/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140304.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 4, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 44 Headlines 1196110 AB: Recalls Dry Garlic Ribs Due to Undeclared Mustard ALAFAYA WOODS: Class Action Settlement Claim Forms Due on July 7 APPLE INC: Seeks Remand of E-Book Price-Fixing Suit to Texas AQUAFUCHSIA FOODS: Recalls Alfalfa Sprout With Touch of Radish BANK OF AMERICA: June 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set BCSB BANCORP: Faces Putative Stockholder Complaint BIOVEST INTERNATIONAL: Court Consolidated Suits v. Accentia BLUESTERN BRANDS: Fingerhut Faces Class Action Over Robocalls BRP: Recalls Heated Gloves and Lithium-Ion Rechargeable Batteries BUCKSTONE INC: Recalls Jardine's and D.L. Jardine's Products BURNBRAE FARMS: Recalls Dried Whole Eggs BUTLER COUNTY: Prison Employees' Suit Dismissed With Prejudice CATERPILLAR: Recalls CT660 Model Due Inoperative Brake CC-PALO ALTO: Faces Class Action Over CCRC Entrance Fees COBB ELECTRIC: Judge Approves $100-Mil. Class Action Settlement CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Former Pilots File Class Action CREIG NORTHROP: Class Action Over Alleged Kickbacks Certified DELANO FARMS: Court Partially Decertifies Class in Arredondo Suit EQUAL ENERGY: Facing Lawsuit Due to Petroflow Arrangement FEDERAL MUTUAL: Faces Class Action Over Underinsured Benefits FIDELITY NATIONAL: "Henson" Suit Moved to Calif. Central Dist. FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES: Settled Minimum Wage Lawsuit FORGE GROUP: Class Action Call Gets 150 Inquiries FRED DEELEY: Recalls 297 Motorcycles Due to Programming Error GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 82,545 HHR, ION, SKY and SOLSTICE Cars GOOGLE INC: Judge Koh Grills Plaintiff Lawyers in Privacy Suit HAZELWOOD: Morwell Residents Mull Class Action Over Mine Fire HERSHEY CO: Judge Tosses 91 Chocolate Price-Fixing Cases HEWLETT-PACKARD: Moved to Dismiss Amended Pension Fund Complaint HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Narrows Autonomy Acquisition Suit HEWLETT-PACKARD: Commenced Mediation in "Gammel" WebOS Suit HEWLETT-PACKARD: Moved to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit HOECHST CELANESE: Seeks Dismissal of Chemical Spill Class Action HOME DEPOT: Bid to Remand "Bell" Suit to Superior Court Denied IEC ELECTRONICS: Responded to Consolidated Shareholder Suit JABURG & WILK: Obtains Final Approval of "Eibert" Suit Settlement LG ELECTRONICS: Settles Class Action Over Mobile Phone Defects MAMMUT SPORTS: Recalls Crevasse Rescue Devices Due to Injury Risk MEDALLION PLUS: Recalls Tekki Shomen Noodles in a Cup MERGE HEALTHCARE: Finkelstein & Krinsk Law Firm Files Class Action NEW ORLEANS: Settles Lead Exposure Class Action for $67 Million NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 1,047 NV200 Trucks Due to Tire Label Issues OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeal in Genaera Trust Suit Still Pending OZ MINERALS: Faces Shareholder Class Action PREVOST: Recalls 34 X3-45 Coach Buses Due to Short Circuit Risk QUALITY NATURAL: Recalls Quality Candy Due to Undeclared Sulphites REAL TIME: "Hurrle" Suit Stayed Pending Ruling on FCC Petition RICHMOND UNIVERSITY: Plumber Sacked Over OSHA Asbestos Complaint ROWE FINE: Recalls Ottomans Due to Risk of Suffocation SCORES HOLDING: Goldring Note Balance Was $32,737 at Sept. 30 SINOTECH ENERGY: Court Dismisses "Athale" Class Action SUN HING: Recalls Canadian Liver Pate Products TIMMONSVILLE: "Desarno" Suit Remanded to S.C. State Court TPUSA INC: Loses Bid to Block Certification in "Tanner" Suit WELLS FARGO: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Transaction Fees WHIRLPOOL CORP: High Court Allows Washer Class Actions to Proceed WHITECAP INVESTMENT: "Chapin" Suit Remanded to Superior Court ZIPCAR INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Vehicle Damage Policy * Oregon District Attorneys Support Class Action Bill ********* 1196110 AB: Recalls Dry Garlic Ribs Due to Undeclared Mustard ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 26, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Soy Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: 1196110 AB Ltd. Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8668 The food recall warning issued on February 13, 2014 has been updated to include additional products. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. 1196110 AB Ltd. operating as Malley's Seafood is recalling Malley's brand Dry Garlic Ribs from the marketplace because they contain mustard and soy which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to mustard or soy should not consume the recalled products described below. If you have an allergy to mustard or soy, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported allergic reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the CFIA's 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. Affected products: 1362 g and 2.27 kg. Malley's Dry Garlic Ribs with all codes where mustard and soy are not declared in the list of ingredients ALAFAYA WOODS: Class Action Settlement Claim Forms Due on July 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT If you were an owner of a single-family lot in the Alafaya Woods Subdivision and were a member of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association on July 18, 2001, you could receive benefits from a class action settlement. A settlement of a class action lawsuit may affect you if you were an owner of a single-family lot in the Alafaya Woods Subdivision located in the City of Oviedo, Seminole County, Florida, east of SR 434 (Alafaya Trail) and south of Mitchell Hammock Road, and you were a member of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association, all on July 18, 2001. This settlement will compensate people who were owners and members at that specific time for the Florida Department of Transportation's taking of your interests in the common area of Alafaya Woods. You may elect to refuse to participate in this settlement, but your claims will be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County has ordered that this notice appear in a local newspaper twice to notify class members of the class action settlement. The court has already held a hearing in which it determined that the class action settlement was fair, equitable, and just. Who is affected? Single-family lot owners who were members of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association on July 18, 2001 are included in the settlement. What is this about? The lawsuit claimed that the Florida Department of Transportation completed an inverse condemnation and exercised its eminent domain powers over certain common areas in which the lot owners and members of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association have easement interests and property rights. Florida law holds that easement holders have the right to be paid just compensation for these easement interests. The Florida Department of Transportation denied any wrongdoing and asserted many defenses. The settlement is not an admission of any wrongdoing or an indication that any law was violated. What can you get from this settlement? The lot owners and members of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association were awarded a lump sum amount of $1,460,000 which includes administrative expenses to be incurred. There were 2,231 lots on July 18, 2001. Accordingly, this works out to an estimated recovery of $654.41 per lot, minus administrative expenses incurred in identifying class members and administering the claims in the class action settlement. How do you get a payment? A detailed notice and claim form packet containing the necessary documents to submit a claim will be sent to all reasonably identifiable members of the class. The claim form packet is scheduled to be mailed on approximately March 10, 2014. Additionally, you may call 407-542-1810 to request a claim form packet. Claim form packets will also be available at www.AlafayaWoodsClassAction.com. You will be required to provide proof of identity and submit a properly completed claim form, including a declaration of ownership of a single-family lot within Alafaya Woods Subdivision prior to receiving any compensation. Seminole County property records will be examined to confirm lot ownership by class members. Claim forms are due on or before July 7, 2014. What are your options? If you do not wish to receive a payment, then you are not required to do anything. You may elect to refuse to participate in this settlement, but your claims will be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. For more details, call 407-542-1812, write to Alafaya Woods Class Action, c/o Defense Litigation Group, Inc., 257 Plaza Drive Suite A, Oviedo, FL 32765, or visit the website www.AlafayaWoodsClassAction.com. The Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association will also hold a number of public informational meetings regarding this class action settlement. APPLE INC: Seeks Remand of E-Book Price-Fixing Suit to Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Albanese, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that Apple is seeking to escape from New York. Apple has moved to have its pending state and class action trial over e-book price-fixing damages remanded to the courts they originated in. For the consumer class action, that would mean a potential home court advantage for Apple, as the case would be moved to the Northern District of California, while the states' action could be moved to the Western District of Texas. In an order on Feb. 23, Judge Denise Cote set the deadline for any opposition to Apple's suggestion of remanding the case for March 7, with replies due March 14. Citing a Supreme Court decision [Lexecon], Apple attorneys argue that the case management order that brought the federal, state, and class action cases together in New York applied to pretrial activity only. Thus, any upcoming damages trials in the consumer and state actions should be moved from the Southern District of New York (where Apple has not fared well so far) to Northern California, where the first class action suit from Hagens Berman was filed in 2011, and to the Western District of Texas, where the states' action is based. "The [New York] Court never entered an order consolidating the class actions and States' action (except insofar as it overlapped with the DOJ's liability case) for any purpose other than pretrial proceedings," the Apple's brief states. "[The New York] Court's primary purpose, the coordination of consolidated pretrial discovery in the State and class actions, is complete." In addition to filing a motion to have the remaining damages trials remanded to their original Northern California and Texas jurisdictions, Apple filed its opposition to the state and consumer class action motions for summary judgment. That motion, however, was filed under seal and is not yet public. But while Apple did file its opposition to the plaintiffs' summary judgment motions in New York, it also argued that the motions present "questions of law closely intertwined with trial proceedings," and therefore should not be decided by Judge Cote in New York, but "by the court that will conduct the trial." The filing acknowledges that Apple's remaining motion to dismiss the class action case against it, as well as the plaintiff's motion for class certification (which Apple has opposed) are still pending before Judge Cote. But after Judge Cote issues rulings on those motions, Apple argues, any case going forward to trial should be remanded to courts in Northern California and Texas before April 11, 2014, when the parties are scheduled to submit joint pretrial orders, as required by this Court's trial procedures. After that April 11 date, Apple maintains, all pretrial proceedings will have "run their course," and it would be "an exercise in futility for the parties to submit papers governing the conduct of a trial over which this Court has no jurisdiction." Currently, Apple is on track for a May, 2014 trial for damages, following Judge Denise Cote's July, 2013 ruling that Apple was the "ringmaster" of a conspiracy with five major publishers to fix e-book prices. The plaintiffs have put Apple's liability between $697 million and $840 million. AQUAFUCHSIA FOODS: Recalls Alfalfa Sprout With Touch of Radish -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 26, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Aquafuchsia Foods Inc. Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8662 Aquafuchsia Foods Inc. is recalling Aquafuchsia brand Salad plus Alfalfa with a touch of radish! from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product. The recalled product has been sold in Quebec. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by the 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: 125 g. Aquafuchsia Salad Plus - Alfalfa with a touch of radish! with 0 551176 1 UPC BANK OF AMERICA: June 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------- The following is being released by Hausfeld LLP; Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP; and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. If You Purchased Municipal Derivative Transactions from January 1, 1992 to August 18, 2011 You Could Get a Payment from a Class Action Settlement A partial Settlement has been reached with Bank of America, one of the Defendants, in a class action lawsuit alleging price-fixing in the sale of municipal derivatives transactions. The case, In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1950, No. 08- 02516, is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Class Members include all state, local and municipal government entities, independent government agencies, quasi-government, non-profit and private entities that purchased: (a) By negotiation, competitive bidding or auction municipal derivative transactions directly from an Alleged Provider Defendant or Co-Conspirator, or through an Alleged Broker Defendant or Co-Conspirator, (b) Any time from January 1, 1992 through August 18, 2011 in the U.S. and its territories or for delivery in the U.S. and its territories. A list of the Alleged Provider and Broker Defendants and Co- Conspirators can be found at http://www.MunicipalDerivativesSettlement.com The Settlement affects only claims against Bank of America. The case is continuing against the other non-settling defendants. Bank of America has paid $10 million into an escrow account and an additional $10 million will be paid later. Bank of America will also provide information to the attorneys for the Class and cooperate in connection with claims against the non-settling defendants. Class Members who wish to remain in the Settlement do not need to do anything now. If the Settlement is approved, they will need to submit a claim form in order to receive a payment. Claim forms are not available right now. Class Members can register on the website to receive a claim form when it becomes available. By remaining in the Settlement, Class Members will give up the right to sue Bank of America for the claims in this class action. However, they will still have the right to exclude themselves from any subsequent class that may be certified in the case. Class Members who do not wish to participate in the Settlement must send a written request to be excluded postmarked no later than May 6, 2014. Class Members who request to be excluded will retain their right to sue Bank of America on their own for the claims in this lawsuit. Class Members who remain in the Class can object to or comment on the Settlement. They must file an objection with the Court and deliver a copy to Class Counsel and Bank of America postmarked no later than May 6, 2014. The Court has appointed the law firms of Hausfeld LLP; Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP; and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as Class Counsel to represent all members the Class. Class Members who want to be represented by their own lawyer may hire one at their own expense. The Court has scheduled a hearing on June 6, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 to consider whether to approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and whether to approve Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of litigation expenses. Class Members or their lawyers may ask to appear and speak at the hearing but they are not required to. Class Members who want to be heard by the Court must file a written request with the Court, and deliver a copy to Class Counsel and Bank of America no later than May 6, 2014. The Court may change the time and date of the hearing. Any change will be posted on the settlement website. For more information on this lawsuit, Class Member rights, or to obtain a list of defendants, call 1-877-310-0512, visit http://www.MunicipalDerivativesSettlement.comor write to: Municipal Derivatives Settlement, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., PO Box 2500, Faribault, MN 55021-9500. BCSB BANCORP: Faces Putative Stockholder Complaint -------------------------------------------------- A purported stockholder of BCSB Bancorp Inc., on December 9, 2013, filed a putative class action and derivative complaint making various allegations against the Company relating to F.N.B.'s proposed acquisition of BCSB Bancorp, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated December 26, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 26, 2013. BCSB Bancorp, Inc. ("BCSB Bancorp") and F.N.B. Corporation ("F.N.B.") