/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140506.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 6, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 89
Headlines
ABBOTT LABS: Class Counsel Seeks Proposals From Nonprofits
ANHING CORPORATION: Recalls Chili Powder Due to Health Risk
B&G FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Labeling Suit v. Pirate Brands Filed
BIG 5 SPORTING: Asks Court OK for Accord in Suit by Customers
BLACK STREET: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
BOLZANO ARTISAN: Recalls Misbranded Salami Type Products
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Suit for iO Video Subscribers in Discovery
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Certification Sought in Fox Programming Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: No Appeal Over "Livingston" Case Dismissal
CANNAVEST CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Gas Market Cases v. CES
CIMAREX ENERGY: Settlement Distribution in "Hitch" Suit Ongoing
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Files Motion to Junk Securities Suit in Tenn.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: HMA Securities Lawsuit Voluntary Dismissed
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Junk HMA Suit in Fla. Awaits Ruling
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Retirement System's Lawsuit v. Dauten Dropped
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Junk Pension Plan's Lawsuit Filed
CROYDON DAY: Hepatitis C Class Action Proceeds to Trial
DRAGER: Nationwide Recall of PS500 Power Supply Conducted
EMPAREDADOS BORICUA: Issues Allergen Alert for Its Products
ESSEX PROPERTY: Amended Complaints Filed in Suit Over BRE Merger
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Consolidates Privacy Class Actions
FIRST SOLAR: Court Grants Certification in Pension Schemes' Suit
FOREST OIL: Lone Pine Continues to Face Shareholder Suit in N.Y.
FREDERICK HANNA: Removed "Leone" Suit to W.D. New York
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Removed "Kanawha" Suit to S.D. West Virginia
GENERAL MOTORS: Stay Motion on Key System Class Action Granted
GENERAL MOTORS: Texas Lawyer Balks at Bid to Transfer Class Suit
GEORGIA: Faces Class Action Over Gay Marriage Ban
HIGHMARK-UPMC: Seeks Dismissal of Health Insurance Class Action
HSBC FINANCE: Removed "Brown" Suit to E.D. Missouri
IKO MANUFACTURING: Faces Consumer Suit Over Organic Shingles
IMPERIAL OIL: Ruling to Have Effect on Regulatory Investigations
INTEGRITY STAFFING: "Busk" Suit Moved From Nevada to Kentucky
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Calif. Court Dismisses 2013 Securities Lawsuit
KROGER CO: Two Private Selection Ice Cream Flavors Recalled
LAO THAI NAM: Recalls Number One Sompa Salted Fish
LEGGETT & PLATT: Certification Sought in Ohio Antitrust Lawsuit
LEGGETT & PLATT: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Polyurethane Foam Biz
LEGGETT & PLATT: Mo. Court Hears Motion to Certify Antitrust Suit
LSI CORP: Faces Litigations Over Avago Merger Agreement
MATTEL INC: Bares Updates on Suits Related to Carter Bryant, MGA
MIRAVALLE FOODS: Recalls Ground Annato Because of Health Risk
MONTREAL MAINE: Lawyers Urge Claimants to Join Class Action
NOH FOODS: Recalls Coconut Pudding Haupia Due to Undeclared Milk
NOVA PRODUCTS: Nationwide Recall of Dietary Supplements Conducted
PACER INTERNATIONAL: Removes "Ruelas" Labor Suit to Cal. Court
PACER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Litigation
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Charges
PFIZER INC: Faces "Orrell" Suit in S.D. Iowa Over Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Sued in Iowa Over Suffering Caused by Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Settles Neurontin Class Action for $190 Million
RENAISSANCE HOSPITAL: Plaintiffs' Lawyer Seeks Jury Trial
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Accused of Retaliating Against Employee
SPAR BUSINESS: Merchandisers Seek to Recover Damages Under FLSA
ST JUDE MEDICAL: Amended Claim Filed in Canadian Suit
ST JUDE MEDICAL: No New Hearing Set in Appeal Over Suit Dismissal
ST JUDE MEDICAL: Oct. Trial Set in Minn. Securities Suit
ST JUDE MEDICAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
STONYFIELD: Recall 188 6-packs of Yobaby Peach/Pear Yogurt Cups
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $4.4MM
TARGET CORP: First Farmers Bank Sues Over Data Security Breach
TESLA MOTORS: Cal. Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Stock Lawsuit
UNI-PIXEL INC: Shareholder Litigation in Texas Court Remains
UNUM GROUP: Awards in Lawsuit v. Unum Life Subject of Appeals
UNUM GROUP: Dismissal of Lawsuits Over Unclaimed Policy Appealed
UNUM GROUP: "Don" Suit v. Unum Life Pending in C.D. Cal.
