/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140217.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 17, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 33 Headlines A.M. JENSEN: Recalls Wilton Old Cheddar Cheese Over Listeria A.M. JENSEN: Updates Recall to Add Distribution Information AARON'S INC: Rental Customers Lose Class Action Certification Bid ADVANCED MICRO: Sued by Class of Shareholders in California ALLIED PIONEER: Recalls Xufuji Crispy Candy Over Allergens BEBE LOVE: Recalls Baby Walkers Due to Fall and Entrapment Risk BUENO FOODS: Voluntarily Recalls Frozen Green Chile Products CATHAY PACIFIC: Agrees to Settle Price-Fixing Suit for $65MM CELGENE CORP: Faces Suit Over Thalomid Cancer Drug Risks CHICO'S FAS: Accused of Violating Americans With Disabilities Act COMVERSE INC.: Mediation Ongoing for Four Israeli Litigations CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls 54,673 Lbs. of Chicken Noodle Soup Products COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Class Action Suit in S.D. California DGC RESTAURANT: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum and Overtime Wages DIAGEO: Sup. Ct. Okays $89MM Thalidomide Class Action Settlement EBIX INC: Securities Class Action Settlement Get Preliminary OK GENTIUM SPA: Faces Merger-Related Shareholder Suit in New York HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Solar Panels HOUSE OF SMOKE: Recalls 144,000 Lbs. of Meat and Poultry Products IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Court Approved Fuller Class Action Settlement INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: To Seek Dismissal of Wage & Hour Claims JTH HOLDING: Facing Class Suit Over Refund Anticipation Loan KITCHEN BY BRAD: Recalls Smoliak Bacon Spread Over Botulism Scare KUO HUA: Recalls Coconut Drink Due to Undeclared Milk L & L ENERGY: Wash. Securities Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid L & L ENERGY: Facing Securities Class Action in New York LENOX ROOM: T-Bar Restaurants' Worker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime LION FORCE: Recalls Boys' Puffer Coats Due to Strangulation Hazard MEAT PIES: Recalls Fresh and Frozen Meat Pie and Poutine Products MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, CS Rep Claims MERCK & CO: To Settle NuvaRing Suits for $100 Million MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES: Enters MOU to Settle Delaware Actions NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Permits Fox to File Amicus Brief NEIMAN MARCUS: Trial Set for April 1 on Civil Penalty Claims NEW SOUTH WALES: Community Group Mulls Class Action NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls X-TRAIL Model Due to Fuel Filler Pipe Defect PEPE GANGA: Recalls Christmas Lights Due to Fire and Shock Hazard PFP ENTERPRISES: Recalls 15,865 Lbs. of Beef Products PHILLIP J. CROYLE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says PILOT RECEIVABLES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act PORTERVILLE HOTEL: Fire Raises Asbestos Concerns RANCHO FEEDING: Recalls 8-Mil. Lbs. of Processed Diseased Animals RUNWAY FASHIONS: Recalls Girls' Hooded Jackets SANDERSON FARMS: Appeal in Illegal Aliens Suit Pending SOLARCITY CORP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action SPHERION STAFFING: Insurance Underwriter Sues Over Unpaid OT Wage SWISHER HYGIENE: Settles Class Actions for $5.5 Million TARGET CORP: Faces "Farol" Suit in North Dakota Over Data Breach TEREX: Recalls AL4 Light Tower & RL4 Light Tower Equipment TAISHAN GYPSUM: 5th Cir. Upholds $2.7MM Judgment in Drywall Case TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls 22,849 Lbs. of Broccoli Salad Kit Products UNITED STATES: NSA Faces Class Action Over Surveillance Program UNITED STATES: Rand Paul Set to File Class Action v. NSA VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: "Golan" Class Suit Removed to Missouri WALKER'S FOOD: Recalls 2,446 Lbs. of Chicken Salad Products WESTERN HEALTH: Class Action Certification Proceedings Ongoing WYOMING AUTHENTIC: Recalls 365 Pounds of Beef Jerky Products YAO JI: Recalls Frozen Fish Products Due to Undeclared Milk ZOLTEK COMPANIES: Named as Defendant in 13 Suits Over Merger Deal ********* A.M. JENSEN: Recalls Wilton Old Cheddar Cheese Over Listeria ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 7, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: A.M. Jensen Ltd. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8598 A.M. Jensen Ltd is recalling Wilton Cheese Factory brand Old Cheddar Cheese from the marketplace due to possible Listeria contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product. The following product has been sold from Wilton Cheese Factory, 287 Simmons Rd, (Wilton), RR#2 Odessa, Ontario. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high- risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: Wilton Cheese Factory Old Cheddar Cheese (White) which was packed on 14.01.27 thru 14.02.06 A.M. JENSEN: Updates Recall to Add Distribution Information ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 7, 2014 Starting date: February 7, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: A.M. Jensen Ltd. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail The food recall warning issued earlier has been updated to include additional distribution information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. A.M. Jensen Ltd. is recalling Wilton Cheese Factory brand Old Cheddar Cheese from the marketplace due to possible Listeria contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. This product has been sold at multiple locations in Ontario. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no confirmed illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by CFIA's test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: Wilton Cheese Factory Old Cheddar Cheese (White) with packing date of 14.01.27 until 14.02.06 AARON'S INC: Rental Customers Lose Class Action Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Thompson, writing for Erie Times-News, reports that U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on Feb. 7 issued a decision in which she recommended that the long-pending lawsuit against Aaron's Inc. and a Wyoming Aaron's franchisee not be certified as a class-action lawsuit. In a companion ruling, she recommended the dismissal of some of the counts filed by the plaintiffs, Crystal and Brian Byrd, of Wyoming, including claims against dozens of Aaron's Inc. franchisees. Judge Baxter recommended leaving intact only claims that the defendants conspired to violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The plaintiffs claim the defendants conspired to use tracking spyware developed by a North East company, DesignerWare Inc., to secretly snap webcam photos and capture the screen shots and keystrokes of Brian Byrd in the mistaken belief that the couple had not finished paying for the computer. The plaintiffs and their team of lawyers want to pursue claims not only on behalf of the Byrds, but also as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of more than 800 Aaron's rental customers they say were similarly spied on between June 2009 and January 2012. In her ruling, however, Judge Baxter found that the plaintiffs failed to clearly identify a class on behalf of which to pursue a class-action complaint. Simply including in the class all households on whose equipment the secret tracking software was installed was not sufficient, she said. Laptops are portable and often shared, she said, making it difficult to determine exactly who might have been affected by the conduct alleged in the lawsuit. "Plaintiffs do not provide an administratively feasible way to determine whose information was surreptitiously gathered," Judge Baxter said in the ruling. Broader definitions of the class fail as well because "not every computer upon which (the software) was activated will state a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act," she said. Judge Baxter's ruling, called a report and recommendation, is not final and must be reviewed and adopted by U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon before it becomes official. Both sides will have the opportunity to file objections to Judge Baxter's ruling before Mr. Bissoon makes her decision. If the ruling stands, the plaintiffs' lawyers could be left to pursue claims only on behalf of the Byrds. Frederick S. Longer, of Philadelphia, one of the Byrds' lawyers, said they intend to appeal. The long-running case was first filed in Erie in 2011 and initially included DesignerWare of North East as a defendant. The claims against Designer Ware were suspended in March 2012, however, when the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, according to court records. The DesignerWare software, PC Rental Agent, had been marketed to help rental stores track down stolen computer equipment. In September 2012, DesignerWare entered a consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission in which it agreed to scale back the technology. Aaron's settled a complaint with the FTC in October. The FTC charged that Aaron's Inc. enabled its franchisees to violate consumer protection laws by secretly installing the monitoring software. Aaron's neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the FTC complaint, but the company agreed to modify its use of the monitoring technology. ADVANCED MICRO: Sued by Class of Shareholders in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Babak Hatamian and Lussu Dennj Salvatore, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Rory P. Read, Thomas J. Seifert and Lisa T. Su, Case No. 4:14-cv-00226-PJH (N.D. Cal., January 15, 2014) is a securities class action brought on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of AMD between October 27, 2011, and October 18, 2012, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AMD is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. AMD is a multinational semiconductor company that develops computer processors and related technologies for commercial and consumer markets. The Company's main products include microprocessors, motherboard chipsets, embedded processors, and graphics processors for servers, workstations and personal computers, and embedded systems applications. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: gholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com ALLIED PIONEER: Recalls Xufuji Crispy Candy Over Allergens ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 4, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Peanut, Allergen - Sesame Seeds, Allergen - Tree Nut Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Allied Pioneer Enterprises Co. Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8590 Affected products: Xufuji "Crispy Candy" with UPC 6 914782 106147 BEBE LOVE: Recalls Baby Walkers Due to Fall and Entrapment Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Bebe Love USA, of Pico Rivera, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 3,600 BebeLove Baby Walkers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The walkers failed to meet federal safety standards. Specifically, style number 358 can fit through a standard doorway and is not designed to stop at the edge of a step as required by the federal safety standard. In addition, style number 368 contains leg openings that allow the child to slip down until the child's head can become entrapped at the neck. Babies using these walkers can be seriously injured or killed. There were no incidents that were reported. The recalled includes all BebeLove walkers that were sold for babies age 6 months or older. The walkers contain a plastic- covered foam padded seat with a plastic base and toy tray. Model 358 walkers have a green, pink or orange musical tray with a white toy bar and solid colored seats. Model 368 walkers have green, pink or white musical tray with a yellow toy bar and printed patterned seats. Both models have white stoppers on the bottom of the base of the walker and model numbers printed on a label on the rear bottom inside of the base. "BEBELOVE" is printed on a label on the seat back and on the base of the walkers. The walkers were sold in these color combinations: Product Name Model Number Color BebeLove Baby Walker 358 (white toy bar) Pink Base with White Tray Blue Base with White Tray Green Base with White Tray BebeLove Baby Walker 368 (yellow toy bar) Blue Base with Yellow Tray Pink Base With White Tray Purple Base with Pink Tray Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/9yUeLm The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and China and sold at small retail stores in Arizona, California and Utah and online at Amazon.com and Overstock.com from November 2011 through July 2013 for about $25. Consumers should stop using the recalled baby walkers immediately and contact BebeLove for a free repair kit. BUENO FOODS: Voluntarily Recalls Frozen Green Chile Products ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that Bueno Foods, a family-owned food company in Albuquerque, has announced a voluntarily recall of its frozen non-ready-to-eat green chile products. Bueno Foods say the products have the potential to contain low levels of the common bacteria Listeria monocytogenes in its uncooked state. Company officials say tests performed on samples of the product cooked per the cooking instructions on the product's label showed no Listeria present. Bueno Foods is calling it a voluntary recall since the green chile products are unlikely to pose a health risk and there are no immediate reports of any illnesses. Company officials say they expect to have their green chile products back in stores in two weeks. Bueno Foods has been located in Albuquerque since 1951. CATHAY PACIFIC: Agrees to Settle Price-Fixing Suit for $65MM ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. has agreed to a $65 million settlement in a long- running cargo price-fixing case that involves more than a dozen airlines. A spokeswoman for Cathay Pacific said on Feb. 12 that the airline did not acknowledge wrongdoing or liability in the settlement. The settlement requires approval of a federal district court in New York. Shippers say in a class-action lawsuit that the several airlines fixed prices for international air cargo shipments, and they are seeking compensation for inflated charges. One of the shippers' law firms, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, said that their side has reached settlements with 20 groups of defendants totaling $758 million, of which $485.5 million has won court approval. CELGENE CORP: Faces Suit Over Thalomid Cancer Drug Risks -------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg News reports that Celgene was accused of promoting its cancer drug Thalomid and related compound Revlimid for uses not approved by U.S. regulators in a newly unsealed lawsuit filed by a former saleswoman. Thalomid, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved to treat multiple myeloma, is a new generation of thalidomide, a morning-sickness drug linked to birth defects in the 1960s and revived decades later to fight cancer, according to a complaint. Celgene marketed the "highly toxic" Thalomid for a wide range of cancers while downplaying its risks for blood clots, according to the complaint. "Celgene's initial marketing efforts for Thalomid were tantamount to ongoing human experimentation," ex-saleswoman Beverly Brown said in the complaint unsealed on Feb. 5 in federal court in Los Angeles. "Because Celgene marketed the drug off-label, patients and their medical advisors were denied the appropriate warnings provided in a package insert when a product is used on-label." Ms. Brown said she worked as a Los Angeles-based pharmaceutical saleswoman from 2001 to 2011. She previously filed her lawsuit under seal citing the False Claims Act, which allows private citizens to sue on behalf of the government and share in the recovery. The U.S. Justice Department chose not to intervene in the case, Reuben Guttman, Ms. Brown's attorney, said in a phone interview. Brian Gill, a spokesman for Celgene, didn't immediately return a call seeking comment on the lawsuit. CHICO'S FAS: Accused of Violating Americans With Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chico's FAS, Inc. d/b/a Chico's, Case No. 2:14-cv- 00059-LPL (W.D. Pa., January 15, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com COMVERSE INC.: Mediation Ongoing for Four Israeli Litigations ------------------------------------------------------------- In its Form 10-Q filed on December 13, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2013, Comverse, Inc., disclosed that a mediation process is currently ongoing for the dispute in four potential class action litigations in the State of Israel claiming damages incurred as a result of negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements. CTI and certain of its former subsidiaries, including Comverse Ltd. (a subsidiary of the Company), were named as defendants in four potential class action litigations in the State of Israel involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result of purported negligence or breach of contract due to previously- settled allegations regarding illegal backdating of CTI options that allegedly prevented certain current or former employees from exercising certain stock options. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions. Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd. employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee). The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements, which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by certain employees and former employees. By stipulation of the parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the actions pending in the United States regarding stock option accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in these cases. On May 7, 2012, the court lifted the stay, and the plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and motion to certify a class of plaintiffs in a single consolidated class action. The defendants responded to this amended complaint on November 11, 2012, and the plaintiffs filed a further reply 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. The mediation process is currently ongoing. Separately, on July 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order that CTI hold back $150 million in assets as a reserve to satisfy any potential damage awards that may be awarded in this case, but did not seek to enjoin the Share Distribution. The Company does not believe that the motion has merit. On July 25, 2012, the court indicated that it will not rule on the motion until after it rules on plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of plaintiffs. On August 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal the court's order to the Israeli Supreme Court and on November 11, 2012, CTI responded to plaintiff's motion. The parties are awaiting a decision. Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both sought to approve class actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees of certain CTI and Verint stock options, respectively. The Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16, 2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint Systems Ltd. The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court. These cases have been consolidated with the Tel Aviv District Court cases. The Company did not accrue for these matters as the potential loss is currently not probable or estimable. Additionally, two cases have been filed by individual plaintiffs similarly seeking to recover damages up to an aggregate of $3.6 million allegedly incurred as a result of the inability to exercise certain stock options. The cases generally allege the same causes of actions alleged in the potential class action discussed. As of October 31, 2013, the Company accrued $0.2 million for one of these cases (the "Accrued Case") but did not accrue for the other matter as the potential loss is currently not probable or estimable. In December 2013, the Accrued Case was settled in accordance with the accrual. Comverse, Inc. (CNS) is a provider of software and systems enabling services for converged billing and active customer management, mobile Internet, and value-added services. The Company's product portfolios includes value added services, billing and active customer management, and mobile Internet. The Company's offerings include Comverse ONE, Comverse VAS, Comverse mobile Internet and Comverse global services. The Company's ONE deployment modes include Comverse ONE converged billing and active customer management, Comverse ONE real-time billing, Comverse ONE postpaid billing & active customer management, Comverse ONE online and converged charging, and create ONE of your own solutions. CNS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Comverse Technology, Inc. CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls 54,673 Lbs. of Chicken Noodle Soup Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ ConAgra Foods, a Milton, Pa. establishment, is recalling approximately 54,673 pounds of chicken noodle soup products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product is formulated with wheat and egg, known allergens, which are not declared on the label. However, the product was released with a "Healthy Choice Chicken with Rice" soup label, which does not declare the allergens. The products subject to recall bear the label: -- 14-oz. microwave bowls of "Healthy Choice Chicken with Rice" soup bearing the establishment number "P-770" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection and the Best By date of "JUN092015" stamped on the bottom of the bowl. The products were produced Dec. 16, 2013 and shipped to retail outlets nationwide. The products were also distributed to the Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Puerto Rico. The problem was reported to the firm by consumers who discovered chicken noodle soup in mislabeled bowls. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the ConAgra Foods hotline number at: (800) 289-6014. Media with questions about the recall should contact Monique Farmer at: (402) 240-5781. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Class Action Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ Lac T. Hoilien, individual, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae); Bank of America, N.A., and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title thereto and, Does, 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-00101-L-WVG (S.D. Cal., January 15, 2014) accuses the Defendants of unlawful conduct and illegal practices involving a real property located in Hawaii. The action is brought for declaratory judgment, injunctive and equitable relief relating to the Defendants' alleged violation of the California Commercial Code, the Amended Truth in Lending Act, and other laws. The Plaintiff, a homeowner, disputes the title and ownership of the real property in question, in that the originating mortgage lender, and others alleged to have ownership. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda Z. Voss, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS 100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14, Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (650) 576-2545 Facsimile: (888) 755-1416 E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net DGC RESTAURANT: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Xing-Fang Huang, Zhi-Fang Han and Guang-He Liu, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DGC Restaurant Inc., d/b/a Feng Shui Asian Cuisine, Stephen Z.X. Dong, and Xiaomei Guan, Case No. 1:14-cv-10096-JGD (D. Mass., January 15, 2014) is a collective action by employees of DGC, in which they seek compensation for unpaid wages, minimum wage, and overtime pay for work in excess of 40 hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act. DGC Restaurant Inc. is a Massachusetts domestic, for-profit corporation based in Chelmsford, Massachusetts. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of DGC. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Myong J. Joun, Esq. JOUN LAW OFFICES 491 Massachusetts Ave., Suite 208 Arlington, MA 02476 Telephone: (617) 304-6186 Facsimile: (866) 551-4983 E-mail: mjoun@massrights.com - and - Jeffrey Wiesner, Esq. STERN, SHAPIRO, WEISSBERG & GARIN, LLP 90 Canal Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02114-2022 Telephone: 617) 742-5800 Facsimile: (617) 742-5858 E-mail: jwiesner@sswg.com DIAGEO: Sup. Ct. Okays $89MM Thalidomide Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Farnsworth, writing for ABC News, reports that the Victorian Supreme Court has formally signed off on a AU$89 million class action settlement for Thalidomide victims in Australia and New Zealand. UK company Diageo has agreed to pay compensation to about 100 Thalidomide victims, providing them with care for the rest of their lives. Diageo owns The Distillers Group which marketed the controversial morning sickness drug in Australia in the late 1950s. Lawyer Peter Gordon told the court it was a fair and reasonable settlement. Justice David Beach was told there had been unanimous support for the settlement from the claimants. The initial class action accused Diageo and Grunenthal of negligence for allowing the drug to be sold without proper testing and for failing to withdraw the drug from the market when the risks were revealed. Legal proceedings against Grunenthal have been dismissed. At no time did Grunenthal accept any wrongdoing on its part. Victims on hand to witness court approval There were a number of victims in the court to witness the formality, including Melbourne woman Lynette Rowe. She was the public face of the lawsuit. She was born with no arms or legs after her mother took the drug to treat morning sickness and anxiety during her pregnancy. It took 50 years for the Rowe family to win recognition of the role the drug played in Ms. Rowe's disabilities and to win compensation. The drug was originally prescribed in the late 1950s as a sedative for pregnant women. Later it was sold over the counter without a prescription. The babies of these women were born with severe physical deformities. Some have no limbs, they have damage to the nervous system, kidney and heart problems and have a reduced life expectancy. It is estimated there were about 10,000 Thalidomide victims around the world. EBIX INC: Securities Class Action Settlement Get Preliminary OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Ebix, Inc., an international supplier of On-Demand software and E-commerce services to the insurance industry, on Feb. 6 disclosed that on February 4, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered an Order granting preliminary approval of the agreement among the parties to settle all claims in the shareholder securities class action styled In re Ebix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:11-CV-02400-RWS (N.D. Ga.), which was filed in 2011 on behalf of a class consisting of those persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between May 6, 2009, and June 30, 2011. The agreement calls for a one-time cash payment of $6.5 million to be funded by the Company and its insurance carrier. The Court scheduled a final fairness hearing on the settlement for June 5, 2014. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company and certain current officers and directors deny any and all of the allegations made against them by the class in the litigation and have agreed to settle this matter solely to eliminate the uncertainties, risk, and expense of further protracted proceedings. The agreement to settle this litigation constitutes neither an admission nor acceptance of fault by any named Defendant with respect to the allegations made in the litigation. Ebix Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Robin Raina, commented, "We are pleased to settle this litigation matter and move forward with the development of our business." As disclosed in its Q3 2013 Form 10-Q, the Company recorded a contingent liability and recognized a charge against earnings in the amount of $4.23 million ($2.63 million net of the associated tax benefit) in connection with this settlement. That contingent liability was reported in the current section of the Consolidated Balance Sheet, and the charge against earnings was reported below operating income in the Consolidated Statement of Income for the quarter ended September 30, 2013 and for the nine months ended September 30, 2013. This amount represents the portion of the settlement absorbed by the Company, and Management does not expect there to be further exposure to the Company with regard to this litigation beyond the legal expenses to finalize the settlement. GENTIUM SPA: Faces Merger-Related Shareholder Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Xavion Jyles, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gentium S.P.A., Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company, Jazz Pharmaceuticals Italy S.R.L., Khalid Islam, Gigliola Bertoglio, Laura Ferro, Bobby W. Sandage, Jr., Marco Brughera, Elmar Schnee and Joyce Victoria Bigio, Case No. 1:14-cv-00287-JPO (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2014) arises out of the Defendants' dissemination of a materially false and misleading solicitation/recommendation statement in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Italian Civil Code, and the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, arising out of the proposed acquisition of Gentium by Jazz through an unfair process and at an unfair price. On December 19, 2013, Gentium and Jazz jointly announced that they had entered into the Tender Offer Agreement by which Jazz will acquire the Company. Under the terms of the Tender Offer Agreement, Jazz will acquire Gentium for $57 per share. Gentium, located in Como, Italy, is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and manufacturing of drugs to treat and prevent a variety of diseases and conditions, including vascular diseases related to cancer and cancer treatments. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company is an Irish public limited company headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Italy S.R.L. is an Italian societa a responsabilita limitata and a wholly owned subsidiary of Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. William John Geddish, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. A. Rick Atwood, Esq. David Wissbroecker, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com ratwood@rgrdlaw.com dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com - and - Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOELAW FIRM, PLLC 8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 239-4568 Facsimile: (281) 254-7789 E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Patrick W. Powers, Esq. POWERS TAYLOR LLP Campbell Centre II 8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 239-8900 Facsimile: (214) 239-8901 E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Solar Panels ------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that Home Depot USA Inc. and defunct BP Solar International Inc. have removed to California federal court a putative class action accusing them of selling defective solar panels to the state's residents, according to court documents filed on Feb. 6. Home Depot and BP removed the case to the Northern District of California from state court in Contra Costa County, according to the notice of removal. The suit, originally filed on Jan. 9, accuses the defendants of breach of express and implied warranties and violations of California's consumer protection and unfair business practice statutes. According to the complaint, BP's solar panels suffer from a defect in a component known as the junction box that causes the panels to fail, resulting in a loss of electric current and the risk of electrical shock and fire. Despite being aware of the alleged defects, BP continued to sell the panels until it ceased producing them in 2010, the complaint said. Home Depot had an agreement with BP to sell the solar panels in its California stores. The plaintiffs claim BP, whose solar unit shut down in 2011, misrepresented in the written warranty for the solar panels that the panels would be free from defect. The warranty provided that BP would repair or replace the panels or refund the purchase price in the event of a defect, according to the complaint. However, because BP is no longer in the solar business, it can neither replace nor repair the panels, the complaint said. The three named plaintiffs say they all reported solar panel failures to BP in 2013, after its solar arm had shut down. In response, the company offered to reimburse each of the plaintiffs for a little more than a third of the total cost of removing and replacing the defective solar panels, the complaint said. BP also made false representations in its mass marketing campaign for the solar panels, including that installing the panels on a residence would "drastically reduce or eliminate your electric bills . . . forever," and "increase the value of your home," according to the complaint. Home Depot, which entered into an agreement with BP Solar in 2004 to sell the panels under the "BP Solar Home Solutions" banner, advertised the panels using those same representations, the plaintiffs said. The representations were false, the plaintiffs claim, because the junction box defect significantly limited or eliminated the solar panels' ability to produce electricity while presenting risks of property damage and personal injury. As a result, the defective panels didn't save property owners money or increase the value of their homes, the complaint said. The plaintiffs allege BP has been aware of the junction box defects in its solar panels since at least 2005, but didn't disclose the defects and associated risks to its customers aside from a 2012 product advisory that "greatly understates" the risks. The plaintiffs are seeking to represent six subclasses of California residents who purchased the allegedly defective solar panels or properties on which the solar panels were installed. Of those, two subclasses are comprised of individuals who purchased the panels from Home Depot. The suit asks for undisclosed damages, although it estimates class members' claims average $20,000 to $25,000 apiece. The plaintiffs are represented by David M. Birka-White -- dbw@birka-white.com -- and Mindy M. Wong -- mwong@birka-white.com -- of Birka-White Law Offices. The defendants are represented by Matthew T. Heartney -- Matthew.Heartney@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP. The case is Michael Allagas et al. v. BP Solar International Inc. et al., case number 4:14-cv-00560, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. HOUSE OF SMOKE: Recalls 144,000 Lbs. of Meat and Poultry Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- House of Smoke, Inc., a Fort Lupton, Colo. establishment, is recalling approximately 144,000 pounds of meat and poultry products (including bratwurst / brotwurst, fully cooked sausage- type products, and raw fresh products) because of an undeclared allergen and misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products were processed with a releasing agent containing soy lecithin, a known allergen that is not declared on the label. These products are subject to recall: Brotwurst and bratwurst, produced between January 24, 2012 and January 24, 2014, packaged in 1-pound packages, 12 per case. These products are included: -- Code 9050 Hickory Smoked Bison Brotwurst little smokies; -- Code 9051 Hickory Smoked Elk Brotwurst little smokies; -- Code 9100 Hickory Smoked Buffalo Brotwurst; -- Code 9101 Hickory Smoked Buffalo Brotwurst Cheddar & Jalapeno; -- Code 9116 Hickory Smoked Elk Brotwurst Pork Added; -- Code 9117 Hickory Smoked Elk Brotworst Cheddar & Jalapeno; -- Code 9118 Hickory Smoked Elk Brotwurst With Jalapeno; -- Code 9139 Hickory Smoked Brotwurst; -- Code 9141 Hickory Smoked Coopersmith Brat Wild Boar; -- Code 9144 Hickory Smoked Coopersmith Brat Elk w/ Cheddar; -- Code 9156 Hickory Smoked Boulder Sausage Brotwurst; -- Code 9171 Hickory Smoked Mountain Man Brotwurst; and -- Code 9246 Bison Breakfast Brats 4/1 Fully cooked sausage-type products, produced between Jan. 24, 2012 and Jan. 24, 2014. The products may be packaged in one the following manners: 1-ounce packages, 40 per case; 6-ounce packages, 24 per case; or 1-pound packages, 20 per case. These products are included: -- Code 9052 Hickory Smoked Wild Boar Sausage Little Smokies; -- Code 9053 Smoked Rabbit Sausage Rattlesnake & Jalapeno; -- Chardonnay Wine "little smokies"; -- Code 9054 Hickory Smoked Andouille Smokies (Pork, Potato, and Onion Product); -- Code 9102 Hickory Smoked Bison Frankfurter; -- Code 9103 Hickory Smoked Andouille Sausage (Pork, Potato, and Onion Product); -- Code 9115 Hickory Smoked Duck Sausage w/ Cilantro; -- Code 9130 Hickory Smoked Venison Sausage (Pork Added); -- Code 9140 Wild Boar Sausage Hickory Smoked; -- Code 9142 Smoked Wild Boar Sausage Made from Feral Swine Blueberries, Merlot Wine; -- Code 9145 Hickory Smoked German Style Sausage; -- Code 9184 Hickory Smoked Chorizo; -- Code 9345 Hickory Smoked Norwegian Sausage; -- Hickory Smoked Elk Salami Beef Added; -- Hickory Smoked Elk Sticks Beef Added; -- Hickory Smoked Norwegian Brand Summer Sausage; -- Hickory Smoked Beef Sausage; -- Hickory Smoked Beef Sausage (contains monosodium glutamate); -- Hickory Smoked Beef Sticks; -- Hickory Smoked Buffalo Sausage Beef Added; -- Hickory Smoked Buffalo Sticks Beef Added; -- Hickory Smoked Mountain Man Salami (Made With Buffalo, ; -- Venison, Elk, Wild Boar, Antelope, and Caribou Added); -- Hickory Smoked Mountain Man Salami (Made With Buffalo; -- Venison, Elk, Wild Boar, Antelope, and Bear Added); -- Hickory Smoked Venison Sausage Beef Added; and -- Hickory Smoked Wild Boar* Sausage *Meat from Feral Swine Raw fresh products, produced between July 24, 2013 and Jan. 24, 2014. The products may be packaged in one the following manners: patties/three per pound, in 12 pound cases; 6-pound bags, 12-pound cases; or 12 pound boxes. These products are included: -- Code 4860 Wild Boar* Meat from Feral Swine Ground Bulk; -- Code 6752 Cold Smoked Ground Turkey Thigh Meat; -- Code 9016 Elk Breakfast Sausage with Apple Slices; -- Code 6366 Ground Duck; -- Code 9202 Swedish Potato Sausage; -- Code 9203 Bison Maple Breakfast Brats 4/1; -- Code 9215 Duck Sausage w/ Cilantro; -- Code 9223 Rabbit Sausage Rattlesnake & Jalapeno Chardonnay Wine; -- Code 9240 Wild Boar Sausage Made from Feral Swine; -- Code 9241 Wild Boar Italian Sausage Made from Feral Swine; -- Code 9242 Wild Boar Sausage Made from Feral Swine Blueberries, Merlot Wine; -- Code 9245 Wild Boar Maple Breakfast Sausage; -- Code 9248 Norwegian Breakfast Sausage; -- Code 6751 Ground Turkey Bratwurst; -- Code 13820 Mountain Man Sausage Ground 2/6; -- Code 13721 Buffalo Patties Beef Added 2/1; and -- Code 13831 Mountain Man Patties 3/1 These products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST 6273" or "P-6273" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection. These products were sold nationwide to distributors, restaurants, and over the Internet. The problem was discovered during a Food Safety Assessment. The firm mistakenly believed the releasing agent was a processing aid that did not need to be declared on the label. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a health care provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Media outlets and consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact James Barsness, President of House of Smoke, at 303-857-2750. Consumers with food safety questions can "e Ask Karen, & quote the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Court Approved Fuller Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on December 16, 2013, entered a final order approving the class action settlement designated as Fuller v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's Form 8-K dated December 16, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2013. On July 29, 2013, the Company and the other parties to the class actions consolidated and designated as Fuller v. Imperial Holdings, et al. and the shareholder derivative action entitled Robert Andrzejczyk v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al., executed definitive settlement agreements in respect of the class action litigation and derivative action, respectively. On December 16, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a final order approving the class action settlement and on December 17, 2013, the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida entered a final order approving the derivative action settlement. The approved settlements are each subject to customary appeal deadlines. Imperial Holdings, Inc. (Imperial) is a specialty finance company with a focus on providing premium financing for individual life insurance policies issued by insurance companies and purchasing structured settlements backed by annuities issued by insurance companies or their affiliates. In the Company's premium finance business it earns revenue from interest charged on loans, loan origination fees and agency fees from referring agents. In its structured settlement business, it purchases structured settlements at a discounted rate and sells such assets to, or finances such assets with, third parties. In October 2013, the Company announced that it has sold its Structured Settlements business operations. In October 2013, Majestic Opco LLC acquired Imperial Holdings Inc. INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: To Seek Dismissal of Wage & Hour Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Integrated Electrical Services, Inc., is a defendant in three wage-and-hour suits seeking class action certification that were filed between August 29, 2012 and June 24, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Each of these cases is among several others filed by Plaintiffs' attorney against contractors working in the Port Arthur, Texas Motiva plant on various projects over the last few years. The claims are based on alleged failure to compensate for time spent bussing to and from the plant, donning safety wear and other activities. It does not appear the Company will face significant exposure for any unpaid wages. In a separate earlier case based on the same allegations, a federal district court ruled that the time spent traveling on the busses is not compensable. On January 11, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling finding no liability for wages for time spent bussing into the facility. On October 8, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review plaintiffs' appeal of the Fifth Circuit dismissal of their claims for compensation for time spent bussing to the facility, effectively reducing the Company's risk of liability on this issue in its cases. "Our investigation indicates that all claims for time spent on other activities either were inapplicable to the Company's employees or took place during times for which the Company's employees were compensated. We have filed responsive pleadings and, following initial discovery are positioning the cases to obtain a dismissal of all claims," the Company said in its Form 10-K filed on December 13, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013. As of September 30, 2013, the Company has not recorded a reserve for this matter, as it believes the likelihood of its responsibility for damages is not probable and a potential range of exposure is not estimable. Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. (IES) is a provider of infrastructure services to the residential, commercial and industrial industries as well as for data centers and other mission critical environments. The Company operates primarily in the electrical infrastructure markets, with a corporate focus on expanding into other markets through strategic acquisitions or investments. The Company's operations are organized into three business segments: Communications, Resident and Commercial and Industrial. In September 2013, Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. completed its acquisition of MISCOR Group, Ltd. JTH HOLDING: Facing Class Suit Over Refund Anticipation Loan ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs have filed a purported class action lawsuit against JTH Holding, Inc., alleging violations of state-specific refund anticipation loan (RAL) and other consumer statutes; and potential damages in excess of $5 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on December 13, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2013. The Company was sued in November 2011 in federal courts in Arkansas, California, Florida and Illinois, and additional lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012 in New York and Minnesota, since the initial filings. In April 2012, a motion to consolidate all of the then-pending cases before a single judge in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois was granted, and in June 2012, the plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the consolidated action. The consolidated complaint alleges that an electronic refund check (ERC) represents a form of refund anticipation loan (RAL) because the taxpayer is "loaned" the tax preparation fee, and that an ERC is therefore subject to federal truth-in-lending disclosure and state law requirements regulating RALs. The plaintiffs therefore allege violations of state-specific RAL and other consumer statutes. The lawsuit purports to be a class action, and the plaintiffs allege potential damages in excess of $5 million, but the Company may be able to recover any damages from the providers of the financial products that designed the programs and related disclosures. The Company is aware that virtually identical lawsuits have been filed against several of its competitors. The Company has not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor has the Company accrued a loss contingency related to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case, and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome or the impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. The case is at an early procedural stage. JTH Holding, Inc. (JTH Holding) is a holding company engaged through its subsidiaries as a franchisor and operator of a system of income tax preparation offices located in the United States and Canada. The Company is a retail preparer of individual tax returns. JTH Holding's principal operations are conducted through its subsidiary, JTH Tax, Inc. (JTH Tax). Through this system of income tax preparation offices, JTH Holding also facilitates to its customer refund-based tax settlement financial products, such as refund anticipation loans, electronic refund checks, and personal income tax refund discounting. On September 30, 2010, JTH Tax entered into an Agreement of Merger and Plan of Reorganization with JTH Holding. At the closing of the merger on September 30, 2010, JTH Tax merged with and became a wholly owned subsidiary of JTH Holding. KITCHEN BY BRAD: Recalls Smoliak Bacon Spread Over Botulism Scare ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 4, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Kitchen by Brad Smoliak Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8591 Kitchen by Brad Smoliak is recalling Bacon spread from the marketplace because it may permit the growth of Clostridium botulinum. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. The products have been sold in Alberta. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out. Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision, dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation into other production codes, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: 125 g. or 125 ml. Kitchen by Brad Smoliak Bacon with 6 27843 01328 0 UPC KUO HUA: Recalls Coconut Drink Due to Undeclared Milk ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 6, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Kuo Hua Trading Company Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia CFIA reference number: 8599 Kuo Hua Trading Co Ltd is recalling Coconut Drink from the marketplace because it may contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. The following product has been sold in British Columbia. If you have an allergy to milk do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: 250 ml. Coconut Drink (Product of Taiwan) with UPC 2015.04.17 L & L ENERGY: Wash. Securities Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle, on December 3, 2013, denied defendants' second motion to dismiss the so-called Washington Securities Class Action, and the court has not yet issued a case scheduling order in the Action and there is no trial date, according to L & L Energy, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed on December 13, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2013. On August 26, 2011, a federal securities law class action complaint was filed against the Company, certain officers and directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee and Ian G. Robinson) and a former officer (i.e., Jung Mei (Rosemary) Wang) in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of a proposed class of all persons who purchased the common stock of the Company during the period August 13, 2009 through August 2, 2011, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Washington Securities Class Action"), alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by filing materially false and misleading public statements August 2009 to July 2011. On December 15, 2011, the court appointed Gregg Irvin as lead plaintiff, and plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a second amended complaint on February 8 and March 2, 2012, respectively, naming four other current and former directors as defendants (i.e., Shirley Kiang, Robert Lee, Dennis Bracy and Robert Okun). On November 4, 2011, a complaint was filed by Larew P. Stouffer, in a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of the Company, which is a nominal defendant, against certain of its then existing officers and/or directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta, Ian G. Robinson, Robert W. Lee, Shirley Kiang, Dennis Bracy, Syd S. Peng) and certain former officers and/or directors (i.e., Edward L. Dowd, Andrew M. Leitch, Robert Okun, Joseph J. Borich, Jung Mei Wang and David Lin) in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Carson City (the "Nevada Derivative Suit"), alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders, wasted corporate assets, were unjustly enriched , and committed other wrongful acts. On November 15, 2011, a complaint was filed by Russell L. Bush, in a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of the Company, which is a nominal defendant, against its then existing directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta, Ian G. Robinson, Robert W. Lee, Shirley Kiang, Dennis Bracy, Syd S. Peng) in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle (collectively the "Washington Derivative Suits"), and along with the Stouffer Derivative Suit, the "Derivative Suits"), alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched. The Company has notified its insurance carrier of the Washington Securities Class Action and the Washington Derivative Suits. The Company has also retained outside legal counsel. On April 23, 2012, the Company and Dickson V. Lee and Ian G. Robinson filed a motion to dismiss the Washington Securities Class Action. Proceedings in the Washington Derivative Suits were stayed pending the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. On December 3, 2012, the United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action lawsuit without prejudice, and gave plaintiff thirty days in which to seek the court's permission to file another amended complaint. On January 2, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the court granted such leave, and on February 4, 2013, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint in the Washington Securities Class Action on behalf of a proposed class of all persons who purchased the common stock of the Company during the period August 13, 2009 through August 2, 2011, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby, against the Company, certain officers and/or directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee and Ian G. Robinson) and a former officer (i.e., Jung Mei (Rosemary) Wang), alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by filing materially false and misleading reports and financial statements with the SEC from August 2009 to July 2011. Proceedings in the Washington and Nevada Derivative Suits continued to be stayed pending the court's ruling on the second motion to dismiss. On December 3, 2013, the United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle denied the defendants' second motion to dismiss. The court has not yet issued a case scheduling order in the Washington Securities Class Action and there is no trial date. The Company believes that the Washington and Nevada Securities Class Action and the Washington Derivative Suits are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. L & L Energy, Inc. is engaged in coal operations in Yunnan and Guizhou provinces in southern part of the People's Republic of China. As of April 30, 2012, the Company had four coal mines, two coal washing plants, one coking facility, and three coal wholesale and distribution networks. On February 3, 2012, the Company acquired a 51% controlling interest in Weishe coal mine in Guizhou Province, China. In September 2012, it acquired the existing operations of GuangYeh Coal Sales Co. In November 2011, the Company established a coal wholesale and distributor corporation in China (DaXing L & L Coal Co., Ltd. (DaXing)) and owned a 100% equity interest in DaXing. In August 2011, the Company established another subsidiary Guizhou LiWei Coal Co. Ltd., (Guizhou LiWei). L & L ENERGY: Facing Securities Class Action in New York -------------------------------------------------------- to L & L Energy, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q report filed on December 13, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2013, that a federal securities law class action complaint was filed on September 23, 2013, against the Company, and certain officers and directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Ian G. Robinson and Clayton Fong) in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of a proposed class of all persons who purchased common stock of the Company during the period September 11, 2012 through September 18, 2013, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "New York Securities Class Action"), alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by filing materially false and misleading public statements from September 2012 to September 2013. On November 22, 2013, the plaintiff and several other proposed plaintiffs filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and counsel. The court set a status conference for December 20, 2013 to consider the motions. On October 18, 2013, a complaint was filed by Joseph D, Bessent, in a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of the Company, which is a nominal defendant, against certain of its then existing officers and/or directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Syd S. Peng, Mohan Datwani, Jingcai Yang, James Schaeffer, and Joseph Borich) in the Superior Court for the State of Washington in King County, Washington (the "Bessent Derivative Suit"), alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders and committed other wrongful acts. On December 9, 2013, a complaint was filed by Jay Finkelstein, in a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of the Company, which is a nominal defendant, against certain of its current and former officers and/or directors (i.e. Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta, Shirley Kiang, Ian Robinson, Dennis Bracy, Edward L. Dowd, Jr., Robert W. Lee, Robert A. Okun, Andrew M. Leitch, Edmund Moy, Dr. Syd S. Peng, Clayton Fong, Jungcai Yang, Mohan Datwani, Joseph Borich, and James Schaeffer) in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle (the "Finkelstein Derivative Suit"), alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders and committed other wrongful acts. The Company has notified its insurance carriers of the New York Securities Class Action, the Bessent Derivative Suit, and Finkelstein Derivative Suit. The Company has retained outside legal counsel. The Company believes that the New York Securities Class Action, the Bessent Derivative Suit, and the Finkelstein Derivative Suit are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of any potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome in any of the legal proceedings. As such, as of October 31, 2013, the Company has not accrued any liability in connection with potential losses from legal proceedings. L & L Energy, Inc. is engaged in coal operations in Yunnan and Guizhou provinces in southern part of the People's Republic of China. As of April 30, 2012, the Company had four coal mines, two coal washing plants, one coking facility, and three coal wholesale and distribution networks. On February 3, 2012, the Company acquired a 51% controlling interest in Weishe coal mine in Guizhou Province, China. In September 2012, it acquired the existing operations of GuangYeh Coal Sales Co. In November 2011, the Company established a coal wholesale and distributor corporation in China (DaXing L & L Coal Co., Ltd. (DaXing)) and owned a 100% equity interest in DaXing. In August 2011, the Company established another subsidiary Guizhou LiWei Coal Co. Ltd., (Guizhou LiWei). LENOX ROOM: T-Bar Restaurants' Worker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Juadimir Jerez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lenox Room Corp., Angolo Food Concepts, LLC, Rocco Restaurant Group, LLC, T Bar Management East, LLC, and Angelo Tony Fortuna, Case No. 1:14-cv-00276-GBD (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2014) seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread of hours pay, and other wages for the Plaintiff and his similarly situated co- workers -- food preparers, kitchen workers, dishwashers, and other "back of the house employees" -- who work or have worked at any of the three T-Bar restaurants currently or formerly operating in New York. The Defendants owned, operated and controlled the T-Bar Restaurants. The T-Bar Restaurants are a series of trendy steak houses that cater to the hip young clientele of Manhattan and the East Hamptons. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com LION FORCE: Recalls Boys' Puffer Coats Due to Strangulation Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Lion Force Inc., of Brooklyn, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 2,400 Lion Force Boys' Puffer Coats. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The jackets have a drawstring through the hood which can pose a strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves boys' black hooded coats with dark gray drawstrings around the hood. The coats are 100% nylon on the outer shell with a zip-off hood. The wrist cuffs and waist band are elasticized. There are two front Velcro-flap pockets and an inner stow pocket on the coats. "Lion Force" is printed on the upper left side of the front of the coat and on the sewn on tag at the back of the neck. This recall involves boys' coat sizes 4 through 12. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/Yr8wjB The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide November 2010 through September 2013 for about $30. Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the garment to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to Lion Force Inc. for a full refund. MEAT PIES: Recalls Fresh and Frozen Meat Pie and Poutine Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 5, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Meat Pies Plus Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8588 Meat Pies Plus is recalling various The Pie Guy brand fresh and frozen meat pie and poutine products from the marketplace because they contain milk, wheat, and gluten which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk, wheat, or gluten should not consume the recalled products described. The products have been sold in Ontario. If you have an allergy to milk, wheat, or gluten, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life- threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products from the marketplace. MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, CS Rep Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Phillips, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Media Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:14- cv-01019-MMM-JAG (C.D. Ill., January 15, 2014) arises under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for the Defendant's alleged failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated persons all their earned overtime wages. Media Communications, Inc., operates a customer service call center in Chillicothe, Illinois. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant's call center as a customer service representative between June 2011 and May 2013. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. David E. Stevens, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com dstevens@flsalaw.com MERCK & CO: To Settle NuvaRing Suits for $100 Million ----------------------------------------------------- Jef Feeley and David Voreacos, writing for Bloomberg News, report that Merck & Co. may pay $100 million to settle thousands of lawsuits over the safety of its NuvaRing contraceptive, a New Jersey judge held, as long as enough women agree to participate in the accord. The settlement may resolve as many as 3,800 cases in federal and state courts in New Jersey and Missouri, Judge Brian Martinotti in Hackensack said on Feb. 7 at a hearing. More than 200 women sued Merck in New Jersey accusing the drugmaker of selling NuvaRing while knowing it posed a higher risk of heart attack-inducing blood clots than competing products. Judge Martinotti gave preliminary approval to the settlement, subject to 95 percent of the plaintiffs participating in the agreement, according to Steven Blau, a lawyer for women suing over the device. If more than 5 percent of plaintiffs refuse the offer, Merck can walk away from the deal, Judge Martinotti said. "The settlement is a fair resolution of this litigation," the judge said. "This is a lump-sum settlement of $100 million that covers the entire litigation nationwide." The settlement, which includes cases filed in St. Louis federal court, means Merck, the second-biggest U.S. drugmaker by sales, is paying a fraction of what rivals such as Bayer AG did to resolve lawsuits over their contraceptives. Bayer said last year it has paid more than $1.6 billion to settle claims over its Yasmin and Yaz lines of birth-control pills. Women said Yaz also caused blood clots that led to strokes and heart attacks. Vehicles enter the campus of Merck & Co. headquarters in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. 