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 13, 2013, pursuant to which F.N.B. is to acquire BCSB Bancorp through the merger of BCSB Bancorp with and into F.N.B., with F.N.B. being the surviving corporation. F.N.B. and BCSB Bancorp recently became aware that on December 9, 2013, a purported stockholder of BCSB Bancorp filed a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Darr v. BCSB Bancorp, Inc., et al., at Case No. 03-C-13-014034, and naming as defendants BCSB Bancorp, its board of directors and F.N.B. The lawsuit makes various allegations against the defendants relating to F.N.B.'s proposed acquisition of BCSB Bancorp, including that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 19, 2013 in connection with the proposed acquisition omits certain information allegedly necessary for BCSB Bancorp's shareholders to make an informed vote on the proposed transaction, that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to BCSB Bancorp in approving the proposed transaction and that F.N.B. aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The lawsuit generally seeks an injunction barring the defendants from consummating the merger transaction. Alternatively, if the companies complete the transaction before the court enters judgment, the lawsuit seeks rescission of the merger or, in the alternative, rescissory damages, an accounting for all resulting damages and for all profits and any special benefits defendants obtained as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and an award for the costs and expenses incurred in the lawsuit, including attorneys' fees and costs. Earlier, on June 21, 2013, the same plaintiff had filed a similar action against the same defendants in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24C13004131. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that case without prejudice before filing a second case against the same defendants alleging similar claims in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Case No. 03-C-13007839 OC. The plaintiff also voluntarily dismissed its second complaint on September 6, 2013. F.N.B. and BCSB Bancorp believe the allegations in the recently filed complaint are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against the allegations in the complaint. BCSB Bancorp Inc. is the holding company for Baltimore County Savings Bank (the Bank). The Company's primary asset is its investment in the Bank. The Company is engaged in the business of directing, planning, and coordinating the business activities of the Bank. The Bank is a community-oriented Maryland chartered commercial bank dedicated to serving the financial service needs of consumers and businesses within its market area, which consists of the Baltimore metropolitan area. The Bank attracts deposits from the general public and invests these funds in loans secured by first mortgages on owner-occupied, single-family residences in its market area and other real estate loans consisting of commercial real estate loans, construction loans and single-family rental property loans. The Bank also originates consumer loans and commercial loans. Effective February 18, 2014, FNB Corp acquired the entire share capital of BCSB Bancorp Inc. BIOVEST INTERNATIONAL: Court Consolidated Suits v. Accentia ----------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. court on December 4, 2013, ordered to consolidate the purported class actions against Biovest International, Inc.'s former parent corporation, Accentia, according to Biovest's Form 10-K filed on December 27, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013. On July 24, 2013 and August 5, 2013, purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa Division) against Biovest's former parent corporation, Accentia, and several current and former directors and officers of Biovest and Accentia (the "Class Action"). Biovest was not named as a defendant in either complaint. The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making or causing Accentia and/or Biovest to make false statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Accentia and/or Biovest to fail to disclose material information, concerning the results of the Phase III clinical trial of BiovaxID and status of its approval by the FDA. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock of Accentia or Biovest between July 24, 2008 and August 14, 2012 and were damaged as a result of the decline in the price of common stock allegedly attributable to the claimed violations. On December 4, 2013 the District Court entered an Order consolidating the Class Action cases and appointing a group of lead plaintiffs, beginning a 45-day period during which a Consolidated Complaint must be filed and served. Biovest said that "Although the time to respond to this Class Action complaint is still underway, our officers and directors believe this litigation to be without merit, deny any wrongdoing or liability and intend to vigorously defend the alleged claims." Biovest International, Inc. (Biovest) operates through three segments: Cell Culture Products and Services segment, Instruments and Disposables segment and Therapeutic Vaccine. The Company's Cell Culture Products and Services segment is engaged in the production and contract manufacturing of biologic drugs and cell production for research institutions worldwide. The Instruments and Disposables segment is engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of patented cell culture systems, equipment and consumable parts to pharmaceutical, diagnostic and biotechnology companies, as well as research institutions worldwide. The Therapeutic Vaccine segment is focused on developing BiovaxID. As of September 30, 2011, Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. owned approximately 62% of interest in the Company. BLUESTERN BRANDS: Fingerhut Faces Class Action Over Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyerandSettlements.com, reports a potential Fingerhut Robocalling Class-Action Lawsuit has been filed in US District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania. The named defendant is Bluestern Brands, doing business as Fingerhut. The allegation is that Fingerhut initiated a series of automated phone calls to the plaintiff's cell phone without the prior consent of the plaintiff. There are lots of other complaints out there involving Fingerhut robocalls, or automated calling. One respondent to a chat board noted that Fingerhut had been "calling and harassing [my] wife who has had a massive stroke over $19.17. The total amount for the product is 130.00+ interest! It is difficult for my wife to speak, yet this person insisted on talking to her and kept her on the phone while he kept making mistakes concerning the issue. She cannot hold a phone at any length of time and speaking is extremely hard for her. We are on Social Security and send our payments per money order, yet if it's not there on the date they require, they call and harass my wife." Another respondent who identifies himself as Don, of Missoula, Montana, wrote on February 7 that he had tried to return an appliance he purchased through Fingerhut after he found the same item at another retailer for $100 less. He waited a month following his request for a copy of his bill, in addition to a return label so he could ship the unwanted item back. After more than 30 days had elapsed, Don had yet to receive any needed paperwork: "just over 50 phone calls at all hours from Fingerhut collections, usually no one on line, silence, then quick busy. The few times someone was on other end, they spoke indistinguishable English and would not listen to my complaint. The calls have come continuously for about a month." After finally getting through to someone at the corporate headquarters at Fingerhut, Don was told that "I did receive too many calls, but glitches in computer system happens so it is not their fault for plus 50 calls even Sundays at 8 am with no one on the line, as many as 5 in a day." It's a common complaint, and the legal challenge is that Fingerhut calls violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. It should be noted that as of February 21, 2014, Fingerhut was tagged with an "A-Minus" rating with the Better Business Bureau (BBB). Of 1,629 complaints closed with the BBB in the last three years, 640 of those complaints were closed in the past 12 months. Of all the listed complaints, the majority at 766 were centered on problems with a product or service. However, the second-highest level of complaints, numbering 596, was for billing and collection issues. Fingerhut robocalls were not broken out as a separate category. Ripoff Report, a popular consumer online complaint board, lists an approximate total of 562 reports for Fingerhut. BRP: Recalls Heated Gloves and Lithium-Ion Rechargeable Batteries ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 25, 2014 Posting date: February 25, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-38049 Affected products: BRP Can-Am and Ski-Doo heated gloves and lithium-ion rechargeable batteries The recall involves BRP Can-Am and Ski-Doo heated gloves and lithium-ion rechargeable batteries. Both gloves are only available in black. The Can-Am gloves have "can-am" on the pointer finger and on the wrist band of each glove. The Ski-Doo gloves have "ski-doo" on the pointer finger and wrist band of the glove. Both gloves come in sizes XS, S, M, L, XL, 2XL and 3XL. The battery pack is wrapped in white plastic with black writing. The recalled product codes are listed as: Product Name Product Code Product Description Can-Am heated gloves 446247 Sold with 2 Lithium-ion rechargeable batteries and charger Ski-Doo heated gloves 446248 Sold with 2 Liothium-ion rechargeable batteries and charger 2 Lithium-ion rechargeable batteries 4880580001 Available separately as an addition to the batteries supplied with gloves While charging, the lithium-ion rechargeable batteries can overheat and pose a fire hazard. BRP has received two reports of batteries overheating while charging in Canada and one report in the United States. In two reports, there were minor property damages. No injuries were reported. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. In Canada, 24 Can-Am gloves were sold, 1,026 Ski-Doo gloves were sold and 154 additional rechargeable battery packs were sold. In the United States, 39 Can-Am gloves were sold, 356 Ski-Doo gloves were sold and 54 additional battery packs were sold. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from August 2013 to February 2014 in Canada and the United States. Companies: Distributor BRP Valcourt Quebec Canada Consumers should disconnect all battery packs from the electrical connections inside the gloves' battery pouches immediately and avoid charging the battery packs. Consumers should visit an authorized BRP dealership and return all battery packs and charger for a full reimbursement. Consumers can keep the gloves. BUCKSTONE INC: Recalls Jardine's and D.L. Jardine's Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 27, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Buckstone Inc. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8670 Affected products: -- Jardine's 3 Compadres Sampler (gift basket) with 0 22531 00035 9 UPC; -- D.L. Jardine's Queso Loco Cheese Salsa & Dip with 0 22531 52300 1 UPC BURNBRAE FARMS: Recalls Dried Whole Eggs ---------------------------------------- Starting date: February 27, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Burnbrae Farms Ltd. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 8672 Affected products: 22.7 kg. Burnbrae Farms Dried Whole Eggs with Lot #3273 where "may contain milk" is not declared on the label BUTLER COUNTY: Prison Employees' Suit Dismissed With Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action lawsuit captioned SANDRA J. BABCOCK Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BUTLER COUNTY, et al., Defendants, NO. 12CV394, (W.D. Penn.), the purported class, who are employees at a Butler County prison, alleged that Defendants, Plaintiffs' employers, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically, the Plaintiffs, in their Amended Complaint, alleged that the Defendants required them to take a one-hour meal break, during which time the Plaintiffs were "on call" (requiring them to remain within the prison and in their uniforms), and they were not paid for fifteen minutes of their one-hour meal break. Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. After careful consideration of the arguments presented, and a thorough analysis of the FLSA law specifically related to meal periods, District Judge Arthur J. Schwab granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. In so doing, the Motion for Collective Action Certification filed by Plaintiffs was denied as moot. Judge Schwab found that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted because the Defendants' payment to Plaintiffs for 45 minutes of the 60 minute meal period complies with the meal period regulation, set forth at 29 C.F.R. Section 785.19. A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2014 Memorandum Opinion is available at http://is.gd/KJhxJKfrom Leagle.com. CATERPILLAR: Recalls CT660 Model Due Inoperative Brake ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 25, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 5 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014057 TC ID number: 2014057 On certain vehicles, brake s-cam bracket assemblies on the steering axle could fracture, causing an inoperative brake on the affected wheel end. This could cause the vehicle to pull to one side while braking and/or increase stopping distances, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will affect repairs. Affected products: 2012, 2013 CATERPILLAR CT660 CC-PALO ALTO: Faces Class Action Over CCRC Entrance Fees -------------------------------------------------------- Alyssa Gerace, writing for Senior Housing News, reports that a class action lawsuit filed recently in California is raising questions about the way continuing care retirement communities handle entrance fees in cases where residents or their estates are eventually repaid a portion of the upfront fee. Residents of Vi at Palo Alto allege in a complaint that Vi (formerly Classic Residences by Hyatt) transferred $190 million of entrance fees to corporate parent CC-Development Group Inc., leaving those residents with no assurance they'll get their money back. The California community is now running a $300 million deficit as a result, says the lawsuit, led by current resident Dr. Burton Richter, a 1976 Nobel Laureate in Physics. While in recent years some CCRCs have encountered difficulty meeting current refund obligations, the Palo Alto plaintiffs are preemptively suing over fears Vi won't be able to meet future obligations, even though the community has to date repaid all its obligations to residents, according to one of the company's lawyers. "Everyone who has made a claim for a refund [at Vi at Palo Alto] has been paid in a timely manner," says Paul Gordon, partner at HansonBridgett and part of Vi's counsel. "The reserve requirements under the law have been met or exceeded. The implication of failure to fund [entrance fee] reserves are wrong." Vi's policy is to repay entrance fee obligations upon reselling a unit to a new resident. In other words, departing residents aren't given a portion of the same entrance fee they originally paid; rather, they are repaid through funds Vi receives in the form of an incoming resident's entrance fee -- a standard practice throughout the CCRC industry, Mr. Gordon notes. The CCRC, which has 388 apartment units along with a 106-unit healthcare center, is fully occupied with a waiting list, he says. Once entrance fees are paid, they belong to Vi and can be distributed to investors, as is the case at the Palo Alto community, he continues, an action the plaintiffs are protesting. "Dr. Richter was never informed that CC-Palo Alto intended to transfer his entrance fees upstream to (CC-Development Group)," says the complaint. "Nor was he informed that CC-Palo Alto did not intend to maintain cash reserves to cover its entrance fee obligations. Dr. Richter expected CC-Palo Alto would maintain sufficient reserves." Despite the transfer of those entrance fees, Vi does not anticipate issues in meeting contractual obligations, the company says. For new contracts signed in the second half of 2012, Vi at Palo Alto must have a refund reserve of about 15% per contract, but according to Mr. Gordon, considering the community's high occupancy and historical performance, there's only a small chance the reserve will be necessary. The class action lawsuit also alleges that Vi at Palo Alto is inflating monthly service fees by charging residents for items not contractually specified. However, the contract all residents sign says that all costs of operating the community will be paid by monthly fees, rather than entrance fees, including property taxes and marketing expenses, according to Mr. Gordon. Still, he says Vi has made some temporary concessions pending a property tax appeal in an effort to satisfy residents. CC-Palo Alto, Inc., does business as Vi at Palo Alto. COBB ELECTRIC: Judge Approves $100-Mil. Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Nikki Wiley, writing for Cherokee Tribune, reports that a four-year battle a judge called "trench warfare at its worst" over a class-action lawsuit alleging that Cobb Electric Membership Corp. withheld millions of dollars from customers ended on Feb. 25. Cobb Superior Court Judge Stephen Schuster signed off on the $100 million settlement on Feb. 25 that is the largest class-action settlement in Cobb County's history. Cobb EMC is a nonprofit owned by its 175,000 customers, called "members," and is accused of failing to return excess revenues to customers. The suit says that $286 million should have been returned to members but instead was kept. An estimated 900,000 customers are now owed money. The EMC has offered a settlement to pay $98 million, about one-third of what the suit says it owes. At the end of each year, the EMC places its excess revenue in a capital account where it is assigned to the members based on how much electricity they use. Until the lawsuit was filed in 2010, the last time Cobb EMC refunded capital credits to its members was in 1976, when it returned $500,000. Payouts range from fewer than $100 to several million dollars. Members can choose to receive an immediate payout of a portion of their capital credits or to receive the full amount on a yearly basis over 24 years. The Cobb Board of Education has been offered the largest payout. It opted to take an immediate lump sum of $1.8 million. If the board had chosen to receive payments over 24 years, it would have received $5.15 million. The district isn't sure yet how it will spend the cash or when it will receive a check, said school board Chairwoman Kathy Angelucci, who sat in court Tuesday next to Vice Chairman Randy Scamihorn. Still, it's a needed boost for the school system facing an $80 million shortfall. The Cobb Board of Commissioners is another top customer offered a lump sum of almost $1.6 million or a staggered payment of $4.9 million. The Cherokee County Water Authority, Cherokee Board of Education and city of Powder Springs are among other government entities that will get a refund. "These public entities have benefitted very much so from this litigation," said Hylton Dupree, attorney for current EMC members, of Marietta-based Dupree & Kimbrough LLP. Nonprofits will also get a check. The YMCA of Cobb has been offered a one-time payout of $38,419 or $182,084 over 24 years. Cobb EMC will pay $19.8 million in attorneys' fees. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Former Pilots File Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. on Feb. 25 disclosed that six former Continental Airlines pilots who now work for the merged United Airlines have filed a class-action lawsuit against their own union on Feb. 25 based on claims their seniority was unfairly stripped when the two airlines merged in 2010. The lawsuit accuses the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) of breaching its duty of fair representation to the former Continental pilots by stripping their seniority in favor of a larger group of pilots who worked for United before the merger. For pilots, seniority controls pay, rank, schedule, flight routes, types of aircraft flown, and job security in recession layoffs. The lawsuit says ALPA sacrificed member interests to pursue its controversial goal of achieving monopoly status as the only union available to every airline pilot in North America. The former Continental pilots say ALPA favored the United pilots because there were more of them and because the United pilots had enough votes to switch to a different union if they didn't get their way. In 2005, ALPA lost many of its members when U.S. Airways and America West merged. In that merger, ALPA provided favorable seniority for America West pilots only to see the larger group of U.S. Airways pilots lead the switch to a new union. "This union had been burned once before and, instead of seeking a fair resolution for all its members, it ignored its duty to be fair by repeatedly poisoning the process simply to favor the side with more political clout. This caused enormous loss to the former Continental pilots," says Adam Milasincic -- amilasincic@azalaw.com -- an attorney in Houston's Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing, or AZA who is representing the former Continental pilots with firm partner Joseph Ahmad and Houston attorney Howard Dulmage of The Law Offices of Howard T. Dulmage, PLLC. After the merger of Continental and United, ALPA sponsored arbitration to combine the airlines' pilot seniority lists. The lawsuit says ALPA skewed the arbitration's result in numerous ways, such as assisting the United pilots with discovery, and even paying a witness to appear for the United pilots. The lawsuit cites the union's adoption of a seniority formula that favored the United pilots over their peers at Continental, including using factually incorrect information to further skew the seniority results, which caused the former Continental pilots to lose years -- and in some cases decades -- of seniority. As a result, the former Continental pilots are asking a federal judge to scrap the arbitration results and order ALPA to restart the process of combining the airlines' pilot seniority lists with no favoritism toward pilots who worked for United before the merger. The lawsuit is Michael Carr; Gregory Kathan; Kelly L'Roy; Perry Meier; Charles Mulhall; and Scott Mund, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, No. 4:14-cv-00451, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The web site http://www.LegacyCALPilots.comhas been established to track the lawsuit's progress. Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C., or AZA, -- http://www.azalaw.com-- is a Houston-based law firm that is home to true courtroom lawyers with a formidable track record in complex commercial litigation, including energy, intellectual property, securities fraud, construction and business dispute cases. AZA is recognized by Chambers USA 2014 as among the best in Texas commercial law and by U.S. News & World Report and The Best Lawyers in America as one of the country's best commercial litigation firms in the 2014 listing of the nation's leading law firms. National corporate counsel named AZA one of the country's best in client service among law firms serving the Fortune 1000. AZA has been hired on many occasions by the same companies the firm has prevailed against at trial. For more information on the class-action lawsuit filed by the former Continental pilots, please contact Mary Flood at 800-559-4534 or mary@androvett.com CREIG NORTHROP: Class Action Over Alleged Kickbacks Certified ------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Harney, writing for Inman News, reports that at the end of January, a U.S. District Court in Maryland certified a major class-action suit against the Creig Northrop Team P.C., which is affiliated with Long & Foster Real Estate Inc. The Northrop Team was ranked No. 2 in the U.S. last year and No. 1 the year before in transaction volume by the Wall Street Journal and REAL Trends Inc. The class certified by the court is potentially large -- all purchasers from Jan. 1, 2008, up to the present who have engaged the Creig Northrop Team and a defendant title insurance agency in connection with their transactions. The case (Patrick Baehr et al. v. The Creig Northrop Team P.C. et al.) was filed last year and alleged that the Northrop group received more than $500,000 in kickbacks in violation of RESPA from Lakeview Title Co. Inc. over a period of years. RESPA prohibits payments between realty service providers in exchange for referrals of business. The suit claimed that Northrop engaged in two illegal schemes -- "a sham employment agreement and a sham marketing agreement to generate unearned fees and kickbacks." The lawsuit seeks $11.2 million in compensatory damages, plus "three times the actual damages awarded," and "treble damages for settlement services charged by Long & Foster." The Northrop Team denied these claims and sought dismissal of the case and rejection of the request for class-action certification. Greg Lawrence and Glen Donaldson, attorneys representing the plaintiffs, declined to discuss the substance of the case but welcomed the class certification decision by the court. According to the suit, Patrick and Christian Baehr purchased a home through the Northrop Team in 2008 and were referred to Lakeview Title for their title insurance and settlement services. Unknown to the Baehrs, according to the suit, the defendants had created a sham employment agreement between the title agency and Carla Northrop, Creig's wife, "to disguise payments of illegal referral fees." Northrop and Lakeview allegedly also created a marketing agreement under which Northrop would designate Lakeview as its exclusive provider of title and settlement services. In exchange for this endorsement, the title company paid Northrop $6,000 a month for what the court called "mostly unspecified" marketing services, although actual payments varied and reached as high as $12,000 a month, according to the suit. However, the court said in its summary, there is no record of "any real joint marketing services reasonably related to actual amounts paid by Lakeview." Under RESPA, realty and other firms covered by the law can conduct joint promotions, but the parties must each contribute substantive services to justify any compensation. Also, any payments made from one party to another must bear some reasonable relationship to the value of the actual services provided. Marx Sterbcow, a RESPA attorney based in New Orleans, said the district court's willingness to "quickly" certify the class action should refocus the realty brokerage industry's attention on the potential legal vulnerability of some of their long-standing business arrangements with affiliates. DELANO FARMS: Court Partially Decertifies Class in Arredondo Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng granted, in part, and denied, in part, the defendants' motions for decertification in the case captioned SABAS ARREDONDO et al., Plaintiffs, v. DELANO FARMS CO., et al., Defendants, NO. 1:09-CV-01247 MJS, (E.D. Cal.). On April 19, 2011, the Court granted, in part, the motion of Plaintiffs Sabas Arrendondo, Jose Cuevas, Hilario Gomez, Irma Landeros and Rosalba Landeros seeking class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 22, 2013, the Defendants filed separate motions for decertification of the class. In his ruling, Judge Seng decertified the post-work and tray washing subclasses. The Court certified the following pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): All non-exempt agricultural employees of DELANO FARMS COMPANY, CAL-PACIFIC FARM MANAGEMENT, L.P., and T&R BANGI'S AGRICULTURAL SERVICES, INC. who performed field work at Delano Farms in California from four years prior to the filing of this action to the present, excluding irrigators, tractor drivers, swampers, and workers employed only in cold-storage." The class will be divided into these subclasses: (1) Field workers who performed uncompensated and unrecorded work before the fixed start time in the harvest and pre-harvest work. (2) Field workers who incurred unreimbursed necessary tools expenses in the harvest and pre-harvest work. (3) Field workers who, due to the violations claimed in the pre- shift work subclass, received an inaccurate itemized wage statement. (4) Field workers who were not paid wages within 72 hours of their termination and who qualify as a member of the pre- shift work subclass. A copy of the Magistrate Judge's February 20, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/5UMxw2from Leagle.com. EQUAL ENERGY: Facing Lawsuit Due to Petroflow Arrangement --------------------------------------------------------- Equal Energy Ltd., on December 26, 2013, was served with a putative class action lawsuit alleging that the members of Equal's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Equal's shareholders in connection with Petroflow Energy Corporation's acquisition of Equal's outstanding common shares, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated December 26, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 30, 2013. On December 26, 2013, Equal Energy Ltd. was served with a Complaint related to a putative class action lawsuit that has been filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County in the State of Oklahoma. The complaint, which names as defendants Equal, members of Equal's board of directors, Petroflow Energy Corporation ("Petroflow") and Petroflow Canada Acquisition Corp. ("Petroflow Sub"), alleges that in connection with the recently announced proposed acquisition of the outstanding common shares of Equal by Petroflow (the "Arrangement"), the members of Equal's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Equal's shareholders in connection with the Arrangement. The Complaint further claims that Equal, Petroflow and Petroflow Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Complaint generally alleges that the Arrangement involves an unfair price, unfair sales process, self-dealing and unfairly preclusive deal protection devices. The plaintiff in the action seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin the Arrangement, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs. Equal and the other defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint. Equal also understands that three other Complaints related to putative class action lawsuits arising from the Arrangement have been filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County in the State of Oklahoma. One of these additional Complaints, which