VITA FOOD: Undeclared Milk Prompts Recalls of ELF Herring Fillets
VULCAN MATERIALS: Named in Suits Over Texas Brine's Salt Mine
WELLS ENTERPRISES: Recalls Blue Bunny Premium Ice Cream
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Files Writ of Certiorari in Natural Gas Suit
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Dispute With Flint Hills Still Pending
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
WRIGHT MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Suit Says
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Appeal Date v. Dismissal of Stock Suit Lapses
*********
ABBOTT LABS: Class Counsel Seeks Proposals From Nonprofits
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on April 22 disclosed that firms
serving as class counsel in a class-action lawsuit are seeking
proposals from nonprofit organizations to award a portion of an
unclaimed settlement. Nonprofit organizations have until May 9,
2014, to submit proposals for distributions of the settlement
funds, ranging from $5,000 to $50,000 amounts.
Firms including Hagens Berman served as class counsel and worked
on behalf of indirect purchasers of the drug Tricor in a class-
action antitrust lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories. Following
the settlement agreement, two distributions were made to
consumers and purchasers of the drug as reimbursement. After
years of distributing funds to affected class members, class
counsel now hopes to distribute the remainder of the settlement
to benefit individuals in another way.
One or more nonprofit organizations will be selected based upon
proposals and projected uses for the distribution of the
settlement funds. Requests may be emailed to lauren@hbsslaw.com
or sent to:
Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
55 Cambridge Pkwy., Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
The deadline for submitting a proposal is May 9, 2014.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in nine
cities. The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's
Plaintiffs' Hot List seven times.
ANHING CORPORATION: Recalls Chili Powder Due to Health Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anhing Corporation of Los Angeles, CA is conducting a Nationwide
recall of Caravelle Brand Chili Powder in 8 ounce plastic tubs
lot code 560916, because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.
The product was distributed through retail stores.
This Chili Powder is contained in a clear plastic tub with a red
lid. It has an orange paper label which reads in part "Caravelle
CHILI POWDER HOT Net Weight 8 oz. (227G) Packed For ANHING CORP.
Los Angeles, CA 90031 PRODUCT OF THAILAND". It also contains Thai
and Chinese wording. The Bar Code is: 080736115551. There are two
codes involved 560916 or 570115. These codes ore located on a
white label adhering to the bottom of the plastic tub.
There are no illnesses reported to date.
This recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the
State of Maryland.
The problem was noted only in code 560916, but as a precaution
Anhing is recalling the other code also present in the shipment.
The company has ceased the distribution of the product as FDA and
the company continues their investigation as to what caused the
problem.
Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to return it
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1- 323-221-8003 between 9AM
and 5PM Pacific Standard Time
B&G FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Labeling Suit v. Pirate Brands Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss claims that Pirate Brands' products are
improperly labeled as "natural" was filed in New York court where
six cases are coordinated before a single judge, according to B&G
Foods, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 28,
2013.
Pirate Brands has been named as a defendant in six duplicative
putative class actions, two of which were filed prior to B&G's
ownership of Pirate Brands. The cases allege that Pirate Brands'
products are improperly labeled as "natural" because they contain
"genetically modified" and processed ingredients. The first case
was filed in December 2012 in New York. A duplicative case was
then filed in February 2013 in California, which has been
transferred to New York. Identical actions were then filed in
July 2013 in Florida, Washington, California and New Jersey.
Pirate Brands was successful in its efforts to have all six cases
transferred to New York to be coordinated before a single judge.
No discovery has commenced in any of the cases, and a motion to
dismiss the claims is pending.
