-fitting children's sleepwear.
Neither Health Canada nor Amerella/RunNorth Inc. has received any
reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of this
sleepwear.
Approximately 2,880 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada at various Hart Stores Inc.
The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold from
July to September 2013.
Companies:
Distributor RunNorth/ Division of Amerella of Canada Ltd.
Ville Mont Royal
Quebec
Canada
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
return them to where they were purchased.
SEARS HOLDINGS: Supreme Court to Hear "Butler" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
4-Traders reports that Chief Justice John Roberts and his
colleagues on the Supreme Court were scheduled on Jan. 10 to hear
arguments in two class-action cases, Sears v. Butler and
Whirlpool v. Glazer.
Both concern Whirlpool dishwashers sold by Sears, and both come to
the high court from lower circuits that essentially thumbed their
noses at the nation's most senior justices.
The nose-thumbing was in response to two decisions, Walmart v.
Dukes in 2011 and Comcast v. Behrend in 2013, in which the Supreme
Court set forth some much-needed ground rules for class-action
litigation. The justices said class actions must involve
questions of law or fact that predominate among members of the
affected class, and that there must be concrete class-wide proof
of that predominance. In Butler and Glazer, however, the 6th and
7th Circuit Courts of Appeals said the mere indication of a
product defect was sufficient to justify class-action litigation
on behalf of all who bought the product.
The alleged defect involved is a musty scent emitted by some of
the washers. It should be noted that the washers were among the
first designed by Whirlpool in compliance with energy-saving
regulations initially proposed by the Clinton administration and
promulgated by the Bush administration beginning in 2001.
Whirlpool has since sold more than four million of the units in
question. If the Supreme Court fails to exert its authority in
these two cases, incalculable damage will be done to American
manufacturing and jurisprudence.
SRAM LLC: Recalls Bicycle Chain Derailleurs Due to Loose Pivot Pin
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 10, 2014
Posting date: January 10, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-37445
Affected products: SRAM Bicycle chain derailleurs
The SRAM RED WiFLi Rear Derailleur is a device that moves a
bicycle chain gears on the rear wheel. The name SRAM RED and the
serial number of the derailleur are located on the back of the
inner pulley wheel cage plate and visible when looking thru the
spokes of the bicycle wheel.
Serial numbers of affected products begin with one of the
following four-digit codes:
-- 01T3 to 11T3,
-- 31T2 to 52T2,
-- 78T2.
The recalled derailleurs manufacturing dates are September 2012
through March 2013.
The rear derailleur's rear pivot pin can loosen or dislodge
causing the rear derailleur to jam or interfere with the wheel,
posing a fall hazard.
Neither Health Canada nor SRAM has received any reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of these products in
Canada. SRAM has received reports of 43 incidents in the United
States with one report of scrapes and bruises.
43 of the recalled products were sold in Canada.
The recalled derailleurs were manufactured in Taiwan and sold from
September 2012 to November 2013.
Companies:
Distributor SRAM, LLC
Chicago
Illinois
United States
Consumers should stop using bicycles with the recalled SRAM RED
derailleurs immediately and return the bicycles to the place of
purchase or any SRAM dealer for a free replacement, including
installation. Consumers who bought the derailleurs as a stand-
alone product can take them to the place of purchase for a free
replacement or, for those who can make the equipment change
themselves, contact SRAM for instructions on how to return the
recalled product for the free replacement.
STARCRAFT RV: Recalls 21 Comet Trailers Due to Wrong Tire Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 20, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Label
Units affected: 21
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2013463
TC ID number: 2013463
On certain camping trailers, the Compliance and Tire information
labels do not contain correct tire information. The labels
incorrectly indicate tire load range of C instead of D. As a
result, the vehicle may inadvertently be fitted with incorrect
replacement tires. Overloaded tires may lead to poor vehicle
handling characteristics, which could result in a crash causing
property damage and/or personal injury.