has not yet been served on Equal, names as defendants Equal, members of Equal's board of directors, and Petroflow, and alleges that in connection with the Arrangement, the members of Equal's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Equal's shareholders in connection with the Arrangement. The Complaint further claims that Equal and Petroflow aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Complaint generally alleges that the Arrangement involves an unfair price, unfair sales process, self-dealing and unfairly preclusive deal protection devices. The plaintiff in the action seeks injunctive relief, including preliminary and final injunctions against completion of the Arrangement, compensatory damages suffered as a result of the defendants' wrongful conduct, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs. Equal and the other defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint. The second of these additional Complaints, which has not yet been served on Equal, names as defendants Equal, members of Equal's board of directors, Petroflow and Petroflow Sub, and alleges that in connection with the Arrangement, the members of Equal's board of directors (i) breached their fiduciary duties to Equal's shareholders in connection with the Arrangement and (ii) "oppressed" Equal's minority shareholders in violation of the Alberta Business Corporations Act. The Complaint generally alleges that the Arrangement involves an unfair price, unfair sales process, self-dealing and unreasonable deal protection devices. The plaintiff in the action seeks injunctive relief, including preliminary and final injunctions against completion of the Arrangement or any step in furtherance of its completion, compensatory damages, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs. Equal and the other defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint. As of the date of this Report, the third additional outstanding Complaint was not yet available for review from the Court and has not yet been served on Equal. Equal Energy Ltd. (Equal) is an exploration and production company with oil and gas properties located principally in Alberta, and Oklahoma. Equal is engaged in the exploration for, and acquisition, development and production of, petroleum and natural gas with operations in western Canada and Oklahoma. During the year ended December 31, 2011, production averaged 10,142 barrel of oil equivalent per day and consisted of approximately 47% natural gas, 23% crude oil and 30% natural gas liquids. Equal Energy Production Partnership (EEPP) holds all of its Canadian oil and gas properties and associated assets. Equal and Equal Energy Partner Corp., are the partners in EEPP and respectively hold a 99.9957% and 0.0043% interest in EEPP. On October 15, 2012, it sold the Halkirk/Alliance/Wainwright/Clair Assets (HAWC) and all remaining Canadian non-producing assets. Effective October 1, 2012, the Company sold its Lochend Cardium assets. FEDERAL MUTUAL: Faces Class Action Over Underinsured Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------- Whitney Brakken, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a Philadelphia couple has filed a class action lawsuit over claims they are owed underinsured benefits. Terry Easterday and Linda Easterday, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, filed a lawsuit Feb. 11 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against The Federated Mutual Insurance Co., citing breach of contract and violation of the Pennsylvania Bad Faith Statute. The complaint states that on May 3, 2010, and Aug. 18, 2011, Terry Easterday was involved in motor vehicle collisions with underinsured drivers and was driving a vehicle insured by the defendant at the time of the accident. After making claims and receiving payments from the other drivers' insurance companies, the plaintiffs sought underinsured coverage from the defendant, according to the complaint. The complaint says the defendant failed to pay underinsured motorist benefits to the plaintiffs, saying they waived underinsured motorist coverage under a "rejection of underinsured motorist coverage" clause. The plaintiffs claim the rejection of underinsured motorist coverage form does not specifically comply with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility law, and therefore the defendant is required to pay uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits due under certain automobile policies. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief and damages, including punitive damages, costs and fees. They are being represented by James C. Haggerty -- jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com -- of Haggerty, Goldberg, Schleifer & Kupersmith PC and James D. Hagelgans of Hagelgans & Veronis LLP. Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Case ID. 140201215. FIDELITY NATIONAL: "Henson" Suit Moved to Calif. Central Dist. -------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an order transferring venue of the case captioned MELISSA HENSON and KEITH TURNER, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01452-AWI-JLT, (E.D. Cal.) to the Central District of California. This class action alleges violations of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) challenging venue. The Defendant requested that the Court transfer this action to the Central District of California pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a) or 1404(a). Alternatively, the Defendant contended that this action should be dismissed pursuant to the 12(b)(6) motion. Transferring Plaintiff Henson's RESPA claims to the CDC is in the interest of justice. Defendant's motion to transfer venue to the CDC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) is granted as to Plaintiff Henson's claims," ruled Judge Ishii. The Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice. A copy of the District Court's February 18, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/kqsFgcfrom Leagle.com. FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES: Settled Minimum Wage Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc., has settled a lawsuit alleging that it has violated the Florida Minimum Wage Act, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on December 27, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2013. The Company states: "During the 3rd quarter of our fiscal year 2011, suit was filed against us alleging that we charge employees for required uniforms in violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Act of the Florida Constitution. Subsequent to the end of our fiscal year 2013, the Plaintiff's motion to certify the suit as a class action was denied by the Court and we settled the lawsuit. This lawsuit was uninsured and the settlement did not have a material effect on us." Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc. operates in South Florida as a chain of full-service restaurants and package liquor stores. The Company conducts its business through two segments: the restaurant segment and the package liquor store segment. At September 28, 2013, it operated 25 units, of restaurants, package liquor stores and combination restaurants/package liquor stores that it either owns or have operational control over and partial ownership in; owned but not operated one adult entertainment club, and franchised an additional five units, consisting of one restaurant and four combination restaurants/package liquor stores. The Company holds four types of units: Company Owned, Company Managed, Company owned Club and Franchised. FORGE GROUP: Class Action Call Gets 150 Inquiries ------------------------------------------------- Babs McHugh, writing for ABC Rural, reports that a call for shareholders to join a class action against engineering and construction company Forge Group has so far received 150 inquiries. Litigation specialists Bentham IMF says they were mainly retail shareholders, known as 'mums and dads investors'. Forge went into receivership on February 13, with a total debt of more than $800 million. About 1,600 workers were sacked, most of them in Western Australia. Bentham IMF will allege that the directors failed to meet their continuous disclosure obligations, misled the market and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. FRED DEELEY: Recalls 297 Motorcycles Due to Programming Error ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 25, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Lights and Instruments Units affected: 297 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014058 TC ID number: 2014058 Manufacturer recall number: 0615 Certain motorcycles may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices. Due to a programming error in the body control module, the brake lamp lit area may be less than what is allowable by the standard. This could render the vehicle less visible to other motorists, possibly resulting in a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Dealers will correctly reprogram the settings in the body control module. Affected products: Maker Model Model Year(s) Affected ----- ----- ---------------------- HARLEY-DAVIDSON SOFTAIL SLIM 2014 HARLEY-DAVIDSON SOFTAIL BREAKOUT 2014 GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 82,545 HHR, ION, SKY and SOLSTICE Cars -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 26, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 82545 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014060 TC ID number: 2014060 Manufacturer recall number: 14063 On certain vehicles, a defect in the ignition switch could allow the switch to move out of the "run" position if the key ring is carrying added weight and the vehicle goes off-road or is subjected to some other jarring event. The timing of the key movement out of the run position, relative to the activation of the sensing algorithm of the crash event, may result in the airbags not deploying, increasing the risk of injury. Dealers will replace the ignition switch. Note: Until the correction is performed, all items should be removed from the key ring. Note: This is an expansion of recall 2014-038. Affected products: Maker Model Model Year(s) Affected ----- ----- ---------------------- SATURN ION 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 SATURN SKY 2007 PONTIAC SOLSTICE 2006, 2007 CHEVROLET HHR 2006, 2007 GOOGLE INC: Judge Koh Grills Plaintiff Lawyers in Privacy Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh voiced concerns about allowing legions of email users to band together with claims that Google Inc. violated their privacy by automatically scanning Gmail messages. At a hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 27, Judge Koh grilled plaintiffs lawyers on issues ranging from how they will determine who belongs in the proposed classes to how they will demonstrate what email users collectively knew about Google's policies. Google insists that email scanning is common knowledge. But plaintiffs claim Google has not publicly explained how it intercepts messages to help sell ads, and they accuse the company of violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and a handful of state privacy laws. Arguing the motion before Judge Koh, Sean Rommel -- srommel@wylyrommel.com -- of Wyly-Rommel said the plaintiffs have retooled their theory to focus on "Content One Box," a little- known tool that Google allegedly uses to extract information from users' messages. Judge Koh was perplexed by the shift in the plaintiffs' arguments. She allowed them to move forward with most of their claims in September, denying Google's motion to dismiss the case. "Your position sounds completely different than what you previously argued to me on the motion to dismiss," she said. Google lawyer Michael Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- of Cooley seconded Judge Koh's frustrations. He told her he'd prepared a list of every time the plaintiffs have adjusted their proposed class definitions. "They've changed their theory so many times that we got dizzy," he said. Many in the Valley are closely watching In re Google Gmail Litigation, 13-2430, which has spawned similar email privacy suits against Yahoo Inc. and LinkedIn Corp. The cases threaten to deal painful financial blows to tech companies if plaintiffs lawyers prevail. ECPA allows for damages of as much as $10,000 per violation, with classes of users potentially numbering in the millions. Plaintiffs lawyers at Texas' Wyly-Rommel and Alabama's Cory Watson Crowder and DeGaris want Judge Koh to bless a sweeping class of non-Gmail users who have sent or received emails from people who use the service, as well as classes of minors, Google Apps for Education users, Cable One users and several state classes. Plaintiffs claim their case is tailor-made for class certification. "The uniform nature of Google's secret content extraction, acquisition, and use practices -- practices that are not necessary for or part of the Gmail delivery process -- and Google's failure, through its uniform disclosures, to truthfully and adequately inform consumers about these secret and unlawful privacy violations, make this case perfectly suited for class treatment," Mr. Rommel wrote in court papers. But Mr. Rhodes argued that the case will require investigations into how much each user knew about Google's practices, making it inappropriate for class certification. He noted that the media had widely reported Google's scanning of messages to target advertisements before the complaint was filed. "There is a body of people in the class who have . . . actual knowledge of what's actually going on, and they have accepted that as a fair trade-off," he said. Mr. Rhodes added that verifying which users belong to more specific classes, such as for minors, could prove problematic because users self-report their backgrounds to Google. He insisted that plaintiffs have yet to explain how they would sift through hundreds of millions of email users to determine who truly belongs in the classes. "What you have here are lawyers who keep promising and promising and promising that we have a way to do it, it can be done," Mr. Rhodes said. "The burden is on them to show that they have a workable process." Judge Koh pressed Mr. Rommel about how plaintiffs would treat users who use Gmail as well as another email provider. "How are we supposed to make sure that our classes aren't over- inclusive?" she asked. Mr. Rommel brushed aside concerns about determining class membership and said any burden on Google was justified: "It's not an extraordinary process if the company violates the law to get us there." HAZELWOOD: Morwell Residents Mull Class Action Over Mine Fire ------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Savage, writing for ABC News, reports that Morwell locals are gathering evidence for a possible class action as Premier Denis Napthine visits the town, which has been engulfed in fire smoke since February 9. The Hazelwood open cut mine fire, which has been choking the town for two-and-a-half weeks, could take months to extinguish. As crews continue to face challenges battling the mine blaze, there is growing panic in the town about the possible long-term health impacts of the smoke. Morwell residents living with smoke, fumes and falling ash from the fire say they have had enough. Residents are being told they will not suffer any health problems from short-term exposure to the fine particles in the smoke. Health risks travel further than flames It is not just those living in areas directly affected by bushfires who need to be aware of the dangers of the smoke. However, Ambulance Victoria and police are warning their female staff to stay away from the fire front if they are pregnant or trying to conceive. Council workers have also been going door-to-door in Morwell to check how residents are coping. Authorities are adamant there is no risk to the public and say any plans to evacuate Morwell are a long way from being put into action. Victoria's chief health officer Rosemary Lester says an evacuation plan has been prepared, just in case. "We've been keeping a very close eye on the carbon monoxide and that has not been a level of concern, which