BIG 5 SPORTING: Asks Court OK for Accord in Suit by Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles
initially heard the motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement reached in a suit filed against Big 5 Sporting Goods
Corporation on behalf of persons who made purchases at the
Company's stores in California using credit cards and were
requested or required to provide personal identification
information, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 29, 2013.
The Company was served on the following dates with the following
nine complaints, each of which was brought as a purported class
action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the Company's
stores in California using credit cards and were requested or
required to provide personal identification information at the
time of the transaction: (1) on February 22, 2011, a complaint
filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los
Angeles, entitled Maria Eugenia Saenz Valiente v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455049; (2) on February 22,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Scott Mossler v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455477; (3) on February 28,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Yelena Matatova v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455459; (4) on March 8,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Neal T. Wiener v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC456300; (5) on March 22,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Francisco, entitled Donna Motta v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-509228; (6) on March
30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in
the County of Alameda, entitled Steve Holmes v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. RG11563123; (7) on March 30,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Francisco, entitled Robin Nelson v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-508829; (8) on April
8, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in
the County of San Joaquin, entitled Pamela B. Smith v. Big 5
Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 39-2011-00261014-CU-
BT-STK; and (9) on May 31, 2011, a complaint filed in the
California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled
Deena Gabriel v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case
No. BC462213. On June 16, 2011, the Judicial Council of
California issued an Order Assigning Coordination Trial Judge
designating the California Superior Court in the County of Los
Angeles as having jurisdiction to coordinate and to hear all nine
of the cases as Case No. JCCP4667. On October 21, 2011, the
plaintiffs collectively filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint,
alleging violations of the California Civil Code, negligence,
invasion of privacy and unlawful intrusion. The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that customers making purchases with
credit cards at the Company's stores in California were
improperly requested to provide their zip code at the time of
such purchases. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the class
members, the following: statutory penalties; attorneys' fees;
expenses; restitution of property; disgorgement of profits; and
injunctive relief. In an effort to negotiate a settlement of this
litigation, the Company and plaintiffs engaged in Mandatory
Settlement Conferences conducted by the court on February 6,
2013, February 19, 2013, April 2, 2013, September 12, 2013, and
September 20, 2013, and also engaged in mediation conducted by a
third party mediator on July 15, 2013. As a result of the
foregoing, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. The court
has not yet granted preliminary approval or final approval of the
settlement. On November 15, 2013, the proposed settlement was
submitted to the court for preliminary approval. On January 30,
2014, the court initially heard the motion for preliminary
approval and continued the motion to March 5, 2014. Under the
terms of the proposed settlement, the Company agreed that class
members who submit valid and timely claim forms will receive
either a $25 gift card (with proof of purchase) or a $10
merchandise voucher (without proof of purchase). Additionally,
the Company agreed to pay plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs
awarded by the court, enhancement payments to the class
representatives and claims administrator's fees. Under the
proposed settlement, if the total amount paid by the Company for
the class payout, class representative enhancement payments and
claims administrator's fees is less than $1.0 million, then the
Company will issue merchandise vouchers to a charity for the
balance of the deficiency in the manner provided in the
settlement agreement. The Company's estimated total cost pursuant
to this proposed settlement is reflected in a legal settlement
accrual recorded in the third quarter of fiscal 2013. The Company
admitted no liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims
set forth in the lawsuit. Once final approval is granted, the
settlement will constitute a full and complete settlement and
release of all claims related to the lawsuit.
BLACK STREET: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
John McSparren and Sean McSparren, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Black Street Enterprises, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, and Lionel J. Dunbar,
individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-14080-KAM (S.D. Fla., February 22,
2014) seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages or pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fee and
costs from Defendants.
Black Street is a Florida limited liability company. Lionel J.
Dunbar owned and operated Black Street.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian J. Militzok, Esq.
MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
The Yankee Clipper Law Center
3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 727-8570
Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Arnold S. Gaines, Esq.
THE LAW FIRM OF GARY, WILLIAMS, LEWIS, WATSON
& SPERANDO, P.L.
Waterside Professional Building
221 E Osceola Street
Stuart, FL 34994
Telephone: (772) 283-8260
Facsimile: (772) 219-3365
E-mail: asg@williegary.com
BOLZANO ARTISAN: Recalls Misbranded Salami Type Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Bolzano Artisan Meats LLC, a Milwaukee, Wis. establishment is
recalling approximately 5,723 pounds of salami products for
misbranding and because they were produced without the benefit of
federal inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced April 17.
