/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140210.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 28 Headlines AARON BROWN: Has 3 Weeks to Provide Details on Defense Fund AB&I FOUNDRY: Fixed Prices of Soil Pipe & Fittings, Suit Claims ANZ BANK: Court Set to Rule on Class Action Over "Exception Fees" APPLE REIT: REITs Litigation in New York Court Now Dismissed BANK OF AMERICA: "Triaxx" Suit Transferred to C.D. California BURGER KING: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation CIMAREX ENERGY: Administration of $16.4MM Accord Continues COMMERCIAL METALS: East Tulsa Neighborhood Mulls Class Action CONNECTICUT: Meriden Resident Mulls Suit v. Labor Department CVS PHARMACY: "Woods" Suit Removed to Calif. Central District DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Removed "Bergum" Suit to Montana Dist. Court FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Order in Suit Over Propane Service on Appeal FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Files for Bankruptcy Amid Class Actions GARIBALDI'S INC: Class Seeks Payment for Unpaid Minimum Wages GOLDMAN SACHS: "Admiral" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York GOLDMAN SACHS: "Ampal" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York GOLDMAN SACHS: "Big River" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York GOLDMAN SACHS: "Central Aluminum" Suit Moved to S.D. New York GOLDMAN SACHS: "Extruded Aluminum" Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. GOLDMAN SACHS: "F&F Customs" Suit Moved to S.D. New York GOLDMAN SACHS: "Hall" Suit Transferred to Southern New York GOLDMAN SACHS: "Seating Constructors" Suit Transferred to SDNY GOLDMAN SACHS: "Sunporch" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York GOLDMAN SACHS: "Talan Products" Antitrust Suit Transferred to SDNY GOLDMAN SACHS: "Welk-Ko" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York HALLIBURTON CO: High Court Ruling May Slash Securities Class Suits HARRIS RANCH: "Gonzalez" FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. HEARTLAND PAYMENT: 5th Cir. Remands MDL Over Security Breach HOSPIRA INC: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit in N.D. Ill. KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Settles Price Fixing Lawsuit for $35 Million KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Suit by "Los Gatos" Proceeds in Trial Court LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES: Removed "Huntington" Suit to S.D. Cal. LOCKWOOD INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Taylor" Suit Says M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit Over Merger Plan With Mindspeed MCAFEE INC: Charges More for Auto-Renewal Program, Customer Says NOVARTIS AG: Sued for Selling Excedrin Drug at Higher Price OKLAHOMA: License Revocation Cases Stack Up at Public Safety Dept OAKLAND RAIDERS: Cheerleaders Sue Over Wage Violations OREGON SCIENTIFIC: Removed "Ceballos" Suit to C.D. California PALLETS UNLIMITED: Did Not Pay Proper Overtime Wage, Laborer Says PIONEER NATURAL: Beverly, Shelton Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims PIONEER NATURAL: Still Faces Delaware Litigation Over Merger PLY GEM: Discovery in "Callahan" Suit Over V-Wood Windows Closed PLY GEM: "Hartshorn" Suit Over Freedom Windows in Late Discovery PLY GEM: "Pagliaroni" Suit Over Oasis Deck & Railing in Discovery PLY GEM: "Memari" Suit Over MW's Vinyl Clad Windows in Discovery SAFECO INSURANCE: Removed "Raffaelli" Suit to W.D. Arkansas SMALL PLANET: Faces Product Liability Class Suit in Florida SMITHFIELD FOODS: Seeks Court OK of Accord in "Payne" Suit SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Allos Shareholder Suit Now Dismissed STAR SCIENTIFIC: Faces Class Action Over Anatabloc False Claims TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "AFSCME" Class Suit Over Aggrenox ULTA SALON: Lawsuit by Hourly Employees Continues in California VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation in Deutsch, Katriel Suits Ongoing WORLD WIDE BUSINESS: Class Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime ********* AARON BROWN: Has 3 Weeks to Provide Details on Defense Fund ----------------------------------------------------------- According to VeloNation.com, further to the news that Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid have reactivated their court case against the journalist Paul Kimmage, VeloNation has received confirmation that Aaron Brown, who took possession of Mr. Kimmage's legal defense fund, has three weeks to provide full details of the current status of that fund to an American court. A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Brown, who was previously involved in one of the websites which set up the fund to help Mr. Kimmage in his defense against the Verbruggen/McQuaid defamation suit. In April 2013, it emerged that Mr. Brown had transferred the fund out of the PayPal account that originally housed it, and that he was refusing to turn it over to Mr. Kimmage or to a neutral third party. Bill Hue, a Wisconsin circuit court judge, cyclist and donor to the fund, took a class action lawsuit against Mr. Brown on behalf of the donors. Things are now moving forward and Mr. Brown now must provide proof that the fund is intact. The action against Mr. Kimmage began in January 2012 when Messrs. McQuaid and Verbruggen initiated legal proceedings against him, claiming they were defamed by articles in the Sunday Times and L'Equipe. He was issued with a summons on September 19th of that year, compelling him to attend a trial in Switzerland on December 12th 2012. Out of work and therefore lacking the financial means to defend himself, a fund for Mr. Kimmage was set up by the NYVelocity and Cyclismas websites to try to raise legal backing for him. That campaign was a big success, with a total of over $90,000 being donated by cycling fans and supporters. On October 26, 2012, days after it received and accepted USADA's reasoned decision on Lance Armstrong and the US Postal Service team, the UCI announced that it was putting the case on hold. That action was however only suspended, not definitively ended. Despite that, Mr. Brown refused to turn the funds over to a neutral third party, and instead claimed that he believed Mr. Kimmage would not need it. He justified his position by saying that he needed to retain the funds because he was involved in a legal dispute with Lesli Cohen, who co-founded Cyclismas with him. He also claimed that he was facing a potential tax liability for the money which had been donated due to an error in the way the fund was set up. Mr. Kimmage was furious, saying that he had no right to take the fund. He was clear that he felt betrayed by Mr. Brown, who had built up a prominent profile via his @UCI_Overlord Twitter account plus interactions with people in the industry, and who had stayed in Mr. Kimmage's home when he visited Ireland shortly before. Refunds now blocked by court: Although Messrs. McQuaid and Verbruggen never officially ended their case -- and have now restarted it -- Mr. Brown said several months ago that he was inviting those who donated to the fund to apply to him for a refund. He said that he would give back 70% of the donated amount. Ms. Cohen and Mr. Hue cautioned people against this, saying that the class action route was the only guaranteed way to ensure that money was indeed returned. On January 30 the trial court in Worcester, Massachusetts issued an order making clear that Mr. Brown could not continue to seek applications for a refund. "It is hereby ordered that defendants Aaron Brown and Siroque Holdings Inc. are hereby enjoined and prohibited from disbursing any funds whatsoever from the Paul Kimmage Defence Fund for any purpose until further order of this court, and this paragraph of the order shall be deemed effective from January 16th 2014, when it was issued from the bench," it stated in the legal document. It also said that the defendants [i.e., Brown and his Siroque Holdings company] needed to provide Ms. Cohen and Mr. Hue with full bank details of where the fund is held by February 25. He also needs to provide a full accounting of the fund, including all withdrawals. In turn, Ms. Cohen needs to provide the defendants with a list "containing what she understands to be the date and amount of each contribution to the Paul Kimmage Defence fund." The defendants then have fourteen days to either agree that list is accurate, or outline and prove any disagreements to that. AB&I FOUNDRY: Fixed Prices of Soil Pipe & Fittings, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Eastway Supplies, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. AB&I Foundry, Tyler Pipe Company, McWane, Inc., Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company, and Randolph Holding Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-00155-NC (N.D. Cal., January 10, 2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to unlawfully fix the prices of cast iron soil pipe and fittings from at least as early as January 1, 2006, in violation of the Sherman Act. AB&I Foundry is a division of McWane, Inc., with its principal place of business in Oakland, California. McWane, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of in Birmingham, Alabama. Tyler Pipe Company is a division of McWane, Inc., headquartered in Tyler, Texas. Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company is a North Carolina corporation based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Randolph Holding Company, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charlotte Pipe and is a Delaware limited liability company based in Charlotte. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com clebsock@hausfeldllp.com abailey@hausfeldllp.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com ANZ BANK: Court Set to Rule on Class Action Over "Exception Fees" ----------------------------------------------------------------- According to JURIST.org guest columnist Andrew Watson of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, a judgment is shortly due from the Federal Court of Australia in a class action suit that saw thousands of customers challenge the validity of these so-called 'exception fees' which have earned hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the ANZ Bank, one of Australia's largest banks. Why do banks charge late fees? Over limit fees? Honor and dishonor fees? Are they punishment for misbehaving customers or fees for services? The answer -- the reason the fees are charged -- is important because the class representatives rely upon the equitable doctrine of penalties, which for centuries has held that a liability to pay a sum of money is void if it is intended to punish a party for (or to put it another way, to dissuade a party from) breaking its word, rather than to compensate any consequential losses. The case will have ramifications for banks, other businesses across Australia and potentially across the globe. In September 2010, Australian law firm Maurice Blackburn launched the first in a series of class action lawsuits against the largest banks in that country, on behalf of what grew to around 185,000 class members, claiming repayment of an estimated $220 million (USD) in late payment and overlimit fees charged to credit card accounts and honor and dishonor fees charged to transaction accounts. The central argument was that the fees were repayable because they were "penalties." In common law countries and in the US, the doctrine of penalties was traditionally summarized thus: money payable upon a breach of a term of a contract is void as a penalty if it is imposed as security for performance of the term, in that it is in excess of a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss suffered as a result of the breach. Thus, the case alleged that these $20 or $35 fees (AUD) represented windfall profits greatly disproportionate to the real costs to ANZ of a customer missing a credit card payment or overdrawing an account. Two critical issues were identified early in the course of this class action litigation: one of law and one of fact. The legal controversy arose in respect of the scope of operation of the penalties doctrine. ANZ argued that its fees were not charged in breach of contract at all but that, on a true reading of its contracts, its customers were permitted to overdraw their accounts or pay late and that the fees were charged for these events, which it said were in fact services supplied to its customers. Class counsel argued that, on an accurate analysis of 900 years of English and Australian legal history, the doctrine was applicable irrespective of whether the fees were payable upon a breach of contract. The factual controversy concerned the quantum of the loss that could be suffered by ANZ as a consequence of the events triggering the fees: how much would it cost the bank when a customer was late in paying a credit card, or overdrew an account? Justice Michelle Gordon, sitting on the Federal Court, ordered the first legal controversy to be determined separately and in December 2011 found, in favor of the bank, that the doctrine only applied where a sum was payable upon a breach of a contract, and that credit card overlimit fees, and honor and dishonor fees charged on transaction accounts, were not payable upon such a breach. In favor of the class however, Justice Gordon also found that credit card late payment fees were payable upon breach. The applicants appealed Justice Gordon's decision to the country's highest court, the High Court of Australia, which in finding for the applicants in Andrews v. ANZ Banking Group Ltd in September 2012, held that the doctrine of penalties was not applicable only to sums payable upon breach of contract. In expressing the doctrine in a manner which significantly varied from its formulation over the course of English and Australian 20th century jurisprudence, the