'Much More' "Merck may be getting out much more cheaply than its competitors because proving the liability case against the NuvaRing device appears to be more difficult," Carl Tobias, who teaches product- liability law at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said in a Feb. 6 phone interview. NuvaRing is a hormonal-vaginal contraceptive that combines both estrogen and progestin in a ring to prevent pregnancy. The product, which was linked in a 2011 U.S. Food and Drug Administration report to a higher risk for blood clots, has been sold in the U.S. since 2001. Lainie Keller, a spokeswoman for Whitehouse Station, New Jersey- based Merck, said the company isn't admitting wrongdoing under the settlement and continues to believe NuvaRing is a safe contraceptive. She said Merck continues to "monitor the safety of the medicine." Earnings Merck reported fourth-quarter earnings this week that fell short of estimates. Earnings excluding certain items were 88 cents a share, 1 cent below the average of 15 analysts' estimates compiled by Bloomberg. The company also forecast 2014 profit of $3.35 to $3.53 a share, compared with $3.48 projected by analysts. Lawyers for women suing over the NuvaRing product contend there are almost a dozen studies showing the type of progestin used in the device is twice as likely to cause blood clots. Such clots can block veins and cause heart attacks or travel to the lungs and cause other health issues. The family of a Nebraska mother who used a NuvaRing device sued Merck in 2010 after the woman was found dead with a blood clot in her lung. Ann Tompkins' family alleged in their suit that Merck misled users about the device's health risks. Women argued in court filings that Merck failed to provide proper warnings about NuvaRing's higher clot risks on the device's label to protect sales. Suits have been filed against Merck and Organon USA Inc., a unit that sold the device. Lawsuits More than 1,500 NuvaRing suits were consolidated before U.S. District Judge Rodney Sippel in St. Louis in 2008 for pre-trial information exchanges. Judge Sippel had set the first trial over the blood-clot claims for April. More than 200 suits also have been consolidated in New Jersey before Judge Martinotti. Other cases were filed in state courts in California and Illinois, according to court dockets. Last year, Judge Martinotti threw out seven NuvaRing cases that were set to be the first trials in New Jersey after he found the plaintiff women couldn't show the device caused their injuries. The judge said plaintiffs were unable to show that doctors would have prescribed a different contraceptive if Merck had informed them of higher clot risks on its warning label. Mr. Blau said women suing over NuvaRing had to overcome the legal hurdle of showing that a device approved by the FDA as safe had flaws and that Merck officials didn't properly warn about its risks. "That's a very hard burden to overcome," Mr. Blau said. The settlement compensates women for three classes of injuries arising from blood clots, he said. They are deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolisms and death, he added. The settlement is set up so that women with more severe injuries will qualify for larger payments, Shelly Leonard, a New York lawyer for NuvaRing plaintiffs, said yesterday in a phone interview. The consolidated cases are In Re NuvaRing Products Litigation, 08- md-01964, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The consolidated New Jersey cases are In RE: NuvaRing Litigation, BER-L-3081-09, Superior Court of New Jersey (Bergen County). MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES: Enters MOU to Settle Delaware Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., on December 9, 2013, entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs to settle actions pending in Delaware court and to resolve all allegations in the Delaware Actions alleging among others, breach of fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on December 13, 2016, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2013. Between November 7 and November 20, 2013, 11 purported class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of the Company's shareholders against various defendants including Mindspeed, its directors, MACOM, Acquisition Sub, 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) ("Marchese Action"); 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) ("Hoffman Action"); and Vinciguerra v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 9107 (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 20, 2013). The complaints allege, generally, that the Company's director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell the Company 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. On November 22, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the Hoffman Action in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The amended complaint includes similar allegations to the original complaint, along with claims that the Company's solicitation/recommendation statement included misstatements or omissions of material facts. On November 25, 2013, a motion for preliminary injunction was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery for the Hoffman Action. On December 3, 2013, all of the complaints filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery were consolidated (Delaware Actions). On December 4, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery set a schedule for the briefing of the preliminary injunction motion in the Delaware Actions and a hearing was scheduled for December 11, 2013. On December 6, 2013, plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions filed their brief in support of a motion to enjoin the proposed merger. The defendants, including the Company, believe that all of the lawsuits are without merit and specifically deny the allegations made in the lawsuits and maintain that they have committed no wrongdoing whatsoever, to permit the timely consummation of the merger. Without admitting the validity of any allegations made in the lawsuits, the defendants have concluded that it is desirable that the Delaware Actions be resolved. On December 9, 2013, the parties in the Delaware Actions entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the Delaware Actions and to resolve all allegations which were brought or could have been brought by the purported class of Mindspeed shareholder plaintiffs. The proposed settlement, which is subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, provides for the release of all claims against the defendants relating to the proposed merger. There can be no assurance that the settlement will be finalized or that the Delaware Court of Chancery will approve the settlement. In exchange for the releases, the Company agreed to provide additional supplemental disclosures to the solicitation/recommendation statement. The motion for a preliminary injunction was withdrawn and the hearing vacated in the Delaware Actions. On November 27, 2013, the defendants and the plaintiffs in each of five actions filed in the California Superior Court for Orange County signed a stipulation to consolidate the actions into the Marchese Action. On December 5, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the Marchese Action. The amended complaint includes similar allegations to the original complaint along with claims that the statement included misstatements or omissions of material facts. On December 5, 2013, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time in which to bring a motion for expedited discovery, which was denied on December 6, 2013. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The outcome of this litigation cannot be predicted at this time and any outcome in favor of the plaintiffs could have a significant adverse effect on the tender offer and merger, the Company's financial condition and its results of operations. In January 2013, Clark Leips, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a lawsuit against the Company and its board of directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging, among other things, that the compensation and management development committee of the board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in each of calendar years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 by approving equity incentive grants for the Company's chief executive officer that exceeded the respective sub-limitations under Section 5 of the Company's 2003 long-term incentives plan for grants to a single participant in any calendar year. Plaintiff also alleged that the disclosures in the proxy statement for the Company's 2013 annual meeting of stockholders were inadequate. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages, rescission of the excess grants, disgorgement and attorney's fees. Plaintiff filed a motion to enjoin the Company's 2013 annual meeting of stockholders until the Company issued additional disclosures to supplement the proxy statement. On January 22, 2013, the Company filed a supplement to the proxy statement. The motion for an injunction was then withdrawn by the plaintiff. The Company and its board of directors have moved to dismiss the complaint. Pursuant to Delaware law, upon the closing of the merger, plaintiff's standing to bring this derivative lawsuit, if the plaintiff had standing in the first instance, which is contested, will be extinguished. Management does not believe the resolution of this matter will result in a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. designs, develops and sells semiconductor solutions for communications applications in the wireline and wireless network infrastructure, which includes enterprise networks, broadband access networks (fixed and mobile), and metropolitan and wide area networks (WAN). Mindspeed has organized its solutions for these networks into three product families: communications convergence processing (formerly known as multiservice access), high-performance analog and WAN communications. Its products are sold to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for use in a variety of network infrastructure equipment. The Company's customers include Alcatel- Lucent, Cisco Systems, Inc., Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and Zhongxing Telecom Equipment Corp. Effective December 18, 2013, M/A-Com Technology Solutions Holdings Inc acquired the entire interest of Mindspeed Technologies Inc. NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Permits Fox to File Amicus Brief -------------------------------------------------------- Bill Donahue, writing for Law360, reports that the judge overseeing the sprawling antitrust class action over the NCAA's use of student names and likenesses on Feb. 5 granted Fox Broadcasting Co. the right to file an amicus brief, which they used to argue that players have no right to preapprove the use of their images in live broadcasts. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted Fox and the regional broadcaster Big Ten Network leave to file the brief, which argues that big college sporting events are matters "of great public interest," meaning the First Amendment bars participants from asserting their publicity rights over live telecasts. The Feb. 5 order came in a long-running class action that accuses the NCAA of using no-compensation amateurism rules to cut student-athletes out of the billions of dollars the league makes by using their names and likenesses in the license and sale of game footage, video games, trading cards and other products. Fox's desire to join the case is understandable: The networks already pay universities and regional conferences hundreds of millions of dollars per year for the rights to football and basketball games, and a ruling allowing players to control and collectively license their images would add another layer of rights to be purchased. Fighting against that outcome, the brief entered with the court on Feb. 5 said publicity rights can only be asserted over truly "commercial" speech and that broadcasts of popular sporting events -- even if they generate revenue -- don't make that "commercial" cut. "Live broadcasts and rebroadcasts of game footage are, by definition, communicative news reporting, not commercial speech," Fox said. "Plaintiffs' suggestion that sports broadcasts are commercial speech because they are for-profit is entirely without merit, and the Supreme Court has flatly rejected that argument for well over 70 years." The student-athletes' class actions, which have since been consolidated into the current case, initially dealt more with the use of player names and likenesses in video games and other licensing activity. Amended complaints later added live broadcast rights, which generate the lion's share of college sports revenue. In November, Judge Wilken refused to certify the class of players in their quest for billions in past damages, but granted certification for prospective relief, allowing the players to collectively challenge to the NCAA's ban on compensation itself. The case has moved forward since as a class action, and is currently on the NCAA's motion for summary judgment. Electronic Arts Inc. and the Collegiate Licensing Co. were originally named as co-defendants, but the players settled with the two companies in September for $40 million. The players are represented by Michael P. Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com -- Arthur N. Bailey Jr. -- abailey@hausfeldllp.com -- Michael D. Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com -- Hilary K. Scherrer -- hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com -- and Sathya S. Gosselin -- sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com -- of Hausfeld LLP. The NCAA is represented by Glenn D. Pomerantz -- Glenn.Pomerantz@mto.com -- Kelly M. Klaus -- Kelly.Klaus@mto.com -- Rohit K. Singla -- Rohit.Singla@mto.com -- and Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke -- Carolyn.Luedtke@mto.com -- of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP and Gregory K. Curtner, Robert J. Wierenga and Kimberly K. Kefalas of Schiff Hardin LLP. The case is In re: NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, case number 4:09-cv-01967, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. NEIMAN MARCUS: Trial Set for April 1 on Civil Penalty Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ A trial is set for April 1, 2014, to address certain civil penalty claims alleging that Neiman Marcus Group LTD Inc., has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on December 17, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2013. On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and Equitable Relief was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, against the Company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC. On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for the Company were dismissed without prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was dismissed by Ms. Monjazeb and refiled in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. This complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the Company has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including without limitation (1) asking employees to work "off the clock," (2) failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its employees, (3) improperly calculating deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees and (4) failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during shifts. The Monjazeb and Tanguilig class actions have been deemed "related" cases and are pending before the same trial court judge. On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the Tanguilig case) to arbitrate their individual claims in accordance with the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing their ability to pursue a class action in court. The court's order compelling arbitration did not apply to Ms. Tanguilig, who is not bound by the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. The court determined that Ms. Tanguilig could not be a class representative of employees who are subject to the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative class action to those associates who were employed between December 2004 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of our Mandatory Arbitration Agreement). Following the court's order, Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed demands for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA), seeking to arbitrate, not only their individual claims, but also class claims, which the Company asserted violated the class action waiver in the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. This led to further proceedings in the trial court, a stay of the arbitrations, and a decision by the trial court, on its own motion, to reconsider its order compelling arbitration. The trial court ultimately decided to