Products produced under the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade, and Consumer Protection (WDATCP) inspection program are
eligible for sale within the state of Wisconsin when they bear
the Wisconsin state inspection shield on the immediate package.
The products being recalled, however, incorrectly bear the
Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program version of the USDA
Mark of Inspection, which requires federal acceptance into the
program. Because the establishment is not part of the CIS
program, products they produced and distributed bearing the CIS
program version of the USDA Mark of Inspection cannot be sold
through interstate commerce.
The products subject to recall include: [View Label (PDF Only)]
6-oz. or 12-oz. packages of "Bolzano Artisan Meats All
Natural Uncured, Old School Salami," 6/6-oz. or 3/12-oz. packages
per case (UPC 7935 7389 6360)
6-oz. or 12-oz. packages of "Bolzano Artisan Meats All
Natural Uncured, Pamplona Runner Salami," 6/6-oz. or 3/12-oz.
packages per case (UPC 7935 7389 6353)
6-oz. or 12-oz. packages of "Bolzano Artisan Meats All
Natural Uncured, Fin Oh Kee Oh Na Salami," 6/6-oz. or 3/12-oz.
packages per case (UPC 7935 7320 3564)
6-oz. or 12-oz. packages of "Bolzano Artisan Meats All
Natural Uncured, Pig Red Salami," 6/6-oz. or 3/12-oz. packages
per case (UPC 7935 7320 3571)
6-oz. or 12-oz. packages of "Bolzano Artisan Meats All
Natural Uncured, Pitzotl Salami," 6/6-oz. or 3/12-oz. packages
per case (UPC 7935 7322 1698)
6-oz. or 12-oz. packages of "Bolzano Artisan Meats All
Natural Uncured, RauchZwiebel Salami," 6/6-oz. or 3/12-oz.
packages per case (UPC 7395 7320 3588)
The products subject to recall were produced between Sept. 20,
2013 and March 15, 2014, include batch numbers 1208 to 1214, and
bear the CIS program version of USDA Mark of Inspection with the
establishment number "EST. 692SEWI." Cases containing the
products subject to recall may bear the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (WDATCP) inspection
label, but the individual product packages may be misbranded with
the CIS program version of the USDA Mark of Inspection. Products
bearing the Wisconsin state inspection shield on the immediate
package are not subject to this recall. The recalled products
were distributed for institutional and retail sales nationwide as
well as sold over the internet.
The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel after receiving
information about the product being in commerce. The company
began using new packaging labels with the CIS program USDA Mark
of Inspection before implementing all federal requirements that
would authorize use of the USDA Mark of Inspection through the
CIS program. Wisconsin state inspection personnel were not aware
of the application of labels, and have been assisting FSIS in the
investigation of this issue.
FSIS and the company have received no reports of illness due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a healthcare provider.
FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.
Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact Scott Allen Buer, Owner, at (414) 238-4874.
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.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Suit for iO Video Subscribers in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision
Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, according to
Cablevision's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.
The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey by several present
and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a
class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New
York. After three versions of the complaint were dismissed
without prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their
third amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the
Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by
allegedly tying the sale of interactive services offered as part
of iO television packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes
distributed by Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution
of Cablevision compatible set-top boxes. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as
injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 23, 2011, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.
On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision
dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but
allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law
claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer to the third amended
complaint was filed on February 13, 2012. Discovery is
proceeding.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Certification Sought in Fox Programming Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation filed a
motion for class certification and a motion for partial summary
judgment in a suit before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, according to Cablevision Systems
Corporation's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.
Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage
of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October
16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and
networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television
systems. On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an
agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and
networks, and carriage was restored. Several purported class
action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the
Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox
programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on
February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking
unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees. On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion
to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach
of contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs
filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a
claim only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was
filed on May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion
for partial summary judgment. Both motions have been fully
briefed, and a decision by the Court is pending. Further
discovery, if any, has been deferred until after the Court rules
on the pending motions.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: No Appeal Over "Livingston" Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Livingston v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, et
al. did not file a notice of appeal against the dismissal of the
case within the statutory time frame, according to the company's
Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Cablevision and certain current and former officers, by a
Cablevision shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased Cablevision common stock between
February 16, 2011, and October 28, 2011. The complaint alleged
that Cablevision and the individual defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by allegedly issuing
materially false and misleading statements regarding (i) the
Company's customer retention and advertising costs, and (ii) the
Company's loss of video customers, especially in the New York
area. The complaint also alleged that the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for the
same alleged conduct. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary
damages, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss on October 18, 2012. On September 5, 2013,
the Court issued a decision granting the motion to dismiss in its
entirety and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs
did not file a notice of appeal within the statutory time frame.
The Company believes this matter is now concluded.
CANNAVEST CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on April 23 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of CannaVEST Corp.
(OTCBB:CANV) common stock during the period from May 20, 2013
through April 3, 2014, seeking to recover damages for CannaVEST
shareholders for violations of the federal securities laws.
To join the CannaVEST class action, visit the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Yu Shi, Esq.
toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or yshi@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action. The lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.
The lawsuit asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against CannaVEST and its officers and directors for issuing
false and misleading statements about the Company's financial
condition. The Complaint alleges that CannaVEST overstated its
sales for the quarter ended March 31, 2013 by more than 17% and
misstated its goodwill at June 30, 2013 by more than 1300%.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than June 23, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Yu Shi, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or yshi@rosenlegal.com
You may also visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Gas Market Cases v. CES
--------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a suit
against CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of
CERC Corp., which is accused of conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin
natural gas prices in 2000-2002, according to the company's Feb.
26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002. CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, Reliant Resources,
Inc., was a participant in gas trading in the California and
Western markets. These lawsuits, many of which were filed as
class actions, allege violations of state and federal antitrust
laws. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms
of relief, including, among others, recovery of compensatory
damages (in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of
compensatory damages, full consideration damages and attorneys'
fees. CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009. CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have since
been released or dismissed from all but one such case.
CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CERC
Corp., is a defendant in a case now pending in federal court in
Nevada alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas
prices in 2000-2002. In July 2011, the court issued an order
dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against other defendants in the
case, each of whom had demonstrated FERC jurisdictional sales for
resale during the relevant period, based on federal preemption.
The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the trial court's
dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2013, the other
defendants filed a petition for review with the U.S. Supreme
Court. CenterPoint Energy believes that CES is not a proper
defendant in this case and will continue to pursue a dismissal.
CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of this
matter to have a material impact on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.
CIMAREX ENERGY: Settlement Distribution in "Hitch" Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cimarex Energy Co. distributed the settlement proceeds in Hitch
Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Cimarex Energy Co., et al. pursuant
to a court order in September 2013 and the administration of the
settlement is ongoing, according to Cimarex's Feb. 26, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
December 11, 2012, Cimarex entered into a preliminary resolution
of the Hitch Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Cimarex Energy Co., et
al. (Hitch) litigation matter for $16.4 million. Hitch is a
statewide royalty class action pending in the Federal District
Court in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The settlement was reached at a
mediation, which occurred after the parties began to exchange
information, including damage analyses, on November 16, 2012. On
July 2, 2013, the Court entered a judgment approving the parties'
settlement. The judgment became final and unappealable on August
2, 2013. Cimarex distributed the settlement proceeds pursuant to
the Court's order in September 2013 and the administration of the
settlement is ongoing. In the fourth quarter of 2012, the
company accrued $16.4 million for this matter.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Files Motion to Junk Securities Suit in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Community Health Systems, Inc. to dismiss
shareholder cases pending in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee has been fully briefed,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.
Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems,
Inc., et al., filed June 21, 2011.
According to the Company: "All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of our common stock between July 27, 2006
and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements resulted
in artificially inflated prices for our common stock. In December
2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC
Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead
plaintiffs' counsel. Our motion to dismiss this case has been
fully briefed and is pending before the court."
COMMUNITY HEALTH: HMA Securities Lawsuit Voluntary Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in In re Health Management Associates, Inc.