Updated labels will be mailed to owners of affected vehicles,
along with instructions for proper installation.
Affected products: 2014 Starcraft Comet
TARGET CORP: Attorneys Seek to Consolidate Data Breach Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that attorneys who filed class actions against Target Corp. over
its security breach last month have moved to coordinate the
swelling tide of litigation, estimated at nearly 50 lawsuits.
Target on Dec. 19 announced a breach in security involving debit
and credit card transactions at its stores across the country.
The breach potentially affected 40 million customers who made
purchases between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15 -- the peak of the holiday
shopping season. Target has said it was in touch with state
attorneys general, the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of
Justice in investigating what happened.
Daniel Becnel of Becnel Law Firm in Reserve, La., who filed a suit
on Dec. 24, moved the same day before the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to coordinate the litigation for pretrial
purposes in a federal district court in Louisiana.
Since then, other plaintiffs attorneys have moved to coordinate
the cases in districts in Utah and Illinois. The most recent
motion, filed on Jan. 9, seeks to coordinate in Minnesota, where
Target is based.
Target, which has retained Morrison & Foerster as national
counsel, is due to respond by Jan. 23. Four attorneys handling
the cases -- Los Angeles partner David McDowell --
dmcdowell@mofo.com -- co-chairman of the consumer litigation and
class action practice; and San Francisco partners Harold McElhinny
-- hmcelhinny@mofo.com -- Jack Londen and Michael Agoglia --
magoglia@mofo.com -- co-chairman of the financial services
litigation practice -- did not respond to a request for comment.
Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder declined to comment.
Target has issued public statements maintaining that the issue has
been "identified and eliminated." In court documents, Target has
estimated that as many as 48 lawsuits had been filed over the
breach.
The suits seek damages under various state laws for consumer
fraud, breach of contract and negligence in protecting the privacy
and personal financial data of its customers, now at risk of
identity theft. Most plaintiffs don't allege they suffered from
unauthorized charges on their credit cards due to the breach.
But the breach could have caused other damages, such as not being
able to use a credit card to pay utility bills and for Christmas
gifts, Mr. Becnel said.
Some plaintiffs have invoked the federal Stored Communications
Act, which provides statutory damages of $1,000 per violation.
"It provides consumers with redress if a company mishandles their
electronically stored information," said Rand Nolen of Houston's
Fleming, Nolen & Jez, who filed the motion to coordinate in
Minnesota.
The MDL panel's next hearing is scheduled for Jan. 30 in
New Orleans, although lawyers anticipate that the Target cases
could be heard during its March 27 hearing in San Diego.
TARGET CORP: Amherst Woman Joins Class Action in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
The Medina-Gazette and The Associated Press report that Michelle
Mannion, of Amherst, was one of the Target shoppers whose
information was stolen between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15, according to
the lawsuit filed on Dec. 31 in the Northern District of Ohio's
U.S. District Court. The lawsuit contends that Target did little
to notify customers of the breach and joins about 40 other suits
that have been filed nationwide.
Ms. Mannion's attorney, Steven Goldberg, Esq., declined to comment
on the lawsuit when contacted on Jan. 3.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement Objectors Agree to Drop Challenge
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that some of the most vocal objectors to the $1.6 billion
settlement with Toyota Motor Corp. have agreed to drop their
challenge in exchange for $1.5 million to research electronics
systems used in cars.
Two objectors to the settlement -- backed by the Center for Auto
Safety, a Washington nonprofit founded by consumer advocate Ralph
Nader, and the Consumers Union -- had argued that a $30 million
auto safety research fund established by the settlement
essentially endorsed Toyota's position that drivers, and not
defects in the electronic throttle control system of their
vehicles, were to blame for accidents. That dispute lay at the
heart of the litigation.
After U.S. District Judge James Selna approved the deal on July
24, 2013, rejecting those arguments, Maryland residents Allen
Snyder and Linton Weeks filed a petition with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Clarence Ditlow, executive
director of the Center for Auto Safety, filed a declaration
supporting the objectors.