High Court embraced the broader concept of a "stipulation" as derived from Roman law's stipulatio: In general terms, a stipulation prima facie imposes a penalty on a party ("the first party") if, as a matter of substance, it is collateral (or accessory) to a primary stipulation in favor of a second party and this collateral stipulation, upon the failure of the primary stipulation, imposes upon the first party an additional detriment, the penalty, to the benefit of the second party. In that sense, the collateral or accessory stipulation is described as being in the nature of a security for and in terrorem of the satisfaction of the primary stipulation. If compensation can be made to the second party for the prejudice suffered by failure of the primary stipulation, the collateral stipulation and the penalty are enforced only to the extent of that compensation. The first party is relieved to that degree from liability to satisfy the collateral stipulation. Thus, the High Court preferred substance over form and analyzed the nexus between the triggering event and the payment of the sum in all the circumstances of the arrangements between the parties, irrespective of whether the "stipulation" is in the form of a contractual prohibition. Further, a truly consensual arrangement where a fee is charged upon the provision of a service or some other form of what the court in Andrews, termed 'accommodation' -- that is, if you get something in return for paying the fee -- will not be a penalty. This represents a departure from UK Authority which still limits the doctrine to circumstances of breach of contract. US law has created its own mechanism, via Restatement 2nd Sec. 356(c), for granting primacy to substance over form by recognizing a dichotomy between penalty provisions and arrangements which offer genuinely alternative modes of performance. In a nutshell, whether ANZ's fees fall within the scope of the Andrews penalties doctrine depends upon whether the exception fees are a detriment imposed on failure of a primary stipulation (e.g., "you must not overdraw your account") or simply a fee for a service. This controversy, and those that necessarily followed, including the quantification of the loss suffered by ANZ as a result of the events giving rise to fees, were the subject of a December 2013 trial before Justice Gordon. Class counsel retained a forensic accountant who gave independent expert testimony that ANZ's underlying costs were dramatically less than the fees in question. ANZ obtained its own expert testimony that those costs were dramatically in excess of those fees. The parties now await a decision. Given Justice Gordon's December 2011 judgment in which credit card late payment fees were held to be payable upon breach of contract, whether those fees are penalties depends upon whether they are in excess of their underlying costs. Credit card overdraft fees and honor and dishonor fees on transaction accounts will be penalties only if they are found to fall within the Andrews doctrine and are also excessive in light of underlying costs. Other statutory causes of action -- including allegations of unfair contract terms, unjust transactions and unconscionable conduct -- will also be determined. Banking industry analysts and consumer advocates both in Australia and overseas will be awaiting this important judgment which will shed light not only upon the claims of class members involved, but also upon claims of those who have signed up to similar actions launched by Maurice Blackburn against seven other Australian banks. More broadly, this judgment and the already influential Andrews decision will resonate through the legal departments of any companies which impose fees -- late fees, excess fees or others -- as a disincentive charged in order to shape customer behavior. The judgment is expected to be delivered in the coming months and will be available here and cited as Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. APPLE REIT: REITs Litigation in New York Court Now Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ The consolidated matter In re Apple REITs Litigation was dismissed in April 2013, according to Apple REIT Seven, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation. The District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012. The Company was previously named as a party in the Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. putative class action lawsuit, which was filed on June 20, 2011. On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of the Company and Apple REIT Six, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., David Lerner Associates, Inc., and certain executives of David Lerner Associates, Inc. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Units of the Company and Apple REIT Six, Inc., or those who otherwise acquired these Units, asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of written or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates, Inc. defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state securities laws. On March 13, 2012, by order of the court, Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. was consolidated into the In re Apple REITs Litigation. On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO, filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc. and David Lerner. The consolidated complaint, which was dismissed in April 2013, was purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other Apple REIT Entities, or those who otherwise acquired these Units that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates, Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida, and alleges that the Apple REIT Entities "misrepresented the investment objectives of the Apple REITs, the dividend payment policy of the Apple REITs, and the value of their Apple REIT investments". The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities laws of Connecticut and Florida. The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of a putative nationwide class and the state subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs and expenses. BANK OF AMERICA: "Triaxx" Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1 Ltd., et al. v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al., Case No. LC101132, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 00252-MRP-MAN to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that the offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Countrywide mortgage-backed securities they purchased from the Defendants contained misstatements and omissions in violation of the Securities Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dean N. Kawamoto, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com - and - Michael D. Braun, Esq. BRAUN LAW GROUP PC 10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 836-6000 Facsimile: (310) 836-6010 E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 53 State Street Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 570-1000 Facsimile: (617) 523-1231 E-mail: bpastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com - and - Teodora Manolova, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 426-2500 Facsimile: (213) 623-1673 E-mail: tmanolova@goodwinprocter.com BURGER KING: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------- Mary Reid, individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Employees v. Burger King Corporation, a Florida Corporation; and First Coast Foods, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-00042-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla., January 10, 2014) seeks to redress the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment practices, including sexual harassment and retaliation. Burger King Corporation is a Florida corporation. First Coast Foods, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company and was Ms. Reid's employer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin L. Williams, Esq. FELDMAN & MORGADO, PA Building 200, Suite 250 10151 Deerwood Park Blvd. Jacksonville, FL 32256 Telephone: (904) 240-4300 Facsimile: (904) 800-1188 E-mail: ben.williams@williamslawpa.com CIMAREX ENERGY: Administration of $16.4MM Accord Continues ---------------------------------------------------------- The administration of the $16.4 million settlement in Hitch Enterprises, Inc. et al. v. Cimarex Energy Co. et al. is ongoing, according to Cinemarex's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On December 11, 2012, Cimarex entered into a preliminary resolution of the Hitch Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Cimarex Energy Co., et al. (Hitch) litigation matter for $16.4 million. Hitch is a statewide royalty class action pending in the Federal District Court in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The settlement was reached at a mediation, which occurred after the parties began to exchange information, including damage analyses, on November 16, 2012. On July 2, 2013, the Court entered a judgment approving the parties' settlement. The judgment became final and unappealable on August 2, 2013. Cimarex distributed the settlement proceeds pursuant to the Court's order in September 2013 and the administration of the settlement is ongoing. In the fourth quarter of 2012, the company accrued $16.4 million for this matter. COMMERCIAL METALS: East Tulsa Neighborhood Mulls Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Vicent, writing for Tulsa World, reports that members of an east Tulsa neighborhood announced their intent to pursue a class action lawsuit against a local scrap metal company on Feb. 1 on accusations the company forced them to suffer significant damages to their homes and businesses because of unsafe practices. "All of our homes in the neighborhood have been affected," said homeowner Eileen Rowley to more than 10 of her neighbors during a community meeting at her home that afternoon. "We're trying to find people and bring them together." Residents of the neighborhood, which extends from East Latimer Street to East Pine and 155th East Avenue to 173rd East Avenue, allege Commercial Metals Co., known as CMC Recycling and located at 1804 N. 166th East Ave., has made the ground supporting their homes unstable because of constant seismic activity occurring when employees use certain equipment. Multiple residents at the meeting said efforts to reach the Environmental Protection Agency have been unsuccessful. That combined with Rowley's claim that CMC is "not taking them seriously" spurred the group to seek legal action, she said. The neighborhood is represented by Tulsa-based firm Pinkerton & Finn, P.C., and the group planned to meet with attorneys on Feb. 3 to begin the litigation process, she said. In a statement released to media on Feb. 1, CMC admitted its equipment has "frequent energy releases" resulting in loud blasts and that some of those occur because employees inadvertently process items with residual combustible materials through the shredder. However, CMC denied the shredder's use caused the homeowners' structural damages, claiming it owns structures in the immediate area that have not been damaged. "The shredder is designed to withstand and absorb most of the energy created from these events," the release says. "Unfortunately, we are unable to completely mitigate the noise created when this occurs. We constantly review our procedures for screening inbound material with the ultimate goal of reducing these events." Residents said they simply want their homes repaired and CMC held accountable, and they commended Ms. Rowley's spearheading efforts. CONNECTICUT: Meriden Resident Mulls Suit v. Labor Department ------------------------------------------------------------ Jesse Buchanan, writing for MyRecordJournal.com, reports that city residents who had their Social Security numbers mailed to unemployment income recipients by the state Department of Labor are considering a lawsuit over the mistake. Donna Tillbrook, a Meriden resident, said she's working to file a class-action lawsuit against the labor department "to make them more accountable." About 27,000 state residents received other people's names, addresses, Social Security numbers and tax information on forms mailed by the state Department of Labor. The department has blamed a data entry error for the mistakes and plans to offer credit protection to those affected. Affected ZIP codes include three in Meriden and three in Cheshire: 06408, 06410, 06411, 06450, 06451, 06454. Ms. Tillbrook said she's been contacting other Meriden residents through Facebook and has found people receptive to the idea of a suit. She's looking for a lawyer experienced in class-action lawsuits. William Bloss, a trial attorney with Koskoff, Koskoff and Beider, said a class action suit might be more difficult if there are no financial or emotional damages. Class action suits are meant to bring together cases where the facts are substantially similar, Mr. Bloss said, to ease the burden on courts. A judge could rule that someone with damages and someone without damages aren't in the same class. A class action lawsuit of people who can't show any damage is also a weaker case, he said. Another hurdle to a suit would be the sovereign immunity of the state. The government can only be sued with its consent, Mr. Bloss said, given either by the state Claims Commissioner or the legislature. "The first thing I'd do is see whether under state or federal law, the state has immunity," Mr. Bloss said. Ms. Tillbrook is a former Aetna employee and worked in the IT department. She hopes a lawsuit will prompt changes at the labor department and perhaps remove Social Security numbers from mailings. CVS PHARMACY: "Woods" Suit Removed to Calif. Central District ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Elizabeth Woods, et al. v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., et al., Case No. BC526977, was removed from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00259-PA-RZ to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges labor law violations. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq. Michael D. Seplow, Esq. Vincent James DeSimone, Esq. SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HARRISON LLP 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, CA 90291 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 Facsimile: (310) 399-7040 E-mail: amcglaze.sdshhh@gmail.com mseplow@gmail.com vjdesimone@gmail.com - and - Alireza Alivandivafa, Esq. Azadeh C. Dadgostar, Esq. Hirad D. Dadgostar, Esq. DADGOSTAR LAW LLP 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Fourth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 820-1022 Facsimile: (310) 820-1088 E-mail: aalivandi@gmail.com azadeh@dadgostarlaw.com hirad@dadgostarlaw.com - and - Jon D. Henderson, Esq. Michael Hagop Boyamian, Esq. Thomas Walker Falvey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS FALVEY 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 800 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-0205 Facsimile: (626) 795-3096 E-mail: hendersonj2004@gmail.com mike.falveylaw@gmail.com thomaswfalvey@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Douglas Roger Hart, Esq. Heidi Catherine Larson Howell, Esq. Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 E-mail: dhart@sidley.com hlarsonhowell@sidley.com jzargarof@sidley.com DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Removed "Bergum" Suit to Montana Dist. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Bergum v. DePuy Orthopaedics, et al., Case No. ADV-2013-65, was removed from the Montana First Judicial District Court, L&C County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana (Helena). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-00003-CCL to the proceeding. Mr. Bergum alleges that the DePuy ASR Hip System was, by design, manufacture or lack of warning, in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to him, as evidenced by its failure and national recall. As a result, he contends, DePuy is strictly liable for all injuries and damages caused by the failure. DePuy Orthopaedics, Incorporated, a division of the Johnson and Johnson Company, is an Indiana corporation and does business in the state of Montana. DePuy sells orthopedic supplies, including artificial joints to residents of Montana. DePuy designed, manufactured, distributed and sold the ASR Hip System in 2006. The Plaintiff is represented by: John E. Bohyer, Esq. Nathan Fluter, Esq. Paul N. Tranel, Esq. BOHYER, ERICKSON, BEAUDETTE & TRANEL, P.C. 283 West Front Street, Suite 201 PO Box 7729 Missoula, MT 59807 Telephone: (406) 532-7800 Facsimile: (406) 549-2253 E-mail: mail@bebtlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffry M. Foster, Esq. Maxon R. Davis, Esq. DAVIS HATLEY HAFFEMAN & TIGHE PO Box 2103 101 River Drive North The Milwaukee Station, 3rd Floor Great Falls, MT 59401-2103 Telephone: (406) 761-5243 Facsimile: (406) 761-4126 E-mail: jeff.foster@dhhtlaw.com max.davis@dhhtlaw.com FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Order in Suit Over Propane Service on Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case filed against Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. in the United States District Court in Kansas over the existence of an oral contract for continuous propane service is currently on appeal before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's Dec. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013. The company has also been named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Kansas. The complaint was the subject of a motion to dismiss which was granted, in part, in August, 2011. The surviving claims allege breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, both of which allegedly arise from the existence of an oral contract for continuous propane service. The company believes that the claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. The case, which has not been certified for class treatment, is currently on appeal before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals following the denial of a motion to arbitrate the individual plaintiff's claim. The company does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to this putative class action lawsuit. FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Files for Bankruptcy Amid Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Freedom Industries on Jan. 29 filed a suggestion of bankruptcy in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston. "The United States Bankruptcy Code, Section 362(a) (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) provide that the filing of a petition operates as a stay of the continuation of any action or proceeding against the debtor, any action or proceeding to recover a claim against the debtor to enforce a judgment obtained that arose before the commencement of the case, to create, perfect or enforce any lien, or to collect or recover a claim that arose before the commencement of the case," the document states. Freedom Industries, which is connected to the chemical spill that tainted the water supply in West Virginia, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Jan. 17. Its president, Gary Southern, signed the bankruptcy petition, which estimated Freedom's debts at $10 million or less. Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the cost of the water contamination disaster is likely to run much higher. The report notes that on Jan. 9 thousands of gallons of a chemical called crude MCHM contaminated the water supply for hundreds of thousands of West Virginia's residents. Bankruptcy offers Freedom a break from having to answer the suits, some of which demand punitive damages. It also opens the door to court-supervised probes into what led to the disaster and what resources are available to pay any damages. The plaintiffs in lawsuits against Freedom are seeking an injunction ordered the defendants to remove all sources of contamination from the Freedom facility; an injunction ordering WVAW to complete a risk assessment of the pollution risks upstream from its water intake on the Elk River and take the appropriate steps to ameliorate and reduce those risks to an acceptable level to ensure public safety in the future; an injunction ordering Eastman to complete a competent and thorough toxicological analysis of the risks to human health from 4-MCHM and to make changes to its published MSDS sheets accordingly; an order certifying this action to proceed as a class action; compensatory and punitive damages; and an order establishing a medical monitoring program. The plaintiffs are being represented by Kevin W. Thompson and David R. Barney Jr. of Thompson Barney; Van Bunch -- vbunch@bffb.com -- of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC in Phoenix; and P. Rodney Jackson of the Law Offices of Rod Jackson. Freedom is being represented by Stephen L. Thompson -- sthompson@barth-thompson.com -- and J. Nicholas Barth -- nbarth@barth-thompson.com -- of Barth & Thompson. The case has been assigned to District Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is also investigating the chemical spill, along with U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia Booth Goodwin. At least 20 class action lawsuits have also been filed in Kanawha Circuit Court because of the water contamination. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston case number: 2:14-cv-01374 GARIBALDI'S INC: Class Seeks Payment for Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Miller, on his own behalf and all similarly situated individuals v. Garibaldi's, Inc., a Georgia for-profit corporation, and The Olde Pink House, Inc., a Georgia for-profit corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-00007-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga., January 10, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt tipped employees of the Defendants are entitled to unpaid minimum wages from the Defendants for work for which they did not receive proper minimum wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Garibaldi's Inc. and The Olde Pink House, Inc., are Georgia for- profit corporations. Garibaldi's operates a restaurant in Savannah, Georgia, known as Garibaldi Cafe. TOPH operates a restaurant in Savannah, Georgia, known as The Olde Pink House. The Defendants are both operated by a restaurant group that operates restaurants in Savannah, Georgia; Columbia, South Carolina; and Charleston, South Carolina, known as the Dining Group South. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Jay D. Brownstein, Esq. BROWNSTEIN & NGUYEN, LLC 2010 Montreal Road Tucker, GA 30084 Telephone: (678) 921-0143 Facsimile: (770) 458-9060 E-mail: jdb@bnlawga.com GOLDMAN SACHS: "Admiral" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Admiral Beverage Corporation v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14785, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00213-KBF to the proceeding. The action arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to limit and restrain the availability of aluminum and artificially inflate the price of aluminum, including the Midwest Transaction Premium, during the period of at least January 1, 2009, through the present. New York-based Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base. Through December 2012, Goldman Sachs was the largest London Metal Exchange principal. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 101 N. Main Street, Suite 565 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 769-2144 Facsimile: (734) 769-1207 E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com - and - Gerald Lawrence, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2977 Telephone: (610) 941-2760 Facsimile: (610) 862-9777 E-mail: glawrence@lowey.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq. Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq. Raymond Girnys, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. One North Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com ghorn@lowey.com pstphillip@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 South Main Street, Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1506 Facsimile: (734) 222-1501 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com GOLDMAN SACHS: "Ampal" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action lawsuit styled Ampal, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14067, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00185-KBF to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges that in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Defendants have combined, conspired or agreed with one another and other persons to restrain aluminum supplies in LME Detroit Warehousing and inflate aluminum prices, including the Platts MW Midwest Premium or Midwest Premium or Midwest Transaction premium price. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com pbarile@gelaw.com - and - Christopher Lovell, Esq. Benjamin M. Jaccarino, Esq. Amanda N. Miller, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 61 Broadway, Suite 501 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 Facsimile: (212) 719-4677 (fax) E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com bjaccarino@lshllp.com amiller@lshllp.com - and - Craig Essenmacher, Esq. Keith Essenmacher, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 162 E. Main Street Northville, MI 48167 Telephone: (248) 615-1752 Facsimile: (248) 928-0909 E-mail: cessenmacher@lshllp.com kessenmacher@lshllp.com - and - Eric B. Fastiff, Esq. Dean M. Harvey, Esq. Lin Y. Chan, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com dharvey@lchb.com lchan@lchb.com - and - Harold Z. Gurewitz, Esq. GUREWITZ & RABEN, PLC 333 West Fort Street, Suite 1100 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 628-4733 Facsimile: (313) 628-4701 E-mail: hgurewitz@grplc.com The Defendant is represented by: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 South Main Street, Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1506 Facsimile: (734) 222-1501 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com GOLDMAN SACHS: "Big River" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The putative class action lawsuit captioned Big River Outfitters, LLC v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14036, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00178-KBF to the proceeding. The antitrust case arises from the Defendants' alleged combination, conspiracy or agreement with one another and other persons to restrain aluminum supplies in Goldman's London Metal Exchange Detroit warehouses to inflate aluminum prices, including the Midwest Price Premium. The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Doyle, Esq. James R. Hail, Esq. Christopher W. Cantrell, Esq. DOYLE LOWTHER LLP 10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (858) 935-9960 E-mail: bill@doylelowther.com jim@doylelowther.com ccantrell@doylelowther.com - and - Alan Mcquarrie Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 160 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (619) 308-5034 Facsimile: (855) 274-1888 E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com - and - Abraham Singer, Esq. KITCH DRUTCHAS WAGNER VALITUTTI & SHERBROOK One Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 965-7445 E-mail: Abraham.Singer@kitch.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 South Main Street, Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1506 Facsimile: (734) 222-1501 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com GOLDMAN SACHS: "Central Aluminum" Suit Moved to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Central Aluminum Company v. Goldman Sachs Group, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14811, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00215-KBF to the proceeding. The antitrust class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers, who paid artificially inflated prices for aluminum due to the Defendants' alleged collusion and manipulation of the Platts Midwest Premium. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM 505 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com - and - Thomas H. Howlett, Esq. Dean M. Googasian, Esq. GOOGASIAN LAW FIRM 6895 Telegraph Road Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301-3138 Telephone: (248) 540-3333 Facsimile: (248) 540-7213 E-mail: thowlett@googasian.com dgoogasian@googasian.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 South Main Street, Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1506 Facsimile: (734) 222-1501 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com GOLDMAN SACHS: "Extruded Aluminum" Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Extruded Aluminum Corporation v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14787, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00214-KBF to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges that from February 1, 2010, forward, the Defendants combined, conspired or agreed with one another and other persons to restrain aluminum supplies in LME Detroit Warehousing and inflate aluminum prices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. (NY) 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com GOLDMAN SACHS: "F&F Customs" Suit Moved to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action lawsuit titled F&F Custom Boats, LLC v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14194, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00199-KBF to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges antitrust law violations. The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Doyle, Esq. James R. Hail, Esq. Christopher W. Cantrell, Esq. DOYLE LOWTHER LLP 10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (858) 935-9960 E-mail: bill@doylelowther.com jim@doylelowther.com ccantrell@doylelowther.com - and - Alan Mcquarrie Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 160 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (619) 308-5034 Facsimile: (855) 274-1888 E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com - and - Abraham Singer, Esq. KITCH DRUTCHAS WAGNER VALITUTTI & SHERBROOK One Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 965-7445 E-mail: Abraham.Singer@kitch.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 488-8854 Facsimile: (281) 488-8867 E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com - and - Scott E. Poynter, Esq. Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. William T. Crowder, Esq. Corey D. McGaha, Esq. 1301 Scott Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 Facsimile: (501) 907-2556 E-mail: scott@emersonpoynter.com cjennings@emersonpoynter.com wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com - and - David G. Scott, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID G. SCOTT, PLLC 652 Cash Road SW Camden, AR 71701 Telephone: (870) 836-8900 Facsimile: (870) 836-5900 E-mail: David@davidgscott.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 South Main Street, Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1506 Facsimile: (734) 222-1501 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com GOLDMAN SACHS: "Hall" Suit Transferred to Southern New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit styled Hall Enterprises Metals, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14839, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00216-KBF to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of antitrust laws. The Plaintiff contends that since at least as early as February 19, 2010, and continuing into the present, the Defendants have been engaged in a contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade in the market for aluminum and aluminum storage services in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Solomon B. Cera, Esq. GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER, LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94015 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 Facsimile: (415) 777-5189 E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com GOLDMAN SACHS: "Seating Constructors" Suit Transferred to SDNY -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Seating Constructors USA, Inc. v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14087, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00191-KBF to the proceeding. The antitrust class action brought to recover for injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and Class Members resulting from the Defendants' per se violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have, since no later than January 1, 2011, violated the Sherman Act by conspiring to manipulate and restrain the market for aluminum. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is an international financial company headquartered in New York. Goldman trades physical aluminum and other base metals for itself as a principal and for its clients by means of trading in a variety of derivative products that derive their value from the underlying asset prices of aluminum. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Wienner, Esq. WIENNER & GOULD, PC 950 W. University Dr. Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-9400 Facsimile: (248) 652-2729 E-mail: twienner@wiennergould.com David Guin, Esq. Tammy Stokes, Esq. GUIN STOKES & EVANS, LLC 505 20th Street North, Suite 1000 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 226-2282 Facsimile: (205) 226-2357 E-mail: davidg@gseattorneys.com tstokes@gseattorneys.com Charles R. Watkins, Esq. GUIN STOKES & EVANS, LLC 321 S. Plymouth Ct., Suite 1250 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 878-8391 E-mail: charlesw@dglawfirm.com Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq. MCCALLUM METHVIN TERRELL, PC The Highland Building 2201 Arlington Ave. South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-3006 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: rgm@mmlaw.net Chris T. Hellums, Esq. PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS, PC 1100 Park Place Tower 2001 Park Place North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com Jeffrey L. Bowling, Esq. BEDFORD, ROGERS & BOWLING, PC 303 North Jackson St. P.O. Box 669 Russellville, AL 35653-0669 Telephone: (256) 332-2880 E-mail: jeffbrbpc@bellsouth.net Michael M. Mulder, Esq. MEITES MULDER 321 South Plymouth Court, Suite 1250 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 263-0272 Facsimile: (312) 263-2942 E-mail: mmmulder@meitesmulder.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 South Main Street, Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1506 Facsimile: (734) 222-1501 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com GOLDMAN SACHS: "Sunporch" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit captioned Sunporch Structures, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14517, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00205-KBF to the proceeding. The case is a federal antitrust class action brought on behalf of all persons and entities, who purchased primary aluminum on the spot market at prices linked to or explicitly incorporating London Metal Exchange prices, including the Platts MW US Transaction Premium price and the Platts MW US net-cash premium. New York-based Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Darryl Bressack, Esq. FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW 100 West Long Lake Road, Suite 111 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com - and - Steven A. Kanner, Esq. Douglas A. Millen, Esq. Michael L. Silverman, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com dmillen@fklmlaw.com msilverman@fklmlaw.com - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com bcaldes@srkw-law.com jjagher@srkw-law.com jspector@srkw-law.com - and - Guido Saveri, Esq. R. Alexander Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6810 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 E-mail: guido@saveri.com rick@saveri.com cadio@saveri.com - and - Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 South Main Street, Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1506 Facsimile: (734) 222-1501 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com GOLDMAN SACHS: "Talan Products" Antitrust Suit Transferred to SDNY ------------------------------------------------------------------ The purported class action lawsuit titled Talan Products, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-13925, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00176-KBF to the proceeding. Talan Products, Inc. accuses the Defendants of monopolizing and attempting to monopolize domestic aluminum supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyson Oliver, Esq. Lisa Gray, Esq. OLIVER LAW GROUP, PC 950 W. University, Suite 200 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 327-6556 E-mail: aoliver@oliverlg.com lgray@oliverlg.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Jason S. Kilene, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com jkilene@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com - and - Andrew R. Mayle, Esq. MAYLE, RAY & MAYLE LLC 210 South Front Street Fremont, OH 43420 Telephone: (419) 334-8377 E-mail: amayle@malyeraymayle.com - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Gary Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (855) 926-2889 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com gmason@wbmllp.com - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com - and - Yvonne Flaherty, Esq. W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Heidi Silton, Esq. LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com wjbruckner@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 South Main Street, Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1506 Facsimile: (734) 222-1501 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com GOLDMAN SACHS: "Welk-Ko" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled Welk-Ko Fabricators, Inc., et al. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-13878, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00159-KBF to the proceeding. The case asserts antitrust claims. The Plaintiffs allege that from February 1, 2010, forward, the Defendants exercised their market power, and combined, conspired, and agreed to artificially limit and restrain the availability of aluminum supplies in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brendan H. Frey, Esq. David F. Hansma, Esq. David M. Honigman, Esq. Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN & WILLIAMSON, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 Facsimile: (248) 457-9201 E-mail: bfrey@manteselaw.com dhansma@manteselaw.com dhonigman@manteselaw.com gmantese@manteselaw.com - and - Joel Davidow, Esq. KILE GOEKJIAN REED & MCMANUS PLLC 1200 New Hampshire Ave, Suite 570 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 263-0806 Facsimile: (202) 659-8822 E-mail: joel@cuneolaw.com - and - Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 620 Fifth Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com - and - Jennifer E. Kelly, Esq. Victoria Romanenko, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jkelly@cuneolaw.com vicky@cuneolaw.com - and - Yifei Li, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street NE Washington D.C., DC 20002 Telephone: (571) 319-6195 E-mail: evelyn.li@cuneolaw.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Dewitt M. ("Sparky") Lovelace, Esq. Valerie L. Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 12870 US Hwy 98 West, Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850)837-6020 E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com valerie@lovelacelaw.com - and - Gordon Ball, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GORDON BALL 7001 Old Kent Drive Knoxville, TN 37919 Telephone: (865)525-7028 E-mail: gball@gordonball.com - and - Patrick W. Pendley, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P. P.O. Drawer 71 Plaquemine, LA 70765 Telephone: (225) 687-6396 E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. Paul Sand, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com psand@larsonking.com - and - Lawrence J. Friscia, Esq. FRISCIA & ASSOCIATES LLC 45 Academy Street, Suite 401 Newark, NJ 07102 E-mail: lawrence.friscia@friscialaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 South Main Street, Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1506 Facsimile: (734) 222-1501 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com HALLIBURTON CO: High Court Ruling May Slash Securities Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ David M. Katz, writing for CFO.com, reports that just months after the Supreme Court begins hearing arguments in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund on March 5, CFOs could suddenly find that their companies have much smaller legal risks, fees and insurance costs, attorneys say. The reason? If the nation's highest court rules in favor of Halliburton, it could deal a coup de grace to a prime theory that plaintiffs' lawyers rely on to amass federal securities class- action suits against companies whose representatives have allegedly made materially false, market-moving statements to shareholders. In the case, Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, the Supreme Court will decide whether it should overrule or make big changes in the longstanding "fraud-on-the-market presumption." A relative of the "efficient markets hypothesis," the theory enables plaintiffs to form a class without having to prove that each investor suffered financial loss resulting from a