Securities Litigation filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of
the case, according to Community Health Systems, Inc.'s Feb. 26,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
Three purported class action cases have been filed in the Circuit
Court of Collier County, Florida: namely, Aliaga vs. Health
Management Associates, Inc. et al., filed August 1, 2013;
Lopriore vs. Health Management Associates, et al., filed August
5, 2013; and Copeland vs. Health Management Associates, et al.,
filed August 8, 2013. All allege a breach of fiduciary duty by
the board members of HMA arising out of the approval of the
acquisition of HMA by the company. Community Health Systems, Inc.
and FWCT-2 Acquisition Corporation are named as aiding and
abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. A fourth case,
Smilow vs. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., filed
August 13, 2013 does not name the company or FWCT-2 Acquisition
Corporation as a defendant. These four actions were consolidated
into a single action on December 12, 2013, under the caption In
re Health Management Associates, Inc. Securities Litigation. On
December 20, 2013, the Court denied the plaintiffs' emergency
motion for expedited discovery and proceedings. The Plaintiffs
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on February 7, 2014. An
additional case with similar allegations, styled Margolis &
Horwitz vs. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., filed on
August 5, 2013 in Delaware Chancery Court was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff on November 25, 2013.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Junk HMA Suit in Fla. Awaits Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in
In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc., et al. was fully
briefed and awaiting the decision of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, according to Community Health
Systems, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.
On April 30, 2012, two class action lawsuits that were brought
against HMA and certain of its then executive officers, one of
whom was at that time also a director, were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under the
caption In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc., et al. and
three pension fund plaintiffs were appointed as lead plaintiffs.
On July 30, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint purportedly on behalf of stockholders who
purchased HMA's common stock during the period from July 27,
2009, through January 9, 2012. The amended consolidated complaint
(i) alleges that HMA made false and misleading statements in
certain public disclosures regarding its business and financial
results and (ii) asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Among other things, the plaintiffs claim that HMA inflated its
earnings by engaging in fraudulent Medicare billing practices
that entailed admitting patients to observation status when they
should not have been admitted at all and to inpatient status when
they should have been admitted to observation status. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages. On October 22,
2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended
consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim or plead
facts required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and proposed order
to suspend briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss because
they intended to seek leave of court to file a proposed second
amended consolidated complaint. On December 15, 2012, the court
entered an order approving the stipulation and providing a
schedule for briefing with respect to the proposed amended
pleadings. On February 25, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended consolidated complaint, which asserts substantially the
same claims as the amended consolidated complaint. As of August
15, 2013, the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint for failure to state a claim and plead facts required
by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was fully briefed
and awaiting the Court's decision.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Retirement System's Lawsuit v. Dauten Dropped
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' counsel agreed to voluntarily dismiss the putative
shareholder derivative action entitled The City of Haverhill
Retirement System v. Dauten, et al., according to Community
Health Systems, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.
On January 22, 2013, a putative shareholder derivative action
entitled The City of Haverhill Retirement System v. Dauten, et
al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Tampa Division, purportedly on behalf of HMA against
its then directors. HMA was also named as a nominal defendant.
The complaint alleges that, among other things, the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to HMA and its stockholders by
supposedly causing HMA to undertake a scheme to defraud Medicare
by improperly admitting certain emergency room patients as
"inpatients" in violation of the False Claims Act and then
issuing false and misleading public statements about HMA's
financial outlook and compliance with laws and regulations. The
complaint also alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by exposing HMA to potentially significant civil
and criminal penalties as a result of the aforementioned
investigations by United States Department of Health and Human
Services, OIG and the DOJ as well as the stockholder class action
and other ongoing litigation. The complaint seeks monetary
damages from the defendants, other than HMA. On February 8, 2013,
the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. On April 10,
2013 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which asserts the
same claims as its prior complaint, but also names two of the
Company's then executives as defendants. On May 15, 2013, the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for threshold
lack of derivative standing, for failure to make a demand on the
Board, and for failure to state a claim. On June 26, 2013, the
plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on
August 16, 2013, the plaintiff moved to amend its complaint to
add class action claims related to the proposed merger with the
Company.