Last month, the organization and the objectors reached an
agreement with members of the plaintiffs steering committee in the
underlying case. According to a court notice filed on Jan. 7, the
agreement requires that the five lead plaintiffs firms in the
sudden-acceleration litigation forfeit $1.5 million from their
attorney fees to finance research into automotive electronics.
Sharing the money would be the Center for Advanced Life Cycle
Engineering at the University of Maryland and the Automotive
Safety Research Institute, a nonprofit organization in
Charlottesville, Va., headed by Kennerly Digges, director of
biomechanics and automotive safety research at the National Crash
Analysis Center at George Washington University, which operates in
conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration and National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The plaintiffs firms are Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro;
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame, Calif.; Houston's Susman
Godfrey; Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis in Newport
Beach, Calif.; and San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein.
"Clarence Ditlow and others brought up some very important issues
regarding the need for safety research as part of the Toyota
settlement," Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman, said
in a prepared statement. "This was the last remaining issue that
awaited resolution before funds could be distributed to former and
current Toyota owners and lessees."
Mr. Ditlow and Mark Chavez -- mark@chavezgertler.com -- of
Chavez & Gertler in Mill Valley, Calif., who represents Snyder and
Weeks, did not respond to requests for comment.
The underlying settlement would resolve claims by consumers that
their cars lost value following the highly publicized recall of
about 10 million vehicles due to defective floor mats and gas
pedals.
Toyota has formulated a proposal to resolve another 450 sudden-
acceleration cases, brought on behalf of passengers and drivers
who were injured or died in accidents blamed on sudden
acceleration. Judge Selna has scheduled a Jan. 14 hearing on the
proposed process. Official responses to the proposal were due on
Jan. 8.
TREK BICYCLES: Recalls Madone Bikes Due to Loose Front Brake Bolts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 8, 2014
Posting date: January 8, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-37429
Affected products:
Model Year 2013 Trek Madone Bicycles
The recall involves certain model year 2013 Trek Madone bicycles,
including Women's Specific Design bicycles, with model numbers
5.2, 5.9, 6.2, 6.5, 7.7 or 7.9 and serial numbers starting with
WTU and ending with G or H. All colours are affected. Not every
bicycle of the affected models is affected. A list of all
affected bicycle serial numbers included in this recall can be
found on the firm's website.
Some of the recalled models are custom-ordered Project One
Madones. The model number is printed on the bicycle frame. The
serial number is printed on a sticker underneath the frame of the
bicycle.
A bolt in the front brake assembly may come loose causing the
brake to fail, posing a crash hazard.
Trek has received five reports of loose front brake attachment
bolts in the United States and none in Canada. No injuries have
been reported.
Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of these bicycles.
Approximately 530 bicycles were sold in Canada at various
independent bicycle retailers.
The recalled bicycles were sold from approximately July 2012 to
December 2013.
The bicycles were manufactured in the United States, Germany, and
Taiwan.
Companies:
Distributor Trek Bicycles Corporation
Waterloo
Wisconsin
United States
Consumers should stop using the recalled bicycles immediately and
contact their Trek dealer for a free replacement front brake
system.
U.S. BOILER: Recalls Home Heating Boilers Due to CO Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
U.S. Boiler Company Inc., of Lancaster, Penn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 26,000 in the United States and about
310 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.
The air pressure switch can fail to shut down the burners when
there is a blockage in the vent system, allowing the boiler to
emit excessive amounts of carbon monoxide and posing a CO
poisoning hazard to the consumer.
There were no incidents that were reported.
Description
The recall involves U.S. Boiler ESC, PVG and SCG model cast iron
hot water boilers that use natural gas or liquid petroleum to heat
water for residential space heating. The boilers are light blue
in color with black trim, about 40 inches tall, about 26 inches
deep and range from 12 to 31 inches wide. The model name and U.S.