is good," she said. But she was unable to say what would be considered as "long-term" exposure. "That's something we're continuing to take advice from national and international experts," she said. Crews had hoped to have fire out within a fortnight Authorities repeatedly had hoped the coal mine fire would be extinguished within 10 to 12 days. But the Fire Services Commissioner concedes it could take months. "It's got the potential to be that. This is the best case scenario, 14 days," he said. But hot and windy weather forecast for March 5 and March 6 could set the firefighting effort back further. About 200 firefighters have been battling the blaze since it started. They have had to work short shifts because of the carbon monoxide in the area. So far 20 firefighters have been treated. Locals consider possible class action against mine Hundreds of locals were expected to go to a protest meeting in Morwell on March 2, where they plan to gather evidence for a potential class action against the mine's owner. Organizer Nerissa Albon says a social media campaign has attracted an enormous response and she is expecting a big turn-out. "We're going to collect data to find out whose businesses are suffering and what are the health issues," she said. "They're scared, they're starting to get annoyed now . . . . nobody can say when it's going to finish, it could go on for months," she said. "They would want compensation." She has also invited the mine owners to attend the March 2 meeting, but has yet to receive any response. Premier Napthine visited a health assessment centre in Morwell on Feb. 26. One of his MPs, Russell Northe, has hit out at a lack of information in the early stages of the crisis. HERSHEY CO: Judge Tosses 91 Chocolate Price-Fixing Cases -------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the makers of three-quarters of America's chocolate -- Hershey, Mars and Nestle -- got a federal judge in Harrisburg, Pa., to toss 91 cases claiming that the companies fixed prices between 2002 and 2007. The defense firms behind the Feb. 26 ruling include Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Mayer Brown (for Nestle USA Inc.; Kirkland & Ellis (for The Hershey Company and Hershey Canada Inc;); and McDermott Will & Emery (for Mars Inc.). The allegations, brought by dozens of grocery stores and direct purchasers that bought chocolate during that time period, were based largely on a parallel investigation in Canada, which led to a guilty plea by Hershey Canada last year and has charges pending against the Canadian affiliates of Mars and Nestle. "Initially, plaintiffs' claims of a domestic price-fixing conspiracy were quite plausible," said U.S. District Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation. "The Canadian trade spend conspiracy raised the specter of Sherman Act violations in our contiguous marketplace. Litigation and merits discovery properly ensued. But, at the end of the day, the probata could not match the allegata." Mr. Conner held oral arguments on the six motions to dismiss in the multidistrict litigation in October and was told by the parties the following month that the final court-ordered mediation session hadn't resulted in an agreement. He granted all six motions for summary judgment on Feb. 26. "Specifically, plaintiffs contend that defendants were in possession of one another's pricing information prior to formal price increase announcements and, spurred by the success of a price-fixing conspiracy among their affiliates in Canada, tacitly agreed to follow in lockstep any list price increases initiated by competitors," Mr. Conner said. Noting that years of litigation and extensive discovery had fully developed the record, Mr. Conner said the "plaintiffs cannot establish that defendants' actions were more likely than not the result of concerted and collusive action." The plaintiffs identified price increases in 2002, 2004 and 2007 as incidents that demonstrate price-fixing among America's biggest chocolate producers. Hershey holds 42 percent of the domestic market, Mars has 28 percent and Nestle has 8 percent, according to the opinion. Although it's third in the United States, Nestle is the market leader in Canada, Mr. Conner said in a footnote. Having explained that regular candy bars are called "singles" and king-sized bars are called "kings," both of which fall into the category of immediate consumption products, Mr. Conner said, "It is undisputed that from 2002 through 2007, the period in which defendants allegedly conspired to raise the prices of singles and kings, the average market cost for cocoa increased by 53 percent." Other than immediate-consumption goods, there are future- consumption goods, which include bags of small candies called "bite-size" or "miniature." Singles and kings are typically consumed immediately after purchase, while bags of small candies are usually consumed at a date later than when they are purchased. In December 2002, Mars was the first to raise the price of its singles by 3.5 cents. Two days later, Hershey increased its prices by the same amount and later that month Nestle raised its price by 3.3 cents, according to the opinion. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Moved to Dismiss Amended Pension Fund Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company on October 24, 2013, moved to dismiss a pension fund's amended putative securities class action alleging violations of HP's Standards of Business Conduct, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on December 30, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013. Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct ("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP. On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September 9, 2013. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 9, 2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on October 24, 2013. A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was scheduled for January 23, 2014. Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) is a provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the Government, health and education sectors. Its operations are organized into seven segments: the Personal Systems Group (PSG), Services, the Imaging and Printing Group (IPG), Enterprise Servers, Storage and Networking (ESSN), HP Software, HP Financial Services (HPFS) and Corporate Investments. The Company's offerings include personal computing and other access devices; multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services and consulting and integration services, and imaging and printing-related products and services. In January 2014, Qualcomm Inc acquired a patent portfolio from Hewlett-Packard Company. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Narrows Autonomy Acquisition Suit -------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. court on November 26, 2013, granted, in part, and denied, in part, Hewlett-Packard Company's motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that the Company made false statements related to its acquisition of Autonomy, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on December 30, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013. In re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011 to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of HP's enterprise services business. On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that, during that same period, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5(b) by concealing material information and making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and that certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) by engaging in a "scheme" to defraud investors. On July 2, 2013, HP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 26, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part HP's motion to dismiss, allowing claims to proceed against HP and Margaret C. Whitman based on alleged statements and/or omissions made on or after May 23, 2012. The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims that were based on alleged statements and/or omissions made between August 19, 2011 and May 22, 2012. Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) is a provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the Government, health and education sectors. Its operations are organized into seven segments: the Personal Systems Group (PSG), Services, the Imaging and Printing Group (IPG), Enterprise Servers, Storage and Networking (ESSN), HP Software, HP Financial Services (HPFS) and Corporate Investments. The Company's offerings include personal computing and other access devices; multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services and consulting and integration services, and imaging and printing-related products and services. In January 2014, Qualcomm Inc acquired a patent portfolio from Hewlett-Packard Company. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Commenced Mediation in "Gammel" WebOS Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company on December 3, 2013, commenced mediation with plaintiffs before a private mediator regarding a putative securities class action alleging, among other things, that the Company made false statements about its business model, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on December 30, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013. Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class action filed on September 13, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging, among other things, that from November 22, 2010 to August 18, 2011, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP's business model, the future of the webOS operating system, and HP's commitment to developing and integrating webOS products, including the TouchPad tablet PC. On April 11, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On September 4, 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and gave plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. On October 19, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same causes of action but dropping one of the defendants and shortening the period that the alleged violations of the Exchange Act occurred to February 9, 2011 to August 18, 2011. On December 3, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 8, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. As a result of the court's ruling, the alleged class period in the action runs from June 1, 2011 to August 18, 2011. The parties commenced mediation before a private mediator on December 3, 2013. Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) is a provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the Government, health and education sectors. Its operations are organized into seven segments: the Personal Systems Group (PSG), Services, the Imaging and Printing Group (IPG), Enterprise Servers, Storage and Networking (ESSN), HP Software, HP Financial Services (HPFS) and Corporate Investments. The Company's offerings include personal computing and other access devices; multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services and consulting and integration services, and imaging and printing-related products and services. In January 2014, Qualcomm Inc acquired a patent portfolio from Hewlett-Packard Company. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Moved to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company on August 16, 2013, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to restrict 401(k) participants from investing in HP stock, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on December 30, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013. In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy and HP's enterprise services business and by failing to restrict participants from investing in HP stock. On August 16, 2013, HP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) is a provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the Government, health and education sectors. Its operations are organized into seven segments: the Personal Systems Group (PSG), Services, the Imaging and Printing Group (IPG), Enterprise Servers, Storage and Networking (ESSN), HP Software, HP Financial Services (HPFS) and Corporate Investments. The Company's offerings include personal computing and other access devices; multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services and consulting and integration services, and imaging and printing-related products and services. In January 2014, Qualcomm Inc acquired a patent portfolio from Hewlett-Packard Company. HOECHST CELANESE: Seeks Dismissal of Chemical Spill Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Felicia Kitzmiller, writing for GoUpstate.com, reports that attorneys for several companies accused of contaminating ground and surface water with cancer-causing chemicals are petitioning the court to dismiss the federal class action lawsuit against them. In January, Jay Easler, with representation by the Louthian and Harpootlian law firms, filed a class action law suit on behalf of the residents in Cannon's Campground and other communities surrounding the old Hoechst Celanese industrial site. The lawsuit alleges Hoechst Celanese and more than a dozen companies that have owned or operated on the site released a list of chemicals into the water system both by dumping into waterways and by seepage into the ground water. The suit claims the pollution has diminished property values and caused a variety of illnesses in residents over several decades. The motion for dismissal, filed in Greenville, asks Judge Timothy M. Cain to dismiss the suit on several grounds. First, attorneys for Hoechst Celanese said the suit failed to prove an "imminent and substantial danger to health or the environment." Despite dozens of pages outlining chemical spills and discharges cited in reports from the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control, the motion claims the chemicals have not caused harm to Mr. Easler or the community. While the suit describes a plume of groundwater contamination from the site, private testing wells dug on Mr. Easler's property did not produce toxic levels of the chemicals alleged to have been discharged from the site, according to the motion. HOME DEPOT: Bid to Remand "Bell" Suit to Superior Court Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in SANDY BELL and MARTIN GAMA, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Plaintiffs, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; JOHN BROOKS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-02499-GEB-CKD, (E.D. Cal.) filed a motion on November 5, 2012, to remand the putative class action to the Superior Court of the State of California from which it was removed. The motion was granted, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the remand order stating in pertinent part: Following the issuance of the Remand Order. . . this [the Ninth Circuit] decided Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013). . . . As explained in Rodriguez, "[a] defendant seeking removal of a putative class action must demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum," irrespective of the damages alleged in the complaint. Id. at 981. Because the "legal certainty" standard no longer applies, we vacate the district court's April 26, 2013 [order] and remand this appeal to the district court for consideration of federal jurisdiction in light of Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC. (U.S. Ct. Appeals Order 2, ECF No. 31.) According to Senior District Judge Gariand E. Burrell, Jr., since federal jurisdiction should be considered in light of Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC., Plaintiffs' pending remand motion, which is premised on an inapplicable standard, is denied. Further, Plaintiff must file a brief no later than March 13, 2014, concerning the jurisdictional issue in light of Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC. The hearing on the matter shall be noticed in accordance with the court's regularly scheduled law and motion matters, ruled Judge Burell. "Further, the status conference