company's misleading statements. Instead, the Supreme Court previously ruled, courts can presume that the share price set by the stock market as a whole takes into account the effects of such information. The stakes for corporations of the court's decision on its own 25- year-old ruling in Basic Inc. v. Levinson are high. "If Halliburton prevails, then the entire ecology of the market for class-action securities-fraud litigation is likely to undergo a dramatic change," Joseph Grundfest, director of The Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, is quoted as saying in the just-released annual review of securities class-action filings (done in cooperation with Cornerstone Research). If the court goes along with what Halliburton is requesting, "it will really be fairly devastating for the plaintiffs' bar in securities class actions," says C. William Phillips, an attorney with Covington & Burling who represents companies in such cases. In the case the Supreme Court will hear, the lead plaintiff, the Erica P. John Fund, which supports the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee, contends that Halliburton, the oil-services company, misrepresented itself in three ways: its potential liability in asbestos litigation; its accounting for revenue on fixed-price construction contracts; and its potential benefits from a merger. The fund maintains that shareholders lost money when Halliburton's stock price dropped following the release of negative news concerning the misrepresentations. Noting that securities class actions "have been the subject of tightening and limiting by the courts and Congress" since the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act became law in 1995, Phillips said that if the Supreme Court rules with Halliburton, "you won't have anywhere near as many" securities class actions based on misrepresentation as occur now. (In 2013, about one in 29 companies in the S&P 500 was a defendant in a class-action filed during the year, according to the Cornerstone report.) The effects of a pro-Halliburton ruling "will be reflected not only in fewer payments to settle litigation, to lawyers to litigate, but also in the insurance premiums needed to insure against the risk," he says. * * * Emily V. Myers, Esq. -- emyers@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker & Hostetler LLP reports that NERA Economic Consulting released its annual report, "Recent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2013 Full-Year Review." The report showed that in 2013, there were increases in both the number of federal securities class actions filed and the average settlement amount. However, these trends might not be on the rise for long. Despite the blow dealt to class action defendants last year in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, the Supreme Court's second granting of certiorari in Halliburton Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. might just move next year's numbers in defendants' favor. To recover damages in a private securities-fraud action under Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must prove: 1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; 2) scienter; 3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; 4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; 5) economic loss; and 6) causation. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 131 S.Ct. 2179 (2011). "Reliance" is satisfied by "fraud-on-the-market," a theory endorsed by the Supreme Court in Basic v. Levinson. The fraud-on-the-market theory says that if a market is shown to be efficient, courts may presume that investors who traded securities in that market relied on public, material misrepresentations regarding those securities. This theory "facilitates class certification by recognizing a rebuttable presumption of classwide reliance on public, material misrepresentations when shares are traded in an efficient market." Amgen at 1193. The Amgen Court held that a 10b-5 class action plaintiff is not required to prove materiality as a prerequisite to certification. First, materiality is judged according to an objective standard, so it can be proved through evidence common to the class. Thus, it is a common question for Rule 23(b)(3) purposes. Second, a failure of proof on the common question of materiality would not result in individual questions predominating: because materiality is an essential element of a securities fraud claim a failure of proof would simply end the case. SCOTUSblog called this decision "unsurprising." NERA noted an increase in monthly filings post- Amgen, but was unable to judge how much, if any, the uptick in filing activity was attributable to Amgen. However, NERA noted (and the Wall Street Journal recently reported, that the Court's second granting of certiorari in Halliburton has the potential to reverse the upward trend in class action filings. In Halliburton II, the Court will decide: 1) whether the Court should overrule or substantially modify the holding of Basic Inc. v. Levinson, to the extent that it recognizes a presumption of classwide reliance derived from the fraud-on-the-market theory; and 2) whether, in a case where the plaintiff invokes the presumption of reliance to seek class certification, the defendant may rebut the presumption and prevent class certification by introducing evidence that the alleged misrepresentations did not distort the market price of its stock. NERA reported a slight downward trend in monthly 10b-5 class action filings since the Halliburton II petition was filed in September 2013, although it is unclear whether this decrease in filings is attributable to Halliburton II. But, if the Court decides in Halliburton's favor, then the hurdle for class certification could dramatically increase. Class action plaintiffs could be forced to prove actual reliance, or at the very least that the alleged misrepresentations actually distorted the market price. The Supreme Court is expected to decide this case in June 2014. HARRIS RANCH: "Gonzalez" FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Gonzalez v. Harris Ranch Beef Company, et al., Case No. 13CECG03747, was removed from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Fresno, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv- 00038-LJO-SAB to the proceeding. The case alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Paul Katofsky, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALEX P. KATOFSKY 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 980 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 340-3600 Facsimile: (818) 484-2929 E-mail: alex@apkatlaw.com - and - Daniel Franklin Gaines, Esq. GAINES AND GAINES, APLC 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 980 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 703-8985 Facsimile: (818) 703-8984 E-mail: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Meagan Daurese Christiansen, Esq. Alden John Parker, Esq. WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK LAW CORPORATION 400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 558-6038 Facsimile: (916) 446-1611 E-mail: mchristiansen@weintraub.com aparker@weintraub.com HEARTLAND PAYMENT: 5th Cir. Remands MDL Over Security Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded the suit In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046 to the District Court for further proceedings, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order centralizing the class action cases for pre-trial proceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under the caption In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046. On August 24, 2009, the court appointed interim co-lead and liaison counsel for the financial institutions. On September 23, 2009, the financial institution plaintiffs filed a Master Complaint in the MDL proceedings, which the company moved to dismiss on October 23, 2009. On December 1, 2011, the Court entered an order granting in part our motion to dismiss the financial institution plaintiffs' master complaint against the company, but allowing the plaintiffs leave to amend to re-plead certain claims. Plaintiffs elected not to file an amended complaint. The parties then jointly moved for the entry of final judgment on those claims in the master complaint that the Court had dismissed. On August 16, 2012, the Court entered final judgment on the dismissed claims and, on September 17, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from that final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On September 12, 2012, Plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of the remaining claims pending before the District Court. Briefing on Plaintiffs' appeal was complete on February 8, 2013. On September 3, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the economic loss doctrine under New Jersey law does not preclude the financial institution plaintiffs' negligence claim at the motion to dismiss stage, but declined to address in the first instance the Company's other arguments for affirming the District Court. The Fifth Circuit remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. HOSPIRA INC: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit in N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hospira, Inc. faces a securities lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. Hospira and certain of its corporate officers and former corporate officers are defendants in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934: City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Hospira, Inc., F. Michael Ball, Thomas E. Werner, James H. Hardy, Jr., and Christopher B. Begley, second amended complaint filed March 15, 2013 and pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. James Hardy has been dismissed as a defendant in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges, generally, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Hospira's financials and business prospects and failed to disclose material facts affecting Hospira's financial condition. The lawsuit alleges a class period from February 4, 2010 (announcement of Q4, 2009 financial results) through October 17, 2011 (Hospira announced preliminary financial results for Q3, 2011 on October 18, 2011). The lawsuit seeks class action status and damages including interest, attorneys' fees and costs. KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Settles Price Fixing Lawsuit for $35 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Kronos Worldwide, Inc., entered into an agreement to settle for $35 million a suit over alleged price fixing of titanium dioxide, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In March 2010, the company was served with two complaints which were subsequently consolidated as Haley Paint et al. v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District Court, for the District of Maryland, Case No. 1:10-cv-00318-RDB). A third plaintiff intervened into the case in July 2011. The defendants included the company, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Huntsman International LLC, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a Cristal). Plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased titanium dioxide in the United States directly from one or more of the defendants on or after March 1, 2002. The complaint alleged that the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which titanium dioxide was sold in the United States and engaged in other anticompetitive conduct. In May 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which plaintiffs opposed. In March 2011, the court denied the motion to dismiss. In February 2012, the plaintiffs submitted their motion for class certification, which defendants opposed. In August 2012, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and trial was set for September 2013. On September 10, 2013, and following the agreement by the three other defendants in the third quarter of 2013 to enter into settlement agreements with the class plaintiffs, the company also entered into a settlement agreement with the class plaintiffs, without admitting any fault or wrongdoing, and agreed to pay an aggregate of $35 million (payable in two installments at specified times, expected to occur by mid- 2014). Following the service of the Class Action Fairness Notice and the Order of Final Approval from the court, the company, and the other defendants, will be dismissed with prejudice from this matter. Other operating expense in the third quarter of 2013 includes a $35 million charge related to this settlement. KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Suit by "Los Gatos" Proceeds in Trial Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The suit Los Gatos Mercantile, Inc. d/b/a Los Gatos Ace Hardware, et al v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al., which names Kronos Worldwide, Inc. is now proceeding in the trial court, according to Kronos' Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In March 2013, the company was served with the complaint, Los Gatos Mercantile, Inc. d/b/a Los Gatos Ace Hardware, et al v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:13-cv- 01180-SI). The defendants include the company, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Huntsman International LLC and Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of indirect purchasers of titanium dioxide in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin that indirectly purchased titanium dioxide from one or more of the defendants on or after March 1, 2002. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which titanium dioxide was sold in the United States and engaged in other anticompetitive conduct. This matter had been stayed by the court pending a resolution in the Haley Paint Matter. The case is now proceeding in the trial court. The company believes the action is without merit, will deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and intend to defend against the action vigorously. LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES: Removed "Huntington" Suit to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit captioned Huntington Park, City of, et al. v. Landscape Structures, et al., Case No. 13-2013-00074198-CU-NP-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00073-CAB-BLM to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Frederick Quinn, Esq. THORSNES BARTOLOTTA AND MCGUIRE 2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92103-6625 Telephone: (619) 236-9363 Facsimile: (619) 236-9653 E-mail: quinn@tbmlawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Manuel Saldana, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 E-mail: msaldana@gordonrees.com LOCKWOOD INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Taylor" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Taylor, 954 East 26th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43211, On Behalf of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated v. Lockwood Investment Group, LLC d/b/a Hangover Easy, Hangover Easy, John J. Pedro, Nickolas M. Pedro, Anthony J. Pedro and Michael D. Keyes, Case No. 2:14-cv-00029-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, January 10, 2014) is brought as a collective action as a result of the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by virtue of their practice, policy and procedure of failing to pay non-exempt employees overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants maintained their principle place of business in Franklin County, Ohio. They operate a full service restaurant known as Hangover Easy in Columbus, Ohio. The Individual Defendants are directly involved in the day to day operations of Hangover Easy. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 815 Superior Ave. E, Suite 1325 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (440) 498-9100 E-mail: jfscld@yahoo.com M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit Over Merger Plan With Mindspeed -------------------------------------------------------------- M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. faces shareholder lawsuits over its plan to Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., according to M/A-COM's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2013. Between November 7, 2013 and November 20, 2013, eleven purported class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. stockholders against various defendants including Mindspeed, its directors, the company, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Micro Merger Sub, Inc., and unnamed "John Doe" defendants in connection with the proposed Merger. Those cases are captioned Marchese v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2013-00686181-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty., Nov. 7, 2013); Iacobellis V. Decker, et al., Case No. 30-2013- 00686796-CU-SL-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty., Nov. 7 2013); Pogal v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 9076-VCN (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 12, 2013); Hoffman v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2013-00687029-CU-SL-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty., Nov. 12, 2013); Swain v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2013-00687498-CU-SL-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty., Nov. 12, 2013); Miller v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2013-00687951- CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty., Nov. 13, 2013); Durand v. Decker, et al., Case No. 9080 (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 14, 2013); Tassa v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 9096 (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 15, 2013); Feuerstein v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 9101 (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 18, 2013); Hoffman v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 9105 (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 19, 2013); and Vinciguerra v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 9107 (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 20, 2013). The complaints allege, generally, that the Mindspeed director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Mindspeed stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Mindspeed through an allegedly defective process, for an unfair price, and on unfair terms. The lawsuits seek, among other things, equitable relief that would enjoin the consummation of the proposed merger, rescission of the proposed merger (to the extent the proposed merger has already been consummated), damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. MCAFEE INC: Charges More for Auto-Renewal Program, Customer Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Williamson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McAfee, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00158-HRL (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, and is 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 NOVARTIS AG: Sued for Selling Excedrin Drug at Higher Price ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Winkelmann and Michelle Cruz, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. Novartis AG, Novartis Corporation, and Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 00160-NJV (N.D. Cal., January 10, 2014) is an action for equitable and injunctive relief arising out of Novartis' sale of Excedrin Migraine at a higher price than the pharmacologically identical product Excedrin Extra Strength. Excedrin Migraine and Excedrin Extra Strength are over-the-counter combination pain relievers. Novartis AG, the parent company of the Novartis group of entities, is a multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. Novartis Corporation is a New York corporation headquartered in East Hanover, New Jersey. Novartis Corporation is the U.S. arm of Novartis AG and oversees research and development, manufacturing, sales, and marketing of pharmaceutical products, including Excedrin Migraine and Excedrin Extra Strength. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. engages in research and development, manufacturing, sales, and marketing of over-the-counter pharmaceutical products, including Excedrin Migraine and Excedrin Extra Strength. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Dylan Hughes, Esq. Amy M. Zeman, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com dsh@girardgibbs.com amz@girardgibbs.com - and - Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq. BAKER SANDERS LLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-4799 Facsimile: (516) 741-3777 E-mail: TMuhlstock@BakerSanders.com OKLAHOMA: License Revocation Cases Stack Up at Public Safety Dept ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ziva Branstetter, writing for Tulsa World, reports that thousands of driver's license revocation cases have stacked up at the Department of Public Safety as the agency tries to avoid class- action lawsuits and possibly millions of dollars in refunds over faulty DUI affidavits. Attorney John Hunsucker, among attorneys pursuing class-action cases against the Department of Public Safety, said the agency stopped setting and holding license-revocation hearings months ago for drivers with pending DUI cases. The hearings, called "implied consent hearings," are administrative cases separate from any criminal charges a driver may face after being arrested in a DUI case. Drivers can be acquitted on criminal charges and still lose their licenses. "We've not done any of them in months, and neither have any of the other attorneys. There's thousands of cases," Mr. Hunsucker said. Records show that on average, more than 700 people per month request hearings from DPS in such cases. Until a resolution occurs, drivers arrested on suspicion of alcohol-related offenses "are just sitting there in limbo," Mr. Hunsucker said. "Some of those people have CDLs (commercial driver's licenses) and have been fired from their jobs. Some of them may want to take a job and drive a company car," he said. In October, the Court of Civil Appeals ruled that the affidavit the Department of Public Safety used to take jurisdiction in DUI revocation cases was "fatally flawed" and did not comply with state law. The affidavit failed to contain a required sworn report that the officer "had reasonable grounds to believe the arrested person had been operating . . . a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol," the ruling states. Without such a statement, revocation cases lack the required evidence to proceed, it states. OAKLAND RAIDERS: Cheerleaders Sue Over Wage Violations ------------------------------------------------------ The partners of Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP on January 22, 2014, filed a lawsuit against the management of the Oakland Raiders on behalf of current and former members of the Raiderettes, the NFL club's popular cheerleaders. A toll free hotline has been set up for calls about this lawsuit. If you are a current or former Raiderette or if you have any information about NFL cheerleader pay practices, please call toll free, 1-844-318-7700 or click here. The complaint [Lacy T. v. The Oakland Raiders], filed in Alameda County Superior Court, alleges that the club withholds all pay from the Raiderettes until after the end of the season, does not pay for all hours worked, and forces the cheerleaders to pay many of their own business expenses. Under their take-it-or-leave-it contract, Raiders' cheerleaders are to be paid only $1250 for working an entire season, which amounts to less than $5.00 per hour for the time that they spend rehearsing, performing and appearing at events where they are not paid. The club also withholds the Raiderettes' wages until after the season ends. The lawsuit claims that team management did not pay Raiderette Lacy for all of the hours which she worked, while at the same time requiring her to pay out of pocket expenses. The lawsuit also claims that the Raiders illegally impose monetary fines on Raiderettes for such things as forgetting to bring the correct pom-poms to practice, wearing the wrong workout clothing to rehearsals, failing to bring a yoga mat to practice, or not turning in written biographies on time. It is believed that other NFL teams don't pay their cheerleaders for all of the hours that they work, and that there is a widespread practice in the NFL of refusing to pay cheerleaders for all of the hours that they have worked, forcing them to work for months before they get paid, and demanding that they sign contracts that are filled with illegal provisions. For further information, please call, toll free, 1-844-318-7700. * * * Attorneys for the Raiderettes class action have filed an Amended Complaint, adding a second plaintiff as a class representative. The new plaintiff, Sarah G., has been a Raiderette for four years and last season was co-captain of her line. The Amended Complaint, like the original complaint, alleges that the Oakland Raiders engaged in wage theft and other unfair employment practices. Sarah G. alleges that she was not paid wages in a timely manner, and was not paid minimum wage. Sarah G. also alleges that she fined for trivial infractions of the rules, such as turning in her biography half-an-hour late. Sarah G. explained her decision to join the lawsuit: "Being a Raiderette was an amazing experience, which I will treasure forever. However, after learning that the contract was filled with illegal provisions, as a matter of principle, I felt that I had to join the lawsuit to make sure that all of the Raiderettes are treated in a fair and legal manner, which recognizes our hard work, dedication and passion for dance." Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP is an Oakland-based firm specializing in representing employees. Anyone who is interested in further information regarding the lawsuit should visit http://www.levyvinick.com/or call the toll-free number 1-844-318- 7700. OREGON SCIENTIFIC: Removed "Ceballos" Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action lawsuit entitled Jennifer Ceballos v. Oregon Scientific Inc., et al., Case No. BC529558, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 00229-SVW-AS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Reid, Esq. Richard H. Hikida, Esq. Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP APC 4100 Newport Place, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: dreid@trialnewport.com rhikida@trialnewport.com sferrell@trialnewport.com vknowles@trialnewport.com The Defendant is represented by: Kimberly A. Donovan, Esq. Susan D. Condon, Esq. GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP 2570 W El Camino Real, Suite 510 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: (650) 428-3900 Facsimile: (650) 428-3901 E-mail: kdonovan@gcalaw.com scondon@gcalaw.com PALLETS UNLIMITED: Did Not Pay Proper Overtime Wage, Laborer Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Ochoa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pallets Unlimited, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00223-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y., January 10, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff, who was employed by Pallets as a laborer, should have been paid overtime pay at the statutory rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay after he had worked 40 hours in a workweek. Pallets Unlimited, Inc., is a New York domestic corporation based in New Hyde Park, New York. The Company is engaged in the sale, construction and reconditioning of shipping, containment and warehouse pallets throughout the Tri-State Area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Marijana F. Matura, Esq. Ilan Weiser, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Facsimile: (631) 499-9120 E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com mm@shulmankessler.com iweiser@shulmankessler.com PIONEER NATURAL: Beverly, Shelton Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the Beverly Lawsuit and the Shelton Lawsuit filed against Pioneer Natural Resources Company over a merger voluntarily dismissed all claims in the lawsuit in accordance with a memorandum of understanding, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On May 15, 2013, David Flecker, a purported unitholder of Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners L.P., filed a class action petition on behalf of Pioneer Southwest's unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of Pioneer Southwest against the Company, Pioneer USA, the General Partner and the directors of the General Partner, in the 134th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas (the "Flecker Lawsuit"). A similar class action petition and derivative suit was filed against the same defendants on May 20, 2013, in the 160th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, by purported unitholder Vipul Patel (the "Patel Lawsuit"). On August 27, 2013, the plaintiff in the Flecker Lawsuit filed an amended petition. On September 3, 2013, the court consolidated the Patel Lawsuit into the Flecker Lawsuit (as consolidated, the "Texas State Court Lawsuit"), and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative and class action petition on September 5, 2013. The Texas State Court Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the consideration offered by the Company in the Merger is unfair and inadequate and that, by pursuing a transaction that is the result of an allegedly conflicted and unfair process, the defendants have breached their duties under Pioneer Southwest's partnership agreement as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and are engaging in self-dealing. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the director defendants: (i) engaged in self-dealing, failed to act in good faith toward Pioneer Southwest, and breached their duties owed to Pioneer Southwest; (ii) failed to properly value Pioneer Southwest and its various assets and operations and ignored or failed to protect against the numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the proposed transaction; and (iii) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by engaging in a flawed merger process. The Texas State Court Lawsuit also alleges that the Company, Pioneer USA and the General Partner aided and abetted the director defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary duties. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs in the Texas State Court Lawsuit seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the proposed transaction. To the extent that the Merger is implemented before relief is granted, the plaintiffs seek to have the Merger rescinded. The plaintiffs also seek money damages and attorneys' fees. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Texas State Court Lawsuit based on improper forum. On August 21, 2013, Allan H. Beverly, a purported unitholder, filed a class action complaint against Pioneer Southwest, the Company, Pioneer USA, MergerCo and the directors of the General Partner in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Beverly Lawsuit"). The Beverly Lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Merger by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the director defendants: (i) failed to maximize the value of Pioneer Southwest to its public unitholders and took steps to avoid competitive bidding; (ii) failed to properly value Pioneer Southwest; and (iii) ignored or failed to protect against the numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the proposed transaction. The Beverly Lawsuit also alleges that the Company, Pioneer USA and MergerCo aided and abetted the director defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary duties. On September 13, 2013, Douglas Shelton, another purported unitholder, filed a class action complaint against the same defendants in the Beverly Lawsuit (as well as the General Partner) in the same court as the Beverly Lawsuit (the "Shelton Lawsuit"). The Shelton Lawsuit makes similar allegations to the Beverly Lawsuit, and also alleges that Section 7.9 of Pioneer Southwest's partnership agreement fails to alter or eliminate the defendants' common law fiduciary duties owed to unitholders in the context of the Merger. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges: (i) that the Company, as controlling unitholder, failed to fulfill its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger because it purportedly cannot establish that the proposed Merger is the result of a fair process that will return a fair price to the unaffiliated unitholders of Pioneer Southwest; (ii) that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to exercise due care and diligence in connection with the proposed Merger because the proposed Merger is purportedly not the result of a fair process that will return a fair price to the unaffiliated unitholders; and (iii) that the non-director defendants aided and abetted the director defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in the Beverly Lawsuit and the Shelton Lawsuit (together, the "Federal Lawsuits") seek the same remedies as the plaintiffs in the Texas State Court Lawsuit. On September 26, 2013, representatives of the plaintiffs in the Texas State Court Lawsuit and the Federal Lawsuits and representatives of the defendants in such lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding ("the memorandum of understanding") to settle the claims and allegations made in such lawsuits. The memorandum of understanding provides the plaintiffs with a period of confirmatory discovery during which the plaintiffs can confirm the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding. The parties agreed to use their reasonable best efforts to agree upon, execute and present to the Dallas County, Texas District Court a stipulation of settlement, which will provide for, among other things, a certification, for settlement purposes only, of the applicable class of unitholders to which the settlement will apply. Furthermore, the stipulation of settlement will provide for a full and complete discharge, dismissal with prejudice, settlement and release of all claims, suits and causes of action by the plaintiffs (other than appraisal rights under the Merger Agreement) against the defendants and their representatives arising out of or relating to the allegations made in the Texas State Court Lawsuit and the Federal Lawsuits, the Merger or any deliberations, negotiations, disclosures, omissions, press releases, statements or misstatements in connection therewith, any fiduciary or other obligations in respect of the Merger or any alternative transaction or under Pioneer Southwest's partnership agreement, or any costs and expenses associated with settlement other than as provided in the stipulation. All proceedings relating to the allegations made in the Texas State Court Lawsuit other than with respect to the settlement have been stayed. As part of the consideration for the settlement, the Merger Agreement was amended to provide for contractual appraisal rights for the unitholders. The parties to the memorandum of understanding have agreed to use their reasonable best efforts to obtain the agreement of any plaintiffs filing similar lawsuits to the Texas State Court Lawsuit or the Federal Lawsuits (whether filed in any state or federal court) to become party to the memorandum of understanding and the related settlement, and it is a condition to the consummation of the final settlement that any such plaintiffs join the settlement or such similar lawsuits otherwise be dismissed with prejudice prior to the final approval of the settlement. On October 15, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Beverly Lawsuit voluntarily dismissed all claims in the lawsuit in accordance with the memorandum of understanding. On October 16, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Shelton Lawsuit likewise voluntarily dismissed all claims in the lawsuit in accordance with the memorandum of understanding. There can be no assurance that a final settlement will be consummated. PIONEER NATURAL: Still Faces Delaware Litigation Over Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Pioneer Natural Resources Company continues to face a lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to a Merger with Pioneer Southwest, according to Pioneer Natural's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On September 23, 2013, Patrick Wilson, another purported unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the unitholders against Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc., PNR Acquisition Company, LLC, Pioneer Southwest, Pioneer Natural Resources GP LLC (the General Partner) and the directors of the General Partner in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Wilson Lawsuit"). The Wilson Lawsuit alleges that the director defendants breached their purported fiduciary obligations to the unitholders by engaging in a process that undervalued Pioneer Southwest and which allegedly constitutes gross negligence, recklessness, willful misconduct, bad faith or knowing violations of law. Additionally, the Wilson Lawsuit alleges that the non-director defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties of the director defendants. The Wilson Lawsuit seeks the same remedies as the plaintiffs in the Texas State Court Lawsuit and the Federal Lawsuits. As of the date of this Report, the plaintiffs in the Wilson Lawsuit have not joined the memorandum of understanding. PLY GEM: Discovery in "Callahan" Suit Over V-Wood Windows Closed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery regarding class certification in John Gulbankian and Robert D. Callahan v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. is currently closed, although the hearing regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled, according to PLY GEM Holdings, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In John Gulbankian and Robert D. Callahan v. MW Manufacturers, Inc., a purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of MW's V-Wood windows. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. Discovery regarding class certification is currently closed, although the hearing regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled. The Company believes it has valid defenses to this claim, and it will vigorously defend this claim. PLY GEM: "Hartshorn" Suit Over Freedom Windows in Late Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. is currently in the late stages of discovery regarding class certification, according to PLY GEM Holdings, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc., a purported class action filed in July 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of MW's Freedom and Freedom 800 windows. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. This action is currently in the late stages of discovery regarding class certification, and a hearing regarding class certification has been scheduled for January 15, 2014. The Company believes it has valid defenses to this claim, and it will vigorously defend this claim. PLY GEM: "Pagliaroni" Suit Over Oasis Deck & Railing in Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck North America, LLC is currently in discovery regarding class certification, and a hearing regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled, according to PLY GEM Holdings, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and railing, which was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC ("Deceuninck") and sold by MHE. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. This action is currently in discovery regarding class certification, and a hearing regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. The Company believes it has valid defenses to this claim, and it will vigorously defend this claim. Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has agreed to indemnify the Company for certain liabilities related to this claim pursuant to the sales and distribution agreement, as amended, between Deceuninck and MHE. The Company's ability to seek indemnification from Deceuninck is, however, limited by the terms of the indemnity as well as the strength of Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change in the future. PLY GEM: "Memari" Suit Over MW's Vinyl Clad Windows in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- The suit Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al. is currently in discovery regarding class certification, and a hearing regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled, according to PLY GEM Holdings, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported class action filed in March 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the illegality and/or defects of MW's vinyl clad windows. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) actual and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive damages, and (iii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. This action is currently in discovery regarding class certification, and a hearing regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled. The Company believes it has valid defenses to this claim and will vigorously defend this claim. SAFECO INSURANCE: Removed "Raffaelli" Suit to W.D. Arkansas ----------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action lawsuit styled Raffaelli v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, Case No. 46CV-13-00275-2, was removed from the Miller County Circuit Court to the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Texarkana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-04016-SOH to the proceeding. The case asserts insurance-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Matt Keil, Esq. John C. Goodson, Esq. KEIL & GOODSON P.O. Box 618 406 Walnut Street Texarkana, AR 75504-0618 Telephone: (870) 772-4113 Facsimile: (870) 773-2967 E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com - and - George L. McWilliams, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE L. MCWILLIAMS, P.C. 406 Walnut Texarkana, AR 71854 Telephone: (870) 772-2055 Facsimile: (870) 773-2967 E-mail: glmlawoffice@gmail.com - and - Jason Earnest Roselius, Esq. THE ROSELIUS LAW FIRM 13190 N. MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma, OK 73142 Telephone: (405) 603-2222 Facsimile: (405) 603-2250 E-mail: roselius@roseliuslaw.com - and - A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Esq. Kenneth (Casey) Castleberry, Esq. MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY P. O. Box 2595 1141 East Main Street, Suite 300 Batesville, AR 72503 Telephone: (870) 793-3821 Facsimile: (870) 793-3815 E-mail: aftomt2001@yahoo.com caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com - and - Stephen C. Engstrom, Esq. WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM & COULTER 200 South Commerce, Suite 600 P.O. Box 71 Little Rock, AR 72203 Telephone: (501) 375-6453 E-mail: stephen@wecc-law.com The Defendant is represented by: David Folsom, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 6002 Summerfield Drive, Suite B Texarkana, TX 75503 Telephone: (903) 255-3251 Facsimile: (903) 255-3266 E-mail: dfolsom@jw.com - and - David T. Moran, Esq. Christopher A. Thompson, Esq. Edwin Buffmire, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 6000 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 953-6051 Facsimile: (214) 661-6677 E-mail: dmoran@jw.com cthompson@jw.com ebuffmire@jw.com SMALL PLANET: Faces Product Liability Class Suit in Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- Daniel A. Decastro, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Small Planet Foods, Inc., a Washington corporation, Case No. 9:14-cv-80033-DMM (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2014) asserts product liability claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A. 1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (832) 715-2788 Facsimile: (415) 692-6607 E-mail: howardr@pdq.net SMITHFIELD FOODS: Seeks Court OK of Accord in "Payne" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Smithfield Foods, Inc. is seeking approval by the United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia for a settlement it entered in Payne v. Smithfield Foods, et al., 1:13-cv-00761-LMB- IDD), according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 27, 2013. Smithfield Foods disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 28, 2013, that a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia (Payne v. Smithfield Foods, et al., 1:13-cv- 00761-LMB-IDD) against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and Merger Sub. The complaint alleged that the Company officers and directors named in the suit breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with the Merger with with Shuanghui International Holdings Limited, that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted in that breach, and that all defendants violated Rule 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The parties to the litigation have submitted a settlement agreement to the court for approval. Should the court approve the settlement agreement, the action would be dismissed with prejudice. The settlement agreement notes that the Company made supplemental disclosures in its definitive proxy statement to its shareholders on the Merger and obligates Smithfield to pay the legal fees and expenses of plaintiff's counsel upon award, if any, by the court. A settlement hearing was set for January 31, 2014. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Allos Shareholder Suit Now Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- In Re Allos Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6714-VCN is now settled and dismissed, according to Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Dec. 6, 2013, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2012. On July 19, 2011, Allos entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, or AMAG Merger Agreement, with AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or AMAG, and Alamo Acquisition Sub, Inc., as amended on August 8, 2011. On October 21, 2011, the AMAG Merger Agreement was terminated. In July 2011, two lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to the proposed merger between Allos and AMAG, which two cases were later consolidated as In Re Allos Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6714-VCN. Following announcement of the proposed merger between Allos and Spectrum, the consolidated case became one of the Allos Transaction Class Action Lawsuits and part of the settlement memorialized in the memorandum of understanding dated May 7, 2012. On February 11, 2013, as part of the consolidated settlement of the cases, the AMAG litigation was settled and dismissed. STAR SCIENTIFIC: Faces Class Action Over Anatabloc False Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Reason 24/7 reports that a federal class action claims the makers and hawker of a "wonder drug" called Anatabloc push it with false claims that it can treat Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis -- and bribed the former governor of Virginia to endorse it. Lead plaintiff Howard T. Baldwin sued Star Scientific, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, and GNC Holdings. The complaint states: "Star Scientific bribed the now-indicted former Virginia governor and his wife to promote Anatabloc from the governor's mansion." Former Gov. Robert McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, are not parties to this lawsuit. Their alleged role in pushing the drug will be described later in this article. Star Scientific, of Glen Allen, Va., "claims to be a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the development, manufacture, and marketing of bioequivalent pharmaceutical products in addition to the development of branded products," Mr. Baldwin says in the lawsuit. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "AFSCME" Class Suit Over Aggrenox ------------------------------------------------------------- AFSCME District Council 47 Health & Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00151- MSG (E.D. Pa., January 10, 2014) is a class action, alleging violation of civil antitrust laws on behalf of a Class of indirect purchasers of the drug Aggrenox since August 14, 2009. Defendant Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its affiliates developed Aggrenox, combining extended-release dipyridamole with acetylsalicylic acid, aspirin, to lower the risk of stroke in patients, whose blood clots have caused a transient ischemic attack or stroke. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in North Wales, Pennsylvania. The Company manufactures and distributes generic drugs for sale throughout the United States at the direction, under the control, and for the direct benefit of its parent company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Edward Connolly, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY LLP 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308 King Of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822-3700 E-mail: sconnolly@cwg-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Joseph E. Wolfson, Esq. STEVENS & LEE 620 Freedom Business Center, Suite 200 King Of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 205-6019 Facsimile: (610) 988-0808 E-mail: jwo@stevenslee.com - and - Edward D. Rogers, Esq. Paul J. Koob, Esq. BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 Telephone: (215) 864-8144 Facsimile: (215) 864-9782 E-mail: rogers@ballardspahr.com koobp@ballardspahr.com ULTA SALON: Lawsuit by Hourly Employees Continues in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. continues to face a labor lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013. On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain unnamed defendants in state court in Los Angeles County, California. On April 12, 2012, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On August 8, 2013, the plaintiff asked the court to certify the proposed class and the Company is opposing plaintiff's request. The plaintiff and members of the proposed class are alleged to be (or to have been) non- exempt hourly employees. The suit alleges that Ulta violated various provisions of the California labor laws and failed to provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation and premium pay. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. The Company denies plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending the matter. VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation in Deutsch, Katriel Suits Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Mediation process began and remains ongoing in the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action of which Verint Systems Inc. is taking liability after the completion of its merger with Comverse Technology, Inc., according to Verint's Dec. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 4, 2013. On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and against Comverse Technology, Inc. in the Tel Aviv Regional District Court (Case Number 1335/09) (the "Deutsch District Action"). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purports to represent a class of our employees and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension on option exercises during our previous extended filing delay period. In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do not specify an amount of damages. On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv Regional District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action. On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the "Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv Regional District Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action"). In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension on option exercises during CTI's previous extended filing delay period. In the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do not specify an amount of damages. On March 2, 2010, the Labor Court ordered the transfer of the case to the District Court in Tel Aviv - Jaffa, based on an agreed motion filed by the parties requesting such transfer. On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on June 7, 2012, the court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to file the consolidated class certification motion and an amended consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited. Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the Comverse share distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment. The District Court ruled that it would not decide this motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion was heard. On August 16, 2012, in light of the announcement of the signing of the CTI Merger Agreement, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal this District Court ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. The company filed our response to this motion on September 6, 2012. Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI either sold or transferred substantially all of its business operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests inthe company and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share distribution, in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a result of the Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an independent public company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest in the company. The company and the other defendants filed our responses to the complaint on November 11, 2012 and plaintiffs filed their replies on December 20, 2012. A pre-trial hearing for the case was held on December 25, 2012, during which all parties agreed to attempt to settle the dispute through mediation. On February 4, 2013, the company completed the CTI Merger. As a result of the CTI Merger, the company assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse relating to the Comverse share distribution, the company as successor to CTI, is entitled to indemnification from Comverse for any losses the company suffers in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action. On February 28, 2013, the mediation process began and, as of the date of the Company's report, remains ongoing. WORLD WIDE BUSINESS: Class Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Rickey Cornell, II, 718 Grandview Ave., Zanesville, Ohio 43701, et al., Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated members of the general public v. World Wide Business Services Corporation, 5690 Clyde Moore Drive, Groveport, Ohio 43125, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00027-ALM-MRA (S.D. Ohio, January 10, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The case seeks to collect unpaid overtime and other unpaid compensation under the FLSA. World Wide Business Services Corporation is an "employer" as that term is defined by the FLSA. WWBSC is an Ohio for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in the Southern District of Ohio. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert J. Beggs, Esq. BEGGS LAW OFFICES CO., LPA 1675 Old Henderson Road Columbus, OH 43220 E-mail: John.Beggs@BeggsLawOffices.com Telephone: (614) 678-5640 Facsimile: (614) 448-9408 - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com ********* 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 * * *