Boiler logo are on the front cover of the boiler. The front cover
of the boiler is vented. Recalled boilers were manufactured
between December 2005 and February 2013. The model number, serial
number and manufacturing date are located on a silver label on the
top panel of ESC models and on the inside of PVG and SCG models on
the right side panel. The manufacturing date appears in the upper
right corner of the silver label in the MM/YYYY format. The
following model numbers and serial number ranges are included in
this recall:
Model Number Serial Number Range
------------ -------------------
ESC3 through ESC9 65249110 through 65382278
PVG3_P, PVG4_P and PVG5
through PVG9 64870666 through 65385748; 97939433
SCG3 through SCG9 35200197; 65283322 through 65858729
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Z87X0k
The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at plumbing and heating wholesale distributors nationwide from
December 2005 through February 2013 for between $1,700 and $4,900.
Consumers with recalled boilers should immediately contact the
installer or distributor from whom they purchased the boiler or
U.S. Boiler to schedule a free in-home safety inspection and
repair. Consumers who continue use of the boilers while awaiting
repair, should have a working carbon monoxide alarm installed
outside of sleeping areas in the home.
UNITED STATES: Sen. Rand Paul to File Class Action v. NSA
---------------------------------------------------------
FoxNews.com reports that Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is suing the Obama
administration over the National Security Agency's spying
practices in an effort to "protect the Fourth Amendment," he told
host Eric Bolling on Jan. 3 on "Hannity."
"The question here is whether or not, constitutionally, you can
have a single warrant apply to millions of people," Mr. Paul said.
"So we thought, what better way to illustrate the point than
having hundreds of thousands of Americans sign up for a class
action suit."
Mr. Paul said he began collecting signatures about six months ago,
and says it's "kind of an unusual class-action suit" because
everyone in America who has a cell phone is eligible to join in
the legal action, he said. He added that Ken Cuccinelli, the
current attorney general of Virginia who ran for governor last
year, is part of the initiative's legal team.
"We're hoping, with his help, that we can get a hearing in court,
and ultimately get this class-action lawsuit, I think the first of
its kind on a constitutional question, all the way to the Supreme
Court," Mr. Paul said.
The freshman senator says he wants President Obama to follow the
constitution.
UNITED STATES: Microsoft Challenges NSA Data-Mining Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Hechler, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the big
tech companies, including Microsoft Corporation, are challenging
the National Security Agency's data-mining program and demanding
the right to disclose what they've turned over to the government,
and what they haven't.
In December, Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, and other
tech executives met with President Barack Obama to discuss changes
they advocate. Two days earlier, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon
of the District of Columbia ruled that plaintiffs who had sued the
government over its bulk collection of telephone records had
standing to challenge the constitutionality of this effort, and
would likely prevail on their Fourth Amendment claim. Judge Leon
stayed his order, pending appeal.
Executive editor David Hechler interviewed Smith the day before an
advisory committee appointed by the president recommended that Mr.
Obama rein in the surveillance. An edited version of their
conversation follows.
Corporate Counsel: Judge Leon had two cases before him when he
wrote his opinion -- one involving telecom companies and the
second involving Internet companies, including yours. But he
denied the motion for a preliminary injunction in yours. Were you
disappointed?
Brad Smith: I was not disappointed or surprised. There were more
procedural issues in the second one. The reality is that everyone
has been focused on the first case.
CC: Do you agree with the judge's ruling?
Smith: I think it's a very well-reasoned and well-written
decision. I think it makes a number of important points. I
thought he did an extremely good job of framing the issues,
defining the points and offering a compelling rationale. I think
that ultimately this case is heading to the Supreme Court, and it
potentially will be one of the defining decisions of the first
quarter of this century when it comes to technology, privacy and
the law.
CC: Do you feel his ruling against the phone companies was helpful
to your company, even if Microsoft and the other Internet
companies weren't parties?
Smith: I'm not prepared to say that it was or was not helpful.