currently scheduled for April 28, 2014, is rescheduled to June 23, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed fourteen days prior to the status conference," he added. A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/CGKZd1from Leagle.com. IEC ELECTRONICS: Responded to Consolidated Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- IEC Electronics Corp., filed a response to the Securities and Exchange Commission's formalized investigation in an amended complaint in a now consolidated shareholder class action originally filed June 28, 2013, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on December 24, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013. In connection with the Company's restatement of its financial statements, the Audit Committee conducted an independent review of the underlying facts and circumstances, and the Company is responding to a now formal investigation by the staff of the SEC relating to the restatement and other matters and an amended complaint in a now consolidated shareholder class action originally filed June 28, 2013 in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company and its CEO and CFO seeking unspecified compensatory damages. While the Company believes the complaint is without merit, it is too early to determine the potential outcome. IEC Electronics Corp. (IEC) is a provider of electronic contract manufacturing services (EMS) to advanced technology companies. The Company specializes in the custom manufacture of circuit cards and system-level assemblies; an array of cable and wire harness assemblies, and precision sheet metal components. The Company utilizes automated circuit card assembly equipment together with a manufacturing stress testing methods. The Company manufactures a range of assemblies that are incorporated into many different products, such as military and aerospace systems, medical devices, industrial equipment and transportation products. Its products are distributed to and through original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). The Company supports multiple divisions and product lines for many of its customers and frequently manufactures successive generations of products. JABURG & WILK: Obtains Final Approval of "Eibert" Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Michael J. Davis granted final approval of a settlement resolving the case captioned Joseph Eibert and Sarah Eibert, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. and Stewart, Zlimen & Jungers, Ltd., Defendants, CIVIL FILE NO. 13-CV-00301 (MJD-AJB), (D. Minn.). The Court concluded that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court dismissed with prejudice this Class Action against Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/x64nkhfrom Leagle.com. LG ELECTRONICS: Settles Class Action Over Mobile Phone Defects -------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class action settlement has been reached with LG Electronics MobileComm USA Inc. regarding an alleged defect in some of its mobile phones. LG has denied the allegations but agreed to settle the class action lawsuit to avoid the uncertainty and expense of trial. Consumers who purchased an LG G2x mobile phone between April 15, 2011, and Oct. 30 were eligible to receive $19 from the settlement. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of settlement on Jan. 13, and awarded the class counsel $1.6 million in attorneys fees and $30,166.01 in reimbursement of expenses. The class action lawsuit alleged that LG G2x mobile phones had defects that caused the phones to either repeatedly freeze, shut down and power off randomly, or bleed or leak backlight from the edges of the phones' screens, according to a complaint filed July 18, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California at San Diego. The defendant knew or should have known of the defects prior to selling or placing the mobile phone into the stream of commerce and was aware of hundreds, if not thousands, of consumer reports and complaints about the power-off and screen bleeding defects plaguing the LG mobile phones, the complaint says. The defendant harmed the plaintiff and other class members throughout the country by manufacturing and selling defective mobile phones. LG has failed to remedy the harm consumers suffered and has earned substantial profits from its unlawful conduct. The class action plaintiffs were being represented by William J. Doyle II -- bill@doylelowther.com -- John Lowther -- john@doylelowther.com -- and James R. Hail -- jim@doylelowther.com -- of Doyle Lowther LLP; Thomas E. Glynn of Glynn Law Group; and Alan M. Mansfield -- amansfield@whatleykallas.com -- of the Consumer Law Group. LG was represented by Jiyoun Chung -- jiyoun.chung@shearman.com -- James Donato -- jdonato@shearman.com -- and Christopher LaVigne -- christopher.lavigne@shearman.com -- of Sherman & Sterling LLP. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California at San Diego case number: 3:11-cv-01576 MAMMUT SPORTS: Recalls Crevasse Rescue Devices Due to Injury Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Mammut Sports Group, Inc, of Williston, Vt., announced a voluntary recall of about 70 in the U.S. and 80 in Canada Mountain climbing rescue devices. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The pull cord lock cam can fail, posing a risk of death and injury during a rescue. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves Mammut's RescYou crevasse rescue devices with batch numbers 12-12 and 03-13. The crevasse rescue devices are pulley systems used for ski mountaineering and mountain climbing to lift a skier or climber who has fallen into a crevasse. The rescue device consists of blue- and silver-finished mechanical ascenders, each using a cam that grabs a lifting rope, allowing the rope to slide only in one direction. The ascenders are connected by an orange rope threaded through pulleys. "MAMMUT RESCYOU" and the batch number are printed in white on the side of the blue ascender. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/zGAoe2 The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at specialty outdoor stores in the U.S. and Canada and online at http://www.mammut.comfrom June 2013 through January 2014 for about $125. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled RescYou devices and contact Mammut for a free replacement crevasse rescue device. MEDALLION PLUS: Recalls Tekki Shomen Noodles in a Cup ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 26, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Medallion Plus Imports Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8675 The food recall warning issued on February 18, 2014 has been updated to include an additional product. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Medallion Plus Imports Ltd. is recalling Tekki Shomen brand Noodles in a Cup from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they 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 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: 40 g. Tekki Shomen Seafood Royale with 4 804888 899710 UPC MERGE HEALTHCARE: Finkelstein & Krinsk Law Firm Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP law firm on Feb. 25 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Merge Healthcare Incorporated and certain of its officers. Filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, the case is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Merge from August 1, 2012 through January 7, 2014. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages resulting from the Company's alleged violation of the federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Merge securities during the Class Period, you have until April 11, 2014 to participate by asking the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. To discuss this action or discuss your possible alternatives, contact Mark L. Knutson at mlk@classactionlaw.com or 877-493-5366 toll free. Merge develops software solutions that facilitate the sharing of images to create an electronic healthcare environment for patients and physicians worldwide. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company. Specifically, Defendants made misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that aspects of certain customer contracts concerning the Company's eClinical business had been falsified; (2) that as a result the Company's reported subscription backlog was overstated; (3) that the Company lacked adequate controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' statements about the Company lacked a reasonable basis and were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 8, 2014, the Company disclosed that it was revising its reported subscription backlog totals after concluding that a former sales employee had falsified certain customer contracts having an apparent value of approximately $5.8 million. Merge securities declined $0.21 per share (nearly 8.33%) on the news to close at $2.31 per share on January 8, 2014, and further declined $0.21 per share the next day. Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP concentrates its practice in the areas of securities class litigation. NEW ORLEANS: Settles Lead Exposure Class Action for $67 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Olson, writing for Overlawyered, reports that following news of a $67 million settlement over lead exposure in New Orleans public housing, various residents feel unfairly left out. Lawyers in charge explain that the case covers only a set class of plaintiffs: to qualify for funds, claimants must have lived in New Orleans public housing before February 2001, have been born before late 1987, and be able to show medical records indicating lead poisoning before the age of six. Unfortunately, the televised report makes it very hard to evaluate the strength of the protesters' complaints, since it does not sort out such questions as: are they saying that their personal situations do qualify for compensation under the settlement's terms, but that they missed out by not being notified in time? Or are they claiming instead that the settlement should have been negotiated to compensate a more broadly defined class, such as persons whose claims are more recent? If the latter, as one passage in the report suggests, their right to seek compensation by way of a separate suit may not actually have been extinguished. NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 1,047 NV200 Trucks Due to Tire Label Issues ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 26, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Label Units affected: 1047 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014059 TC ID number: 2014059 Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 110 - Tire Selection and Rims. The Tire and Loading Information label may contain misspelled words in French. Correction: Owners will be supplied with a revised Tire and Loading Information Label and installation instructions. Owners may also have the label installed by a dealer. Affected products: 2014 NISSAN NV200 model OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeal in Genaera Trust Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Ohr Pharmaceutical Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on December 27, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013, that an appeal of a dismissed putative class action lawsuit on behalf of the Genaera Liquidating Trust is pending. In June 2012, the Company was named, along with other parties, as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit being brought, as amended, on behalf of the Genaera Liquidating Trust ("Trust"). The Company purchased biotechnology assets from the Trust in 2009. On August 12, 2013, the court dismissed each of the plaintiff's claims against the Company. An appeal of the dismissal is pending; however management believes that there is a remote possibility the litigation will have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial condition. Ohr Pharmaceutical Inc (Ohr) is a biotechnology company. The Company focuses on the development of its two products, OHR/AVR118 for the treatment of cancer cachexia (multi-symptom wasting disorder), and Squalamine for the treatment of the wet form of age-related macular degeneration using an eye drop formulation. As of September 30, 2012, the Company is engaged in the clinical testing of OHR/AVR118 and the Squalamine eye drop program for the treatment of wet-AMD. On September 24, 2012, the Company announced the initiation of a multi center, randomized, placebo controlled Phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Squalamine eye drops for the treatment of the wet form of age-related macular degeneration. In September 2012, the Company commenced a clinical study, named OHR-002. OZ MINERALS: Faces Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that a multi-million dollar class action has been launched against Australian-based mining company OZ Minerals Ltd. for allegedly misleading shareholders. Almost 40,000 shareholders are behind the class action filed in the Federal Court on Feb. 26. Oz Minerals has been accused of misleading and deceptive conduct and for failing to disclose to the market its true debt position. ACA Lawyers say more than AUD250 million in compensation is being sought for former Zinifex shareholders who acquired OZ Mineral shares in 2008 as a result of a merger between Zinifex and Oxiana. In July 2011 the Federal Court approved the settlement of two previous class actions against OZ Minerals for about AUD60 million. These settlements excluded Zinifex shareholders. ACA Lawyers' Principal Craig Allsopp said OZ Minerals' true debt position was material information which should have been disclosed to the market. The first directions hearing will be on April 4, in Melbourne. PREVOST: Recalls 34 X3-45 Coach Buses Due to Short Circuit Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 25, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 34 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014056 TC ID number: 2014056 Manufacturer recall number: SR14-12 On certain coaches equipped with Sure Power DC/DC convertors, the convertors could develop an internal short circuit, resulting in a risk of overheating, smoke and/or fire. This may result in property damage and/or personal injury. Owners will be supplied with replacement parts and instructions on how to affect repairs. Affected products: 2008, 2009, 2010 PREVOST X3-45 COACH QUALITY NATURAL: Recalls Quality Candy Due to Undeclared Sulphites ------------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 26, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Quality Natural Foods Canada Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8659 Affected products: 350 g. Quality Ram Paan Sugar Candy or Ram Pan Candy with all codes where sulphites are not declared on the label REAL TIME: "Hurrle" Suit Stayed Pending Ruling on FCC Petition -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Benjamin H. Settle stayed the case captioned RICHARD HURRLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. C13-5765 BHS, (W.D. Wash.). Mr. Hurrle filed this class action complaint against Real Time on August 30, 2013, alleging that Real Time called him on his cellular telephone using an autodialer and demanding payment for a debt. Each of the subject calls placed by Real Time were allegedly made by means of an autodialer and were allegedly made despite the fact that Mr. Hurrle has no business relationship with Real Time and he has never given consent to Real Time to call his cellular telephone. Mr. Hurrle asserts that Real Time's actions are a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On December 12, 2013, Real Time filed a motion to stay this action pending the outcome of pending petitions to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to which Congress delegated some authority to interpret the TCPA. "In this case, Real Time has shown that a stay of this action is warranted pending resolution of at least the In Re Communications Innovators petition," ruled Judge Settle. "The complaint alleges that Real Time implements an autodialer