vacate its order compelling arbitration due to a recent California appellate court decision. Following this ruling, the Company timely filed appeals with the Court of Appeal, asserting that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to change its earlier determination of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. While the appeal process has stayed most of claims in both cases, the trial court asked the parties to address issues regarding certain civil penalty claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig, based on Labor Code violations alleged in the complaint. At the December 10, 2013 case management conference, the trial court set these penalty claims for trial on April 1, 2014, despite the pending appeals. Ms. Tanguilig's penalty claims allege that employees were not provided with meal periods and rest breaks in compliance with California law. We have asserted defenses to these claims, and have filed a motion to dismiss all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, including the penalty claims, based on her failure to bring her claims to trial within five years as required by California law. The hearing on our motion is set for January 30, 2014. In addition, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a complaint alleging that the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement's class action prohibition violates employees' rights to engage in concerted activity, which has been submitted to an administrative law judge for determination on a stipulated record. "We have filed a motion with the NLRB in Washington, D.C., to dismiss the matter entirely based upon our previous settlement of the issues surrounding the 2007 Arbitration Agreement with the NLRB. We will continue to vigorously defend our interests in these matters. Currently, we cannot reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising from these matters. We will continue to evaluate these matters based on subsequent events, new information and future circumstances," the retailer said. Neiman Marcus Group LTD Inc., department stores offer high- fashion, high-quality women's and men's apparel (from such labels as Chanel and Prada), shoes and accessories, fine jewelry, china, crystal, and silver. The company operates about 40 Neiman Marcus stores in some 20 states, two Bergdorf Goodman stores in New York City, and more than 35 Last Call clearance center outlets that sell marked down goods. Its mail-order and online business, Neiman Marcus Direct, distributes catalogs (which offer apparel, home furnishings, and gourmet foods) under the Neiman Marcus By Mail and Horchow names. Neiman Marcus was taken private in 2013 by Ares Management and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. NEW SOUTH WALES: Community Group Mulls Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Gavin Coote, writing for ABC News, reports that the Sunset Strip Progress Association says it wants to launch a class action against the State Government. The community group claims authorities have mismanaged flows out of Menindee Lakes, and is wasting money in its proposed water- saving project. It comes as a red alert for blue-green algae levels has been issued for Lake Menindee and other parts of the system. Progress Association Barry Stone says the group will consider a class action against the Government at their members meeting. NSW Primary Industries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson says flows have been managed under a Murray-Darling Basin agreement to meet competing social, economic and environmental demands during extremely dry conditions. NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls X-TRAIL Model Due to Fuel Filler Pipe Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: January 31, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety TC System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 22245 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014030 TC ID number: 2014030 Manufacturer recall number: R1401 On certain vehicles, the fuel filler pipe could corrode and become perforated. This could allow fuel to leak onto the ground while refuelling the vehicle or shortly thereafter. Fuel leakage, in the presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire causing property damage and/or personal injury. Dealers will replace the fuel filler pipe. Affected products: 2005, 2006 Nissan X-Trail models PEPE GANGA: Recalls Christmas Lights Due to Fire and Shock Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Pepe Ganga Corp., of San Juan, PR, announced a voluntary recall of about 500 100-Musical Lights. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The light string can overheat and catch fire, posing fire and shock hazards to consumers. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves 100-bulb musical Christmas multi-colored lights. The light sets twinkle as eight Christmas carols play. Model number 31411 is printed on the back of the package on the bottom right side of the UPC label. "100 Musical Lights" is printed on the front of the white cardboard packaging. The model number, voltage and "Made in China" are printed on a label affixed to the light string. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/yPsnoc The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Pepe Ganga and Compra De To stores in Puerto Rico from December 2011 to October 2012 for about $8. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Christmas lights and return them to any Pepe Ganga store for a full refund. PFP ENTERPRISES: Recalls 15,865 Lbs. of Beef Products ----------------------------------------------------- PFP Enterprises, a Fort Worth, Texas, establishment, is recalling approximately 15,865 pounds of beef products because they may be contaminated with E. coli O103, E. coli O111, E. coli O121, E. coli O145, E. coli O26 and E. coli O45, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. These products are subject to FSIS recall: -- 10.5-lb. boxes of Beef Outside Skirt Steak, with a pack date of "12/13/13"; -- 20-lb. boxes of Studio Movie Grill Beef Tenderloin Sliced, with a pack date of "12/05/13"; -- 15-lb. boxes of Preseasoned Beef for Fajita, with a use by date of "1/13/14"; -- 40-lb. boxes of Southwest Style Beef Skirts, with a pack date of "12/5/13"; -- 20-lb. boxes of Patterson Food Processors Beef Skirt Seasoned, with a pack date of "12/9/13"; -- 10-lb. boxes of Preseasoned Beef for Fajitas, with a pack date of "12/9/2013"; -- 40-lb. boxes of Preseasoned Beef for Fajitas w/Binder, with a pack date of "12/9/2013"; -- 12-lb. boxes of Seasoned Beef for Fajitas, containing 6 2-lb. packs, with a use by date of "1/15/14"; -- 12-lb. boxes of Mexican Style Beef for Fajita, containing 6 2-lb. packs, with a use by date of "1/11/14" The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "Est. 34715" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection. The products were produced on Dec. 5, 2013, and distributed to retail stores and restaurants in Arizona, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico and Texas. FSIS personnel became aware of the problem during a Food Safety Assessment when they discovered that beef trim tested presumptive positive for multiple non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) strains through the company's testing program. The company inadvertently did not carry the test out to confirmation, and not all affected product was held. FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Many clinical laboratories do not test for non-O157 STEC, such as STEC O26, O103, O45, O111, O121 or O145, because it is harder to identify than STEC O157. People can become ill from STECs 2-8 days (average of 3-4 days) after consuming the organism. Most people infected with STEC O26, O103, O45, O111, O121 or O145 develop diarrhea (often bloody) and vomiting. Some illnesses last longer and can be more severe. Infection is usually diagnosed by testing of a stool sample. Vigorous rehydration and other supportive care is the usual treatment; antibiotic treatment is generally not recommended. Most people recover within a week, but, rarely, some develop a more severe infection. Hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) is uncommon with STEC O26, O103, O45, O111, O121 or O145 infection. HUS can occur in people of any age, but is most common in children under 5 years old, older adults and persons with weakened immune systems. It is marked by easy bruising, pallor and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately. FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume beef that has been cooked to a temperature of 145 F with a 3-minute rest time. The only way to confirm that beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature, http://is.gd/EhNECi Consumers and media with questions regarding the recall should contact the company's President, John Pieper, at (817) 546-3561. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem PHILLIP J. CROYLE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Paige Elkaslasy, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Phillip J. Croyle, an individual, and Philip J. Croyle, P.A., a Florida professional association, Case No. 9:14-cv-80052-KAM (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2014) accused the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert William Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. MURPHY 1212 SE 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 763-8660 Facsimile: (954) 763-8607 E-mail: rphyu@aol.com PILOT RECEIVABLES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Tichelle King Weekes, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pilot Receivables Management, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 8:14-cv-00096-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla., January 15, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Salvatore Giardina, Esq. THE CONSUMER RIGHTS LAW GROUP, PLLC 3104 W Waters Ave., Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33614-2877 Telephone: (813) 413-5610 Facsimile: (866) 535-7199 E-mail: james@consumerrightslawgroup.com - and - Scott David Owens, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ. 664 E Hallandale Beach Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com PORTERVILLE HOTEL: Fire Raises Asbestos Concerns ------------------------------------------------ Kelli Ballard, writing for The Porterville Recorder, reports that concerns surrounding the amount of asbestos in the Porterville Hotel were prominent before the fire that destroyed the historical building on Dec. 26, 2013; however, the fire and demolition have actually made the situation worse. "There is a pretty significant amount [of asbestos] according to the Hazmat report we had done before the demolition [was scheduled]," said City Manager John Lollis. Asbestos, known to cause cancers such as mesothelioma, was known to be in the hotel in areas such as floor tiles, the kitchen area and plaster. "Asbestos is not a problem as long as it is confined," said Mr. Lollis. When the hotel caught on fire, the city had to scramble to find a way to demolish it to protect residents, but also had to find a company that could do so with the asbestos problem. "Bowen [Engineering and Environmental] was there for a purpose -- remove the threat from the people. We've eliminated the immediate risk from the public," Mr. Lollis explained. "The most significant piece was having to deal with the unenforced masonry that had plaster in them." With the urgent demolition, the asbestos that was contained or in solid form, became broken and scattered. This form, called "friable form" happens when the materials containing asbestos is crumbled and the particles can be inhaled. This is when it is dangerous. "By the time the building burned, it was spread out," said Community Development Director Brad Dunlap. "That's why it was wetted down and encrusted." Bowen, as part of the demolition process, wet down the scattered debris to keep it in a solid form so the asbestos would be contained. If need be, the owners of the property, Porterville Hotel Investors, will wet down the material to keep it from becoming friable. "We don't believe it's a health risk at this time, and we've taken preventative steps," said Mr. Dunlap. As to when the property will be cleaned up, the city is still in the process of working with all parties involved. So far, the city has not yet reached a purchasing agreement with the property owners; however, a draft working on the language with all the parties given the new issues -- the fire -- is being worked on. Once the new language is agreed upon and accepted, the city will be able to continue negotiations to purchase the property and begin clean up. As for the asbestos concern, Mr. Lollis said, "Until we get a contractor in there that deals with asbestos, the assumption is that it is all asbestos contaminated." In other words, better safe than sorry. RANCHO FEEDING: Recalls 8-Mil. Lbs. of Processed Diseased Animals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rancho Feeding Corporation, a Petaluma, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 8,742,700 pounds, because it processed diseased and unsound animals and carried out these activities without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection. Thus, the products are adulterated, because they are unsound, unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food and must be removed from commerce, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. These Rancho Feeding Corporation products are subject to recall: -- "Beef Carcasses" (wholesale and custom sales only); -- 2 per box "Beef (Market) Heads" (retail only); -- 4-gallons per box "Beef Blood" (wholesale only); -- 20-lb. boxes of "Beef Oxtail"; -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Cheeks"; -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Lips"; -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Omasum"; -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Tripas"; -- 30-lb. boxes of "Mountain Oysters"; -- 30-lb. boxes of "Sweet Breads"; -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Beef Liver"; -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Beef Tripe"; -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Beef Tongue"; -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Veal Cuts"; -- 40-lb. boxes of "Veal Bones"; -- 50-lb. boxes of "Beef Feet"; -- 50-lb. boxes of "Beef Hearts"; and -- 60-lb. boxes of "Veal Trim" Beef carcasses and boxes bear the establishment number "EST. 527" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Each box bears the case code number ending in "3" or "4." The products were produced Jan. 1, 2013 through Jan. 7, 2014 and shipped to distribution centers and retail establishments in California, Florida, Illinois and Texas. FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a health care provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that recalled product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers and members of the media who have questions about the recall can contact the plant's Quality Control manager, Scott Parks, at (707) 762-6651. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem * * * Greg Botelho and Janet DiGiacomo, writing for CNN, report that the recall affecting Rancho Feeding Corporation products -- as detailed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service -- marks a significant expansion of one announced January 13, when just over 40,000 pounds of the company's products were recalled. According to the U.S. agency, Rancho Feeding "processed diseased and unsound animals and carried out these activities without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection." "Thus, the products are adulterated, because they are unsound, unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food and must be removed from commerce," the FSIS reported. The Petaluma company made the recall. It was not immediately clear which companies got them, or whether they ended up being sold in some form at any markets or restaurants. In the January announcement, the FSIS reported only that the products were being recalled only from January 8, 2014, and that they didn't have a "full federal inspection." RUNWAY FASHIONS: Recalls Girls' Hooded Jackets ---------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Runway Fashions Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 820 Girls' hooded jackets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The jackets have drawstrings in the hood around the neck area that pose a strangulation hazard to young children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts. There were no injuries that were reported. The recall involves three styles of Sugarfly-branded hooded, woven cotton and woven polyester jackets for girls with a drawstring through the hood. Style number KMCBJ255 is olive and has a zipper closure and four front pockets with buttons, plus two zipper pockets. Style number KMCBJ410 is a belted, double-breasted, French coat style white garment with faux fur around the neck. Style KMCBJ421 is fuchsia or purple and has a button closure, plus snap button pockets on each side. They were sold in girl's sizes 7 through 16. The style number can be found on the back of the sewn-in neck label. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/MXUPUc The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide and online at Burlingtoncoatfactory.com from September 2011 through September 2013 for about $40. Consumers should immediately take the garments away from children. Consumers can remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard or return the garments to Burlington Coat Factory for a full refund. SANDERSON FARMS: Appeal in Illegal Aliens Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------ In its Form 10-K filed on December 17, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013, Sanderson Farms, Inc., reported that the appeal regarding plaintiffs' dismissed amended complaint alleging that the Company conspired to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants at the Moultrie plant, is pending. The Company states: "As reported in the Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2012, two of our former employees filed a complaint on February 16, 2012, alleging violations of the federal and State of Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Acts against us and seven of our current and former employees in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The plaintiffs contend in their complaint that the Company conspired to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants at the Moultrie plant to "save Sanderson millions of dollars in labor costs because illegal aliens will work for extremely low wages". The action is brought as a class action lawsuit on behalf of all legally authorized hourly employees that worked at the Moultrie plant in the four years before the filing of the case. The plaintiffs are suing for money damages, injunctive relief and revocation of our license to conduct business in the State of Georgia. On September 13, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting a motion to dismiss the Complaint, but provided the plaintiffs an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint on one of the alleged violations. After an Amended Complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on October 5, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 29, 2012. On February 5, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and entered an Order dismissing the Amended Complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on February 8, 2013. The Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants was filed on March 19, 2013, and the Brief for Defendants-Appellees was filed on April 22, 2013. The Plaintiffs-Appellants' Reply Brief was filed May 6, 2013. Oral argument was held on November 20, 2013. This matter is pending. Sanderson Farms, Inc. is a poultry processing company engaged in the production, processing, marketing and distribution of fresh and frozen chicken products. In addition, the Company is engaged in the processing, marketing and distribution of prepared chicken through its wholly owned subsidiary, Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods Division). It sells ice pack, chill pack, bulk pack and frozen chicken, in whole, cut-up and boneless form, under the Sanderson Farms brand name to retailers, distributors, and casual dining operators in the south-eastern, south-western, north-eastern and western United States and to customers who resell frozen chicken into export markets. During the fiscal year ended October 31, 2011 (fiscal 2011), it processed 434 million chickens, or over 2.8 billion dressed pounds. SOLARCITY CORP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Feb. 6 disclosed that on December 24, 2013 the San Francisco employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Solarcity Corporation for allegedly failing to pay their hourly employees the proper overtime wages and also purportedly failed to provide adequate meal breaks. Irving vs. Solarcity Corporation, Case No. CIV 525975 is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court for the State of California. According to the class action complaint, the solar energy system company allegedly failed to pay their non-exempt employees who were paid on an hourly basis the proper overtime rate for overtime hours worked. The California Labor Code requires employers to pay overtime at 1.5 times the employee's regular rate of pay when an employee works more than eight hours in a workday and/or in excess of forty hours in a workweek. The class action lawsuit also alleges that the employees were not provided with thirty minute uninterrupted meal breaks before their fifth hour of work as a result of Solarcity allegedly failing to have a proper meal break policy. For more information about the class action lawsuit against Solarcity Corproation call (866) 771-7099 to speak to an experienced San Francisco labor law lawyer today. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a San Francisco employment law firm that represents employees in California who have been wrongfully terminated, denied proper overtime pay, denied payment of earned commission wages, and also employees who have been improperly denied their meal and rest breaks. SPHERION STAFFING: Insurance Underwriter Sues Over Unpaid OT Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Simpson, On Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Spherion Staffing, LLC, and American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-06007-ODS (W.D. Mo., January 15, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Insurance Underwriter employees of the Defendants are entitled to (i) unpaid overtime premiums for all hours worked exceeding 40 in a workweek, and (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Spherion Staffing, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, headquartered in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Spherion provides on- site staffing services for AmFam by hiring employees, including the Plaintiff, to perform AmFam's commercial underwriting services. American Family Mutual Insurance Company is headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin. AmFam provides commercial underwriting services out of five regional offices located throughout the United States, including the regional office in St. Joseph, Missouri, where the Plaintiff performed his work for the Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. Tracey F. George, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 10601 Mission Rd, Suite 100 Leawood, KS 66206 Telephone: (913) 766-5585 Facsimile: (816) 875-5069 E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com Tracey.George@rmlegalgroup.com SWISHER HYGIENE: Settles Class Actions for $5.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------- Swisher Hygiene Inc., a provider of essential hygiene and sanitizing products and services, on Feb. 6 disclosed that it has entered into a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement with the Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. against the Company. Pursuant to the Settlement, which remains subject to Court approval, the Company has agreed to pay $5.5 million to a Settlement Fund. The Settlement Payment is reimbursable by Swisher's insurer. Plaintiffs acting on their behalf and on behalf of all Class Members, have agreed to dismiss all claims in the class action against Swisher and the individual defendants with prejudice. The Lead Plaintiff and its Claims Administrator will manage the administration and distribution of the Settlement Fund among the Class Members and the payment of expenses therefrom, subject to Court approval. "While we have been well represented by our counsel and confident of our litigation position, we believe putting this matter behind us is in the best interest of our customers, employees and shareholders so that we can remain focused on our business," said Richard L. Handley, Chairman of the Board of Swisher. TARGET CORP: Faces "Farol" Suit in North Dakota Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alissa Farol and Frances Lundblad, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00011-RRE-KKK (D.N.D., January 15, 2014) is based on Target's data breach during November 27, 2013, to December 15, 2013, where millions of Target shoppers' personal and financial information was obtained by hackers, as a result of Target's alleged inadequate or unreasonable security measures. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mike Miller, Esq. Todd Miller, Esq. SOLBERG STEWART MILLER 1123 Fifth Avenue South P.O. Box 1897 Fargo, ND 58107-1897 Telephone: (701) 237-3166 Facsimile: (701) 237-4627 E-mail: mmiller@solberglaw.com tmiller@solberglaw.com TEREX: Recalls AL4 Light Tower & RL4 Light Tower Equipment ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 30, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Equipment Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 500 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014029 TC ID number: 2014029 On certain trailer-mounted aerial lighting towers, water could enter an electrical connection for the lighting controls, which could cause an electrical short. This could potentially result in a fire, increasing the risk of injury and/or damage to property. Owners will be provided with a repair kit as well as repair instructions. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- TEREX AL4 LIGHT TOWER 2013, 2014 TEREX RL4 LIGHT TOWER 2013, 2014 TAISHAN GYPSUM: 5th Cir. Upholds $2.7MM Judgment in Drywall Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans upheld a district judge's ruling that Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd must pay $2.7 million for damage to seven Virginia houses. The owners were chosen to represent about 300 Virginia families. All federal cases involving Chinese drywall have been consolidated in New Orleans. The 5th Circuit ruled Jan. 28 that Taishan lost its chance for defense by failing to deal with plaintiffs' attorneys or the court until it was ordered to pay. Taishan was one of two major manufacturers of drywall that caused problems from stenches to corrosion. It was installed in an estimated 12,000 to 20,000 U.S. homes. TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls 22,849 Lbs. of Broccoli Salad Kit Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Taylor Farms Maryland, Inc. in Jessup, Md. and Taylor Farms Texas Inc. in Dallas are recalling approximately 22,849 pounds of broccoli salad kit products due to concerns about possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination in the salad dressing, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The salad dressing in the packets is the subject of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recall. The salad kits were shipped to distributors and retail locations (delis) for consumer purchase in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia. The company is recalling these products in addition to the 5,084 pounds of similar products that were recalled on Oct. 25, 2013. These products are being recalled as part of this expansion: -- 6.06-lb. boxes labeled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH WITH BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310151, produced on Oct. 14 through Oct. 24, 2013; -- 12.13-lb. boxes labeled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH WITH BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310153, produced Oct. 14 through Oct. 24, 2013. -- 6.33-lb boxes labeled "Kit, Broc PPC" with case code 5900067, produced Oct. 15 through Oct. 20, 2013. These products listed were announced as part of the recall on Oct. 25, 2013: -- 6.06-lb. boxes labeled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH WITH BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310151, produced on Oct. 21 and Oct. 22, 2013. -- 12.13-lb. boxes labeled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH WITH BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310153, produced Oct. 21 through Oct. 23, 2013. Case labels bear the establishment number "EST. 34522" or "EST. 34733" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Retail consumers and the general public will not typically see the boxes and labels, because the product is typically unboxed by retailers (such as deli counters and restaurants) and the kit used to make salads for retail sale. The boxes and labels would be more likely to be seen by distributors and retailers. Taylor Farms informed FSIS that salad dressing subject to an FDA recall was contained in the salad kits produced on the dates listed above. FSIS, FDA and the company have received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk groups are affected. Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics. Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating the contaminated food. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall should contact Taylor Farms Customer Services at 866-508-7048 between the hours of 9-5 Pacific Time. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem UNITED STATES: NSA Faces Class Action Over Surveillance Program --------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the National Security Agency for allegedly conducting surveillance and intelligence-gathering programs that collected data from American citizens. President Barack Obama; U.S. Attorney General Eric Himpton Holder Jr.; Keith B. Alexander, the director of the National Security Agency; Roger Vinson, a judge for the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence; John O. Brennan, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency; James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the U.S. Department of Justice; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the Central Intelligence Agency were also named as defendants in the suit. Larry Klayman; Charles and Mary Ann Strange; Michael Ferrari; and Matt Garrison claim the NSA began a classified surveillance program to intercept the telephone communications of American citizens and on June 5, The Guardian reported the first of several "leaks" of classified material from Edward Snowden, a former NSA contract employee, according to a complaint filed Jan. 23 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The leaks revealed, and continue to reveal, multiple U.S. government intelligence collection and surveillance programs, according to the suit. The plaintiffs claim Mr. Vinson, acting in his official and personal capacities and under the authority of Obama, Mr. Holder, the FBI, the NSA and the DOJ, ordered that the Custodian of Records "shall produce the production of tangible things from Verizon Business Network Services Inc. on behalf of MCI Communication Services . . . to the NSA and continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter." The U.S. Government -- on the orders of the president, the attorney general, the DOJ and the NSA -- obtained a top secret court order that directs Verizon to turn over the telephone records of more than 100 million Americans to the NSA on an ongoing daily basis, according to the suit. The plaintiffs claim Mr. Vinson ordered access to electronic copies of all call detail records or "telephony metadata" created by Verizon for communications between the United States and abroad. The plaintiffs claim to date, the defendants have not issued substantive and meaningful explanations to the American people describing what has occurred. The NSA surveillance program collects not only the identities of people's communications with the targets of surveillance, but also the contents of those communications. Such intrusive and illegal surveillance have directly impacted each and every plaintiff, according to the suit. The plaintiffs claim the risk and knowledge that the plaintiff's telephonic and internet conversations may be overheard, undoubtedly chills speech, in violation of the plaintiff's First Amendment rights. The defendants violated the plaintiffs' First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and caused them damages, according to the suit. "PRISM" was an internal government computer system, authorized by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It c0llected records from all communications companies, including Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Skype, YouTube, AOL, Apple and PalTalk. "PRISM" began after the passing of the Protect America Act in 2007. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest in an amount in excess of $20 billion. Mr. Klayman is representing himself and the rest of the class. The case has been assigned to District Judge Richard J. Leon. In the 1990s, Mr. Klayman was known for filing dozens of lawsuits against President Bill Clinton. He founded Judicial Watch and a government watchdog group called Freedom Watch. He has also brought legal action against former Vice President Dick Cheney, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case number: 1:14-cv-00092 UNITED STATES: Rand Paul Set to File Class Action v. NSA -------------------------------------------------------- Rand Paul on February 12, 2014, was set to join Matt Kibbe, President of FreedomWorks, and lead counsel Ken Cuccinelli in announcing a class action lawsuit against President Barack Obama, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Director of National Security Agency Keith Alexander and FBI Director, James Comey. Immediately after the lawsuit filing, Rand Paul was set to host a press conference outside the courthouse with Matt Kibbe and Ken Cuccinelli. Rand Paul stated: "I am filing a lawsuit against President Barack Obama because he has publicly refused to stop a clear and continuing violation of the 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights protects all citizens from general warrants. I expect this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court and I predict the American people will win." Matt Kibbe added "This class action suit isn't about Republican versus Democrat, or progressive versus conservative. This is about defending the basic civil liberties of every American from a government that has crossed the line. FreedomWorks is participating in this suit on behalf of our community of 6 million citizens nationwide, along with any American who has a phone. If you use a phone, you should care about this case. Never in American history has there been such a warrantless gathering of citizens information. We believe it is time to put this before the courts. " Ken Cuccinelli added: "I am excited to be lead counsel for Rand Paul and FreedomWorks to get the Courts to affirm the rights protected by the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. We have assembled a legal team and we expect to be opposed by the vast resources of the federal government, yet I am optimistic that we will prevail, because we are seeking to protect a cornerstone of the Constitution." VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: "Golan" Class Suit Removed to Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Golan, et al. v. Veritas Entertainment, LLC, et al., Case No. 12SL-CC03771, from the St. Louis County Circuit Court, state of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00069-ERW to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are Ron Golan and Dorit Golan. The Defendants are Veritas Entertainment, LLC; Veritas Marketing Group, LLC; FreeEats.com, Inc., d/b/a CC Advertising; AIC Communications, LLC, d/b/a CC Advertising; Gabriel S. Joseph III; Stephen Wayne Griffin; Mission City Management, Inc.; Courage 2012, LLC; James R. Leininger; SixDi, Inc., d/b/a SixDi; Bob Brewer; and Michael Dale Huckabee, also known as: Mike Huckabee, Case No. 4:14-cv- 00069-ERW (E.D. Mo., January 15, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Schultz, Esq. Ronald J. Eisenberg, Esq. SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. 640 Cepi Drive, Suite A Chesterfield, MO 63005-1221 Telephone: (636) 537-4645 Facsimile: (636) 537-2599 E-mail: rschultz@sl-lawyers.com reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Ari Nicholas Rothman, Esq. Molly Theresa Cusson, Esq. Ronald M. Jacobs, Esq. VENABLE LLP 575 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 344-4220 Facsimile: (202) 344-8300 E-mail: anrothman@venable.com mtcusson@venable.com rmjacobs@venable.com - and - Cicely I. Lubben, Esq. Kimberly Means Steuterman, Esq. STINSON AND LEONARD LLP 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863-0800 Facsimile: (314) 863-9388 E-mail: cicely.lubben@stinsonleonard.com kimberly.steuterman@stinsonleonard.com - and - Steven H. Schwartz, Esq. BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. 800 Market Street, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 421-3400 Facsimile: (314) 421-3128 E-mail: sschwartz@bjpc.com WALKER'S FOOD: Recalls 2,446 Lbs. of Chicken Salad Products ----------------------------------------------------------- Walker's Food Products Co., a North Kansas City, Mo., establishment, is recalling approximately 2,446 pounds of chicken salad products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products are formulated with a soy protein concentrate, a known allergen, which was not properly declared on the labels. The products subject to recall includes: -- 5-lb. plastic tubs of "Walker's All White Chunky Chicken Salad" with packaging dates between June 6, 2013 and Jan. 23, 2014 and use by/sell by dates between July 26, 2013 and March 14, 2014 and sold to wholesale locations in Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. -- 1-lb. plastic tubs of "Walker's All White Chunky Chicken Salad" with packaging dates between June 6, 2013 and Jan. 23, 2014 and use by/sell by dates between July 26, 2013 and March 14, 2014 and sold to retail locations in Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma. -- 5-lb. tubs of "Walker's White Chicken Salad Florentine" with packaging dates between June 6, 2013 and Jan. 27, 2014 and use by/sell by dates between July 14, 2013 and March 6, 2014 and sold to wholesale locations for distribution in Kansas and Missouri. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-13335" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection. The problem was discovered by an FSIS in-plant inspector during a routine label review. The problem occurred after a change in product suppliers without a corresponding change in label. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. For individuals allergic to soy, consumption of soy protein concentrate presents a reasonable probability of serious health consequences or death. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers with questions about the recall should contact James Daskaleas at (816) 472-8121, ext. 15. Media with questions about the recall should contact Mike Stinson at (816) 472-8121, ext. 12. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. WESTERN HEALTH: Class Action Certification Proceedings Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Kean, writing for The Western Star, reports that Western Health's lawyers was set to continue to try and convince Justice William Goodridge that its client should not be held responsible for one of its employees breaching the privacy of more than 1,000 patients on Feb. 6. The certification hearing to determine if a class-action lawsuit filed against Western Health can proceed began before Justice Goodridge in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in Corner Brook on Jan. 30. The lawyers representing the plaintiffs have made their submissions as to why the class-action should go ahead. Dan Boone, Western Health's lead counsel, began his argument on Jan. 30 and was set to pick up where he left off on Feb. 6. Mr. Boone submitted the class action should not be certified by the court because, under provincial privacy legislation, action would have to be taken against the employee who inappropriately accessed the files. That's because the law stipulates that the breach has to be shown as intentional, which the health authority argued it should not be responsible for. The class-action lawsuit was launched in light of a breach of privacy involving the files of 1,043 people. Donna Colbourne, a clerk at Western Memorial Regional Hospital was fired from her position in 2012 after she allegedly inappropriately accessed patient files while on the job. Affected patients were notified by Western Health of the breach in the summer of 2012, following an internal investigation that reviewed accessed files from June 2011 to May 2012. Both Ms. Colbourne and Western Health were originally listed as defendants. However, Ms. Colbourne was later removed as defendant. Justice Goodridge has been tasked with deciding if the matter should proceed as a class-action lawsuit. The allegation is that Western Health didn't do enough to protect its patients. In addition, Mr. Boone argued there is no basis for any awarding of damages in this case as argued by the plaintiffs. Bob Buckingham, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, does not agree. He has not put an exact dollar figure on the damages they are seeking, but said it could range from $500 to $30,000, depending on the respective circumstances of each plaintiff. Besides that, his chief argument is that Western Health should be held accountable for Ms. Colbourne's actions. WYOMING AUTHENTIC: Recalls 365 Pounds of Beef Jerky Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Wyoming Authentic Products, LLC, a Cody, Wyo. establishment, is recalling approximately 365 pounds of beef jerky products due to a processing deviation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The Wyoming Gourmet Beef products were produced on various dates between November 4 and November 25, 2013, 2013. These products are subject to recall: -- 3.5-oz. (CRYOVACED) packages of "ALL NATURAL ANGUS ORIGINAL FLAVOR JERKY" with case code "05AE30811" -- 3.5-oz. (CRYOVACED) packages of "ALL NATURAL ANGUS PEPPERED FLAVOR JERKY" with case codes "06AE30821", "05AE31021", "05AE31711" or "05EIJ32511" -- 3.5-oz. (CRYOVACED) packages of "ALL NATURAL ANGUS HONEY FLAVOR JERKY" with case code "04AE30921" The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 44972" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were sold at retail in Colorado, Utah, Washington and Wyoming, as well as Internet sales to individuals. The problem was discovered by the company, who then brought it to the attention of FSIS. FSIS and the company have received no reports of illness due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact David Fales, president, at (307) 587-9841. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem YAO JI: Recalls Frozen Fish Products Due to Undeclared Milk ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 7, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Uncle T Food Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail Uncle T Food Ltd. is recalling Yao Ji brand frozen fish products from the marketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled products described. These products have been sold by T & T Supermarkets in BC and Alberta. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There has been one reported allergic reaction associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products from the marketplace. Affected products: Common Name Size Code(s) on product UPC ----------- ---- ------------------ --- Frozen Fish Medley 300 g EXP 20140403 and 4 713174 090314 Combo EXP 20140315 Frozen Fish 300 g 4 713174 030297 Dumplings Fish Ball Combo ZOLTEK COMPANIES: Named as Defendant in 13 Suits Over Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- A total of 13 purported class actions arising out of the execution of a Merger Agreement were filed against Zoltek Companies, Inc., alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties to shareholders, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on December 17, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013. In September and October 2013, a total of 13 purported class actions arising out of the execution of the Merger Agreement were filed against Zoltek and Zoltek's directors in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri by purported shareholders of Zoltek. All but one of the lawsuits also named Toray and/or Merger Sub as defendants. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that (1) each of Zoltek's directors breached his fiduciary duties to Zoltek's shareholders in connection with approval of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and (2) that Zoltek, Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted Zoltek's directors in such breaches of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuits seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the parties from completing the merger and directing the Zoltek directors to account to Zoltek and the purported class for all damages suffered as a result of the breaches of fiduciary duties and awards of attorneys' fees and expenses for the plaintiffs. Zoltek has filed various motions to dismiss the actions against Zoltek and the individual directors of Zoltek, which motions are pending. The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri consolidated each of the actions under the caption In Re: Zoltek Companies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation on November 26, 2013. On November 27, 2013, the Court entered an order denying a motion filed by certain of the plaintiffs for expedited discovery. Cross Motions filed by the plaintiffs to designate lead plaintiffs and lead counsel are pending before the Court. On December 4, 2013, the Court entered an order appointing co-lead plaintiffs in the action, and in the same order, the Court appointed Goldenberg Heller Antognoli & Rowland, P.C. and Holloran White Schwartz & Gaertner LLP as interim co-lead counsel and appointed Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee. The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, with regard to the outcome of this litigation. Zoltek Companies, Inc. is a holding company, which operates through wholly owned subsidiaries, Zoltek Corporation, Zoltek Zrt., Zoltek de Mexico SA de CV, Zoltek de Occidente SA de CV, Engineering Technology Corporation (Entec Composite Machines), Zoltek Properties, Inc., and Zoltek Automotive, LLC. Zoltek Corporation (Zoltek) develops, manufactures and markets carbon fibers and technical fibers in the United States. The Company is an applied technology and advanced materials company. Its commercialization of carbon fiber through composites used in a range of commercial products, which it sells under the Panex trade name. In addition to manufacturing carbon fiber, it produces an intermediate product, a stabilized and oxidized acrylic fiber used in flame- and heat-resistant applications, which it sells under the Pyron trade name. During fiscal year ended September 30, 2011, its net sales to Vestas Wind Systems, a wind turbine manufacturer represented % of its net sales. ********* 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 * * *