The question of bulk data collection is a key question that needs
to be grappled with in the United States and around the world. It
is framed with respect to telephone calls, but as we've seen in
Europe over the last decade through their data retention rules,
it's really an issue that is broader than phone calls alone.
CC: Is it not ironic and indicative of the ambiguities of the
relationships involved in this case that you sound very much like
you were pulling for the plaintiffs, even though Microsoft was one
of the private defendants in the related case?
Smith: I think there's a broader theme. You might say we're
embarking on something of a Software Century, if you will. It's
just part of everyday life that those of us who work in this
industry -- certainly those of us who are lawyers in this sector
-- need to manage the multifaceted, complex and sometimes even
competing relationships that are involved.
CC: A few years ago there was a scandal that led to a
congressional hearing in which Internet companies were accused of
providing the government with personal information about their
users. But back then, the government was in China. And Yahoo
took the most heat for turning over information on a dissident
blogger who was swiftly sent to prison. What does that situation,
which occurred in 2006, have in common with the current NSA flap,
if anything?
Smith: To me these questions should cause us to return to first
principles. One of the key first principles is: Who should decide
when a consumer's information is turned over to a government? I
think it is a mistake for companies to believe that they are the
decisionmakers. Ultimately it can only be governments that are
the decisionmakers. And they should make these decisions under a
legal framework in accordance with constitutional protection, and
with the kind of transparency that enables the public to have
confidence and real input into the decisions being made by the
people that they have elected.
Now, you do get into a second question in some places in the
world, which is: What do you do when the process that creates the
law is less similar to the kinds of processes that we see in
Western democracies? As an industry, we've worked with human
rights groups to fashion what's called The Global Network
Initiative. Going back to the year 2002, in the wake of 9/11, I
was new in this job, and I felt then as I do now: It's not
fundamentally our decision to make when it comes to turning over
consumer information. But it's a decision that should always be
made in accordance with the rule of law.
CC: Later, cyberattacks aimed at multinationals and linked to the
Chinese government was a big story. It grew even bigger when
Google pulled out of mainland China in 2010. At that point, the
U.S. government was warning companies and working to help protect
them from attack. The government was seen -- at least by the
public -- as your partners. Is that the way you saw things?
Smith: By definition, the relationship with any government is
always multifaceted. First and foremost, government is to define
laws and then apply them. One hopes that the government in each
country will advance what's good for its people. There are times
when one is going to be enthusiastically supportive of particular
government initiatives. There are times when one is going to be
concerned or worried or even in opposition to what a government is
considering.
CC: One difference now is obviously [former NSA contractor Edward]
Snowden. Are there other differences between the current
situation and those in 2006 and 2010 that you want to highlight?
Smith: I think what we're seeing today is information technology
becoming even more ubiquitous. If you go back to 2006, for
example, that was the year before the iPhone was offered. We now
live in a world in which people have a computer in every pocket or
every purse. It is an incredibly valuable tool. And yet it also
inevitably discloses every individual's digital footprint. So you
have a tool that does enormous good, and yet it can also raise
concerns. It can create the ability for people who don't have
consumers' best intentions at heart to use the information in ways
that consumers would not like. It can create new issues between
citizens and the state.
CC: Your company and a number of other big tech companies sued the
government in order to make public more information about the data
you share with the government. What do you hope to accomplish?
Smith: What we want to provide the public is more information
about the legal processes with which we are complying. We want to
be able show people how many orders we get, how many people are
affected, and the degree to which the content of their
communications is or is not affected by these orders. We believe
that this would help allay public concerns. We believe we have a
fundamental right to speak under the First Amendment. We believe
that this information can be shared in an appropriate way without
putting national security at risk.
CC: Is public relations the driving force behind what's going on
here, and was it provoked by the Snowden revelations?
Smith: There are three things that are important to recognize.
First, there has been a broadening discussion about these issues,
and about the desirability of more transparency, for some time.