to call debtors regarding unpaid debt. The law is unclear whether Congress intended the TCPA to prevent this activity. Telemarketing is one activity while collecting debt from known debtors seems to be a wholly separate activity. Whether the latter activity falls within the scope of the TCPA is currently being addressed by Congress and the FCC. The issue is clearly one of policy within those bodies, and guidance on the "capacity" of autodialing systems would further clarify the law that Hurrle seeks to enforce in this action. Therefore, the Court grants Real Time's motion and this action is stayed pending resolution of the Communication Innovators' petition. After that, either party may move the Court to reopen the matter." The Court ordered the Clerk of Court to administratively close the matter until a motion to reopen the action is filed. A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/b17eK9from Leagle.com. RICHMOND UNIVERSITY: Plumber Sacked Over OSHA Asbestos Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Donnelly, writing for Staten Island Advance, reports that Richmond University Medical Center was more concerned about the bottom line than its workers' health, contends a lawsuit filed by a plumber allegedly sacked for complaining about asbestos exposure. James Pepe, 33, says supervisors and hospital officials repeatedly denied his requests for protective gear, claiming it would "cost too much money" to abate exposed asbestos, which he allegedly found in the plumbing shop and on pipes in various areas of the building. Derided as a "clown" and a "hypocrite," by supervisors, Mr. Pepe was fired in December after blowing the whistle to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), alleges his lawsuit. "Defendants ultimately terminated plaintiff Pepe's employment solely because he complained that defendants were in violation of federal health and safety laws by ordering employees, including . . . Pepe, to work in enclosed spaces with exposed asbestos without any of the required protective gear, proper notification or requisite training," his court filing contends. Mr. Pepe has sued Richmond University and Mount Sinai Hospital, with which Richmond University is affiliated, according to his legal papers filed in state Supreme Court, St. George. Advance records show the two hospitals entered into a clinical affiliation in the spring of 2012. Mr. Pepe seeks unspecified monetary damages. His lawyer, Alex Umansky of the Manhattan-based firm, Phillips & Associates, declined comment on the lawsuit. In a statement, Richmond University said Mr. Pepe's sacking "was not in any way connected" to his safety allegations to OSHA. The hospital said it conducted "extensive" tests and forwarded them to OSHA. "We are confident that there is no exposure risk to employees or patients," said the statement. "Richmond University Medical Center takes all safely issues very seriously and has an active process for investigating and addressing environmental concerns in a timely manner." A Mount Sinai spokesman did not immediately return a phone call Tuesday seeking comment. According to court papers, the hospital hired Mr. Pepe as a plumber in October 2005. In early 2007, he complained to his plumbing supervisor about exposed and friable asbestos "all over" the plumbing shop, said court documents. He was told to forget about it because the hospital "can't afford to have it abated," court filings contend. Asbestos-related illnesses, which attack the respiratory and digestive systems, are caused by exposure to airborne asbestos -- typically over time. Tradesmen, such as plumbers, steamfitters, carpenters, electricians and insulation workers who labored before the early 1970s, when use of asbestos products was prevalent in those industries, are considered to be the most susceptible to asbestos- related illnesses. Between 2007 and 2013, Mr. Pepe was required to perform a number of jobs which he believed potentially exposed him to asbestos, said court documents. He was asked to repair a high-pressure steam pipe inside a tunnel at the hospital and to fix asbestos- insulated pipes in the basement, sub-basement and in ceilings on various floors. He contends he was rebuffed and sometimes threatened with losing his job each time he expressed concern about possible asbestos exposure and asked for protective gear. He often was told that wetting down the pipes would make them safe to work on, court documents state. "Shockingly, defendants wholly ignored plaintiff Pepe's very serious complaints of asbestos contamination in the workplace and immediately directed plaintiff Pepe to continue working in enclosed areas containing asbestos," said court filings. Fearful of losing his job, Mr. Pepe always did the work. Even so, Mr. Pepe alleges he was ridiculed. The facilities supervisor called him a "hypocrite" because he worried about asbestos-causing lung cancer, yet still smoked cigarettes, court records said. That supervisor also called Mr. Pepe a "clown" and warned a co- worker, "Don't pick up any of [Pepe's] bad habits." When Mr. Pepe asked another supervisor if he'd make his own son work in such conditions, the man responded, "Hell, no!" maintain court records. Tensions boiled over in November of last year. Mr. Pepe refused to work on a steam pipe, whose fittings were allegedly covered with asbestos, unless given protective gear, said court documents. He was suspended without pay. About a week later, he complained to OSHA on two separate occasions about working conditions at Richmond University. Ted Fitzgerald, an OSHA spokesman, said the agency is investigating a complaint about the hospital. However, Mr. Fitzgerald said he wasn't at liberty to identify the complainant or the nature of the allegation. Mr. Pepe said he was fired on Dec., 3, less than a week after his second complaint to OSHA. He alleges he was sacked under the pretext of failing to notify his supervisor and timely contain a water leak that caused significant damages on Nov. 15. Mr. Pepe contends he informed his supervisor that an on-site contractor shut the open valve and housekeeping was called to clean up the standing water, in accordance with protocol. ROWE FINE: Recalls Ottomans Due to Risk of Suffocation ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Rowe Fine Furniture Inc., of Elliston, Va., announced a voluntary recall of 220 Dalton Ottomans with Storage Compartments. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Young children can become entrapped inside the storage compartment of the ottoman, posing a risk of suffocation. The firm has received one report of a 3 year old that became entrapped in the storage compartment when an older sibling closed the lid. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves Dalton style ottomans with storage compartments. The wooden ottoman measures 35 inches long, 25 inches deep and 13 inches high. The storage compartment has a cushioned top lid supported by two hinges and two lid support arms. Model number F135-064 is printed on a tag stapled to the underside of the storage ottoman. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/0du8ku The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at authorized Rowe Fine Furniture distributors nationwide from August 2011 to May 2013 for about $450. Consumers should contact Rowe Fine Furniture for a free replacement lid and warning label. The replacement lid has a handle and vent for increased ventilation. SCORES HOLDING: Goldring Note Balance Was $32,737 at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- As of September 30, 2013, Richard Goldring's promissory note balance assigned to Scores Holding Company, Inc., relating to a purported class action and collective action was $32,737, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on December 27, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013. On September 26, 2011, the Company, Richard Goldring and Elliot Osher (Goldring and Osher were formerly two of the Company's principal shareholders) (collectively the "Defendants") and Sari Diaz et al. (the "Plaintiffs") entered into a Court approved Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") relating to a purported class action and collective action on behalf of all tipped employees filed by Plaintiffs, pursuant to which Defendants agreed to make a settlement payment of $450,000 to resolve and settle awards to Plaintiffs and related Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. Additionally, the Defendants agreed to pay the employer portion of payroll taxes on approximately $300,000 in distributions, approximately $15,600. In a settlement payment agreement among the Company, Goldring and Osher, the Company agreed to advance all of the Defendants' obligations under the Settlement Agreement and to pay $64,500 of Goldring's and Osher's legal fees to their designated attorney. In consideration for the Company's payment of these obligations, Goldring and Osher agreed, jointly and severally, to pay the Company $440,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the unpaid balance of such amount, in 40 equal monthly payments of $11,965 per month. To secure his obligations under this agreement, Goldring agreed to assign to the Company a portion of his interests in a promissory note dated September 14, 2009 in the principal amount of $2,400,000 made by a third party to Goldring (the "Note") and to grant the Company a security interest in the Note, which will remain in effect until his obligations under this settlement payment agreement are paid in full. As of September 30, 2013, the settlement receivable is $195,974. On December 29, 2011 the Company entered into a Promissory Note with Goldring for $30,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the unpaid balance. To secure his obligations under this agreement, Goldring agreed to assign to the Company a portion of his interests in a promissory note dated September 14, 2009 in the principal amount of $2,400,000 made by a third party to Goldring (the "Note") and to grant the Company a security interest in the Note, which will remain in effect until his obligations under this settlement payment agreement are paid in full. Three payments of $11,965 are due beginning March 2015. As of September 30, 2013, this promissory note balance is $32,737. Scores Holding Company, Inc. (Scores) is engaged in the business of licensing the Scores trademarks and other intellectual property to gentlemen's nightclubs with adult entertainment in the United States. These clubs feature topless female entertainers together with watching sporting events and corporate and private parties. There are five clubs operating under the Scores name, in New York City, Baltimore, Chicago, Tampa and New Orleans. The Company's trademarks are held by the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Scores Licensing Corp. (SLC). SINOTECH ENERGY: Court Dismisses "Athale" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Alison J. Nathan dismissed the case captioned BHUSHAN ATHALE, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SINOTECH ENERGY LIMITED, ET AL, Defendants, NO. 11 CIV. 05831 (AJN), (S.D. N.Y.) This is a securities class action brought on behalf of a class of SinoTech Energy Limited shareholders, against (1) SinoTech; (2) a number of SinoTech officers and directors (Individual Defendants); (3) UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, and Lazard Capital Markets, which served as financial advisors to and assisted SinoTech in its IPO (Underwriter Defendants); and (4) Ernst & Young Hua Ming (EYHM), which served as SinoTech's auditor. EYHM moved to dismiss, pursuant to Rules 8, 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judge Nathan held that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged: (1) that EYHM knew of and disregarded, or otherwise recklessly failed to discover, numerous red flags that the underlying fraud was occurring; (2) that EYHM committed or overlooked violations of accounting and auditing standards in a manner that establishes or supports scienter; or (3) that the size of the underlying fraud was so large that it supports scienter. "Having thus failed to plead facts giving rise to an inference that EYHM knew of the fraud, or that no reasonable auditor would have failed to discover the fraud, Plaintiffs have failed to meet the demanding standard for pleading auditor scienter, and EYHM is entitled to dismissal of the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against it," Judge Nathan concluded. The Court granted EYHM's motion to dismiss. A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2014 Memorandum & Order is available at http://is.gd/GkVtAyfrom Leagle.com. SUN HING: Recalls Canadian Liver Pate Products ---------------------------------------------- Sun Hing Foods, Inc., the Importer of Record, a South San Francisco, Calif., establishment, is recalling approximately 1,282 pounds of Canadian liver pate products which were produced without the benefit of full USDA inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. While this is a Class I recall, FSIS issues a Public Health Alert for an imported product when the country of origin recalls the product. However, FSIS issues a recall for an imported product when the product is not presented for inspection at the U.S. border. In the United States, the recall is undertaken by the Importer of Record, which is accountable to FSIS. The Sun Hing Foods, Inc., products subject to recall include: -- 2.75-oz. and 4.76-oz. packages of "FLOWER BRAND, LIVER PATE / PATE DE FOIE" bearing case code "215960." -- 4.76-oz. packages of "FORTUNE BRAND, LIVER SPREAD / PATE DE FOIE" bearing case code "215960." Packages will bear the Canadian establishment number "265." The products were distributed into commerce in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia. The problem was discovered when FSIS import staff reviewed records and discovered that the product was not presented by the independent third party carrier for USDA inspection at the U.S. - Canadian border. 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 FSIS and the company have received no reports of illness due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Rosenda Chan, Office Manager, at (650) 583-8188, ext. 610. Media with questions about the recall should contact Winnie Ho at (650) 583- 8188, ext. 637. 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. TIMMONSVILLE: "Desarno" Suit Remanded to S.C. State Court --------------------------------------------------------- In Rose Desarno, Plaintiff, v. Town of Timmonsville, Mayor Derrick Jackson, and Former Mayor James Beard, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-02031, (D. S.C.), the Plaintiff initially brought the action both individually and on behalf of three proposed classes of similarly situated plaintiffs in the Florence County South Carolina Court of Common Pleas; however, on February 19, 2014, the Court issued a consent order granting Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. Pertinent to a motion to remand pending before Court, Plaintiff's amended complaint omitted the class allegations she asserted in her initial complaint. Furthermore, on the same day the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to amend, all parties stipulated to the dismissal of the Honda Parties, who were the parties who removed the action to the District Court. Accordingly, the only causes of action now alleged by Plaintiff are her claims, under South Carolina state law, of negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, public nuisance, private nuisance, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (outrage). All of these claims arise from the occurrence of adverse effects to her health and property that she alleges resulted from the actions and omissions of Defendants in their management of the drinking water and sewage systems in Timmonsville, South Carolina. Against this backdrop, District Judge R. Bryan Harwell granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court. A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/nKfEbrfrom Leagle.com. TPUSA INC: Loses Bid to Block Certification in "Tanner" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In BRADY TANNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TPUSA, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-33 (WLS), (M.D. Ga.), District Judge W. Louis Sands granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Judicial Notice; and denied Defendant TPUSA, Inc.'s Motion to Deny Conditional Certification: * The Court conditionally certifies the collective class defined in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint; * The Plaintiffs are authorized to disseminate the proposed Notice and Consent to Join form, provided that they modify the statutory period; * The Defendant is ordered to produce to Plaintiffs, within 14 days of the entry of this Order, a list in electronic and importable format, of all persons employed by defendant as call center agents in Georgia from three years prior to the date of the order to the present, including their name, address, telephone number, dates of employment, location of employment, date of birth, and last four digits of their Social Security Number; and * The Defendant is ordered to post the Notice of Collective Action and Consent Form at conspicuous places in the Albany and Augusta, Georgia call centers. A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/tsAggLfrom Leagle.com. WELLS FARGO: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Transaction Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal judge refused on Feb. 22 to certify a class of merchants accusing Wells Fargo Bank NA and First Data Merchant Services Corp. of charging them unauthorized transaction fees, ruling the merchants don't meet the requirements for certification and dismissing the suit. U.S. District Judge Arthur D. Spatt denied lead plaintiff Spread Enterprises Inc.'s motion for class certification, finding that it has not established that enough merchants were affected or that they entered into similar merchant processing agreements with Wells Fargo and First Data. The order also dismisses the suit because Judge Spatt said the court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear a suit between Florida-based parties after denying class certification. Spread, a company that operates the international telephone service provider Ola Brasil, was looking to certify a class of merchants who were part of a merchant processing agreement with Wells Fargo and First Data and who submitted transactions and were charged fees, according to the order. But the court found that Spread's motion for certification failed with respect to many class action requirements. The court said Spread's estimate concerning the size of the class is speculative and that each potential class member did not experience the same injury as a result of the alleged overcharging. Judge Spatt also said he cannot ignore the significant variations in the way the merchant processing agreements stipulate which fees will be charged and how they will be charged. Not all of the agreements contain the same language, so the court would be called on to make individual interpretations based on the different language. Spread sued Wells Fargo and First Data in September 2011, claiming the credit card servicer charges an undisclosed 20 cent authorization and captures fees for each transaction. Under an agreement, Wells Fargo functions as a member bank and accepts credit card payments from card-issuing banks on Spread's behalf, according to the suit. Contracting with First Data enables Spread's prepaid telephone minutes for long distance calls using a credit card, the suit said. But the hidden fees drive up costs for its service because the additional expense is passed on to its customers, Spread alleged. In August 2012, Judge Spatt dismissed a claim from the suit alleging the extra fees assessed to businesses violate the New York General Business Law because the service fees don't target consumers directly. Businesses are not considered customers under the statute and the additional service fees were aimed at the merchants, not their patrons, he said. Spread Enterprises is represented by Frederic S. Fox -- ffox@kaplanfox.com -- of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Marc A. Wites -- mwites@wklawyers.com -- of Wites & Kapetan PA and Lawrence B. Lambert. The defendants are represented by Oksana G. Wright -- owright@foxrothschild.com -- David H. Colvin -- dcolvin@foxrothschild.com -- and Scott L. Vernick -- svernick@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rothschild LLP. The case is Spread Enterprises Inc. v. First Data Merchant Services Corp. et al., case number 2:11-cv-04743, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. WHIRLPOOL CORP: High Court Allows Washer Class Actions to Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Hurley and Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, report that the U.S. Supreme Court gave consumers a victory on Feb. 24 by allowing them to proceed with class-action lawsuits alleging that millions of front-loading washing machines they bought suffered from mold or musty odors. By refusing to hear the appeals in three lawsuits, the court allowed claims against Whirlpool Corp., Sears Holdings Corp. and a unit of Germany's BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeraete GmbH to move forward as class actions in lower courts. Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers had urged the Supreme Court to hear the companies' appeals. At issue in the washing-machine cases was whether claims about alleged defects in Whirlpool washers, Kenmore-brand washers made for Sears by Whirlpool, and BSH Home Appliance Corp washers were similar enough to be heard at the same time. Consumers said the machines did not clean themselves properly, while the companies said only a small number of machines had problems. Whirlpool said in a statement that it would keep vigorously defending against the lawsuits, which it called an "attack" on American manufacturing. Samuel Issacharoff, a New York University law professor who represents Sears and Whirlpool consumers, called the court's decision "a big win." According to The Wall Street Journal's Brent Kendall, the court's decision to stay out of the dispute marks a breather for justices who in recent years have issued a string of rulings disallowing class-action cases. Business groups had filed briefs supporting the defendants in the washing-machine cases, hoping the court would yet again cut back on lawsuits in which litigants make claims on behalf of a large group of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs said their lawsuits were precisely the type that deserved to proceed as class-actions. The washer models in dispute, sold since 2001, were delivered with a uniform design defect that caused mold accumulation, and buyers had to absorb time and expense to try to fix the issue, the plaintiffs said in a court brief. The washers "were designed and delivered to purchasers in a form unsuitable for their ordinary and intended use," they said. Companies dislike class-actions because they threaten to impose large-scale financial liability. Businesses say that once courts allow class-actions to proceed defendants face enormous pressures to settle, even in cases that lack merit. Consumer advocates say class-actions are an important tool for people to vindicate their legal rights, particularly in relatively small-money cases where it might not be feasible for consumers to pursue legal relief individually. U.S. appeals courts decided to allow the washer cases against Whirlpool and Sears to proceed as class-actions, ruling the lawsuits were unaffected by a Supreme Court ruling last year that tossed out a class-action lawsuit against Comcast Corp. In a related matter, a federal court in California allowed a similar class-action lawsuit over Bosch brand washing machines. The Supreme Court on Feb. 24 left those rulings in place, rejecting the defendants' appeals without comment. WHITECAP INVESTMENT: "Chapin" Suit Remanded to Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge CURTIS V. Goomez remanded the case captioned CARY CHAPIN, BARBARA DOUMA, EMILY BRATTON, JOHN BALDWIN, DEAN BALDWIN, TERRY WITHAM, ANN McCRAVE, CELSO PRINCIPAAL, HARRY EISENER, CYNTHIA SAUERS, ELISA ADAMS, DENISE BARBIER, TRUMAN BARBIER, and JEFFREY McCRAVE, Plaintiffs, v. WHITECAP INVESTMENT CORP. d/b/a PARADISE LUMBER, XYZ CORP., MSI BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC., JOE DOE, JANE DOE, Defendants. WHITECAPE INVESTMENT CORP. d/b/a PARADISE LUMBER, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. PUTNAM LUMBER AND EXPORT COMPANY, PUTNAM FAMILY PROPERTIES, INC., and GREAT SOUTHERN WOOD PRESERVING, INC. Third-Party Defendants, CIVIL NO. 2013-42, (D.V.I.) to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. The plaintiffs filed a complaint in this matter on August 13, 2012, in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, which alleged claims for: 1) breach of contract; 2) breach of warranty; 3) negligence; 4) strict product liability; and 5) deceptive trade practices. On August 31, 2012, Paradise Lumber filed third party claims against Great Southern Wood Preserving, Inc. Putnam Lumber and Export Company, and Putnam Family Properties. Putnam filed counterclaims against Paradise Lumber. Putnam also filed cross- claims against Great Southern for indemnity and contribution. On October 16, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add additional plaintiffs. On March 22, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their First Amended Complaint in the Superior Court. In the proposed amended complaint's caption, there were a number of additional plaintiffs not included in the First Amended Complaint. The proposed amended complaint also included class allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The proposed amended complaint alleged that it met the jurisdictional requirements for class actions to be heard in the District Court of the United States Virgin Islands. The statement of jurisdiction set forth the jurisdictional statute for the Superior Court. Third-party defendant Great Southern filed a notice of removal with the District Court. The removal was joined by the third-party defendant Putnam on April 24, 2013. The notice of removal alleges that the District Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. Before the Superior Court could rule on the motion to amend, the plaintiffs withdrew the motion. On April 25, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the matter to the Superior Court. Judge Goomez held that the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint had not yet been granted, and it cannot be granted now that it has been withdrawn. Therefore, the operative complaint at the time the third-party defendants filed their notice of removal was the First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint did not contain any class action allegations, and thus the minimal diversity rule of 28 U.S.C. Section 1453 was not triggered. The First Amended Complaint named plaintiffs who are residents of the Virgin Islands and defendants who are incorporated in, and therefore residents of, the Virgin Islands. Therefore, there was not complete diversity in the First Amended Complaint, said Judge Goomez. Without complete diversity, this case cannot fall within the diversity jurisdiction of this Court, he added. A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/Mdtj46from Leagle.com. Terri L. Griffiths, Esq. -- griffiths_terri@yahoo.com -- Lee J. Rohn and Associates, St. Croix, U.S.V.I., for plaintiffs. Dudley Topper and Feuerzeig, LLP, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., for Defendant MSI Building Supplies. Dudley Topper and Feuerzeig, LLP, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Whitecap Investment Corp. Daryl C. Barnes, Esq. -- dbarnes@bryantbarnes.com -- Bryant, Barnes, Moss & Beckstedt, St. Croix, U.S.V.I. for Third-Party Defendant Great Southern Wood Preserving, Inc. ZIPCAR INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Vehicle Damage Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal judge on Feb. 24 tossed a putative class action alleging car- sharing company Zipcar Inc. violates state business law with its practice of charging customers for vehicle damages without following certain procedures, ruling that private plaintiffs can't sue under the relevant statute. U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Zipcar's motion to dismiss Michael and Jessica Sigall's class complaint while denying as moot the Sigalls' motion for class certification. The judge found that the plaintiffs can't base their lawsuit against Zipcar on alleged violations of New York General Business Law Section 396-z -- which governs rental vehicle companies -- because that statute doesn't allow for a private cause of action. Judge Oetken further ruled that the Sigalls' claims of fraud and deceptive business practices can't proceed because they are dependent on invoking the rental car statute. The Sigalls sued in July 2013, alleging Zipcar violated the statute, which states that a rental car company can't hold an authorized driver liable for damages without following certain procedures. Jessica Sigall rented a Zipcar in October 2012 with a credit card issued to her father, Michael, and the vehicle sustained mirror damage from an unknown party, according to court documents. Zipcar charged Michael Sigall's credit card $486.34 for the damage. The plaintiffs claimed the charge was improper because they didn't agree to the fee after the damage occurred and no court determined they were liable. The Sigalls alleged they made a claim with their insurer that was not paid because Zipcar didn't provide the required documentation. With their suit, the Sigalls sought to represent a class of all New York-based Zipcar members. Judge Oetken asserted the Sigalls can't bring suit against Zipcar for violations of Section 396-z. While New York's highest court has established a renter can assert noncompliance with the statute as an affirmative defense, the Appellate Division has held that the statute can't provide the basis for a private suit, the judge wrote. The plaintiffs' deceptive business practice and fraud claims also can't survive because they are based on the assumption that Section 396-z voids provisions in Zipcar's member agreement making members liable for vehicle damages and authorizing the company to charge them for such costs, Judge Oetken said. The plaintiffs are represented by Tiffany N. Hardy of Edelman Combs Lautner & Goodwin LLC and Lawrence Katz. Zipcar is represented by Dennis R. Lafiura, Paul J. Halasz -- phalasz@daypitney.com -- and Paul R. Marino -- pmarino@daypitney.com -- of Day Pitney LLP. The case is Michael Sigall et al. v. Zipcar Inc. et al., case number 1:13-cv-04552, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. * Oregon District Attorneys Support Class Action Bill ----------------------------------------------------- Nigel Jaquiss, writing for Willamete Week, reports that the maneuvering around House Bill 4143A, which would allocate unclaimed monies from class action lawsuits to legal aid for low-income Oregonians, was set to continue on Feb. 25 in an 8:00 a.m. meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill has generated strong feelings on both sides, with trial lawyers, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and former Gov. and AG Ted Kulongoski and former AG Hardy Meyers advocating for joining 48 other states in forcing those who lose class action suits to actually pay the award the court says they owe. On the other side, former AG Dave Frohnmayer, whose law firm represents BP and Phillip Morris, both of which could lose financially if the bill passes, is arguing for the status quo. Joining Mr. Frohnmayer in opposition are many of the state's business organizations, including Associated Oregon Industries. Now one group -- the Oregon District Attorneys Association -- that carries a lot of clout with moderates who might be swayed by the business lobby, is weighing in. On Feb. 23, the District Attorneys submitted a letter strongly supporting the bill. ********* 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 * * *