Other companies over the last couple of years have been issuing
transparency reports. Microsoft did so in March. Second, it's
self-evident that discussions have changed over the course of this
year. But then third, I think it's important to step back and
reflect more broadly on two really important things. The kind of
discussion that is taking place today in many respects is almost
inevitable from a historical perspective. The fundamental
question is how to strike a balance between the public safety,
which is obviously critical, and our constitutional freedoms,
including the right of expression and a certain level of privacy.
Historically, these issues always arise first in moments of
national crisis. It happened in the Napoleonic Wars under
John Adams with the Alien and Sedition Acts. It happened in the
Civil War when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas
corpus. It happened in World War II when the government acted
with respect to Japanese-Americans. In the heat of a particular
moment, the pendulum always swings toward a greater focus on
security. When the moment passes, people step back and reflect on
where they've been. In the wake of 9/11, people acted to address
their concerns around safety and security. And here we are 12
years later -- they're asking where they want this balance to be
struck.
CC: What's different this time?
Smith: In the 21st century, the war against terrorism feels more
permanent than any wars that the country has fought before. We
have information technology being used in a ubiquitous way that
people in prior generations would have had a difficult time even
imagining. And this is genuinely a global issue. It is a mistake
to think that it is an issue for Americans alone. So we're in a
moment of time where it is absolutely the right thing to step back
and think about this in a broad way. There may be certain events
in 2013 that lit the fuse, but the fuse was there.
CC: Sometimes the government is on your side (and Microsoft has a
long history of working with government to combat crime, whether
it's spam or child abuse or cyberattacks). And yet sometimes your
cooperation with government looks to some civil libertarians and
consumer advocates as suspect -- a potential conflict with your
duties to your customers. How does a company like yours balance
the needs, wishes and demands of your various constituencies?
Smith: When the government knocks on our door -- regardless of
what country -- and asks us for information, my reaction is always
the same. If the government wants the data of our users, it
should pass a law. It should be public about the law that has
been passed. There should be transparency about the law that is
being applied. But fundamentally, it is the government's decision
to make. We'll then advocate for the principles in public
discussion that we believe best serve our users and technology.
That takes us back to this question of what I'll call public
communications. Every lawyer ultimately learns that everyone
needs to win a big case not only in a court of law but in the
court of public opinion. These issues have broad impact on the
population as a whole. It's obviously inevitable that these
issues will be discussed more broadly in the court of public
opinion. That's actually a good thing, in my opinion.
CC: What about the vulnerabilities of your technology? There's
been a good deal written about whether companies have worked hard
enough to prevent the government from exploiting backdoor access.
Smith: We've taken new steps to allay customer concerns about
so-called back doors, and these build on steps we've taken over an
extended period of time. When it comes to how technology works,
there have been a number of broad trends in our industry for
almost 15 years now pushing more sharing of information. We
created a program almost a decade ago, for example, called the
government security program. The purpose is so governments around
the world can inspect Microsoft's source code in key products and
satisfy themselves, for example, that there are no back doors or
trap doors. We've recently announced that we were expanding that
to create transparency centers around the world so that customers
can come in and inspect our code in additional ways to satisfy
themselves that they understood what was there and what was not
there. Of course, the ultimate sharing of code is open source
models. We do more of that than we used to. And there are many
others who do it to a greater degree than we do.
CC: Does a general counsel's job now require him or her to step
into these kinds of discussions? What about dealing with outside
counsel management? Isn't that enough?
Smith: [Laughs] The job of being a general counsel at a technology
company is really about working at the intersection of technology
and law and politics and business. One has to bring a broad
perspective to work every morning. It doesn't mean that one stops
ensuring that many very important processes are also handled well.
And certainly that would include the management of outside counsel
and, for that matter, the development and management of inside
personnel. But ultimately, if there's one thing that's clear, I
believe it's this: If you're leading a team, you by definition
must and will have the broadest perspective of everyone on the
team. You must look at the field as a whole. If you do a good
job, you can turn to other people who play major roles in specific
parts of it. But if you become so engrossed in a significant part
that you lose the ability to see the field, you're probably
creating a hole that no one else will be able to fill.
UNUM GROUP: Appeals Filed Over Damage Award in "Merrimon" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to a court judgment awarding damages based on a
benchmark it created in Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all
others similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of
America, the defendant filed an appeal to the First Circuit Court
of Appeals, and plaintiffs filed a cross appeal, according to Unum
Group's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.
In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others
similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maine. This class action alleges that the company breached
fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under certain group
life insurance policies when the company paid life insurance
proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts
rather than by mailing checks.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of beneficiaries under group
life insurance contracts that were part of the ERISA employee
welfare benefit plans and under which the company paid death
benefits via retained asset accounts. The plaintiffs' principal
theories in the case are: (1) funds held in retained asset
accounts were plan assets, and the proceeds earned by the company
from investing those funds belonged to the beneficiaries, and (2)
payment of claims using retained asset accounts did not constitute
payment under Maine's late payment statute, requiring the company
to pay interest on the undrawn retained asset account funds at an
annual rate of 18 percent.
In February 2012, the District Court issued an opinion rejecting
both of plaintiffs' principal theories and ordering judgment for
the company. At the same time, however, the District Court held
that the company breached a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries by
failing to pay rates comparable to the best rates available in the
market for demand deposits. The District Court also certified a
class of people who, during a certain period of time, were
beneficiaries under certain group life insurance contracts that
were part of ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and were paid
death benefits using retained asset accounts. A bench trial was
held on the issue of damages in June and July of 2013. In
September 2013, the court awarded damages based on a benchmark it
created by averaging the interest rates paid on money market
mutual funds and money market checking accounts. Based on these
averages, the court found that for certain periods of the class
the company should have paid additional interest and awarded
damages of $12.1 million and prejudgment interest of $1.3 million.
Subsequent to the court's judgment, in September 2013 the company
filed an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and
plaintiffs filed a cross appeal.
UNUM GROUP: "Ruben Don" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in Ruben Don v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America,
Wedner Insurance Group, Inc. dba The Morton Wedner Insurance
Agency removed the case to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, according to Unum Group's Nov.
5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.
In May 2013, a purported class action complaint entitled Ruben Don
v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Wedner Insurance Group,
Inc. dba The Morton Wedner Insurance Agency, and Does 1-30, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California insureds
who were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation
protection feature. The plaintiff alleges the company incorrectly
administered the inflation protection feature, resulting in an
underpayment of benefits. The complaint makes allegations against
the company for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of
Business and Professions Code 17200, and injunctive relief. In
June 2013, the company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. The
company is in the process of preparing our response to this
complaint.
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Faces Shareholder Suits in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weatherford International Ltd. continues to face shareholder
lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.
In March 2011, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:11-cv-
01646-LAK (SDNY), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, following the Company's
announcement on March 1, 2011 of a material weakness in its
internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes, and
restatement of the company's historical financial statements. The
Dobina complaint alleged violation of the federal securities laws
by the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors.
Also in March 2011, a shareholder derivative action, Iron Workers
Mid-South Pension Fund v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201119822, was
filed in Harris County, Texas, civil court purportedly on behalf
of the Company against certain current and former officers and
directors, alleging breaches of duty related to the material
weakness and restatement announcements. In February 2012, a
second shareholder derivative action, Wandel v. Duroc-Danner, et
al., No. 1:12-cv-01305-LAK (SDNY), was filed in federal court in
the Southern District of New York. In March 2012, a second
purported securities class action captioned Freedman v.
Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK
(SDNY) was filed in the Southern District of New York against the
Company, and certain current and former officers.
That case alleges violation of the federal securities laws related
to the restatement of the company's historical financial
statements announced on February 21, 2012, and later added claims
related to the announcement of a subsequent restatement on July
24, 2012.
*********
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 * * *