On October 31, 2013, the Court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiff's amended complaint as a "shotgun pleading" and
granting the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint
that cured the pleading deficiencies of its previous complaint
and that asserted claims related to the proposed merger. The
plaintiff filed its second amended complaint on November 14,
2013, which asserts the same claims as the prior complaint, but
adds purported class action claims related to the proposed
merger, and names as additional defendants HMA's current
directors. On December 16, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss
the second amended complaint. On December 20, 2013, the plaintiff
moved for expedited discovery and for oral argument to be
scheduled for an anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction
prior to the closing of the proposed merger. The defendants filed
a brief in opposition to this motion on December 24, 2013. On
December 26, 2013, the magistrate judge entered an order denying
the plaintiff's request for expedited discovery and granting
leave for the plaintiff to file a separate motion for a
preliminary injunction hearing. On February 12, 2014, plaintiffs'
counsel agreed to voluntarily dismiss this action.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Junk Pension Plan's Lawsuit Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the suit Town of Davie Police Officers'
Pension Plan v. Dauten, et al. is before the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, according to Community Health Systems,
Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
On July 23, 2013, an action entitled Town of Davie Police
Officers' Pension Plan v. Dauten, et al. was filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware. This action purportedly was
brought as a class action on behalf of all of HMA's stockholders,
as well as derivatively on behalf of HMA against HMA's then
directors and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo
Securities, LLC ("Wells Fargo"), and Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc. ("Deutsche Bank"). The complaint alleges, among other
things, that those directors breached their fiduciary duties (i)
by approving a credit agreement in 2011 that contains a change of
control covenant which the plaintiff contends will coerce
shareholders into supporting the re-election of HMA's incumbent
board of directors and (ii) by not approving Glenview Nominees
for election to HMA's Board of Directors for purposes of seeking
a waiver of the change of control covenant. The complaint further
alleges that the Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank defendants aided
and abetted such breaches. The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, including (i) a declaration that those
directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
credit agreement and (ii) an order permanently enjoining the
board of directors from invoking or enforcing the change of
control covenant in the credit agreement. The plaintiff also
seeks unspecified damages from those directors and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs. On September 20, 2013, the defendants
moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, as well as the plaintiff's failure to make a demand
on the Board of Directors and failure to state a claim. On
January 24, 2014, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the action as
moot and requested an award of attorneys' fees and costs. HMA
intends to defend this action.
CROYDON DAY: Hepatitis C Class Action Proceeds to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Russell, writing for The Age, reports that the class action
against drug-addicted anaesthetist James Latham Peters for
infecting 50 women with hepatitis C was set to go to trial after
one woman refused to accept a group settlement.
Supreme Court Justice David Beach said he did not have the power
to compel the woman to agree to the settlement.
Justice Beach had urged the woman to join the class action and
settle the case, believing it was in her best interests, but she
decided to go to trial because she was not prepared to accept
less money. The judge had been told the settlement offer on the
table was contingent on the woman not trying to go it alone.
Mr. Peters and the other defendants did not want to pay out all
the women in the class action and then have to take part in a
trial involving one victim.
The case was set to go to trial on April 28.
Slater & Gordon lawyer Julie Clayton, who is representing all the
other women in the class action against Peters and others, said
they were disappointed at being forced to have to go to trial.
Asked if the expected four-week trial would be a waste of court
resources, Ms. Clayton said in her view the matter could be
resolved and should be resolved but she respected the judge's
decision not to force the woman to compromise and settle.
The 50 women are suing Peters, Croydon Day Surgery,
Dr. Mark Schulberg (who hired Peters as an anaesthetist at the
clinic and who operated the clinic at the time) and the
Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (AHPRA) for
damages for pain and suffering, economic loss and medical
expenses.
AHPRA replaced the former Medical Practitioners Board of
Victoria, which has responsibility for registering doctors in
Victoria.
The class action covered women who had been infected with
hepatitis C during pregnancy terminations at the Croydon Day
Surgery between June 2008 and December 2009 when Peters was the
anaesthetist.
Mr. Peters, 64, was jailed last year for 14 years with a
non-parole period of 10 years, after pleading guilty to 55 counts
of negligently causing serious injury to the patients by
injecting himself with prefilled syringes of fentanyl -- an
opioid used in general anaesthesia -- in theatre at Croydon Day
Surgery. He then administered the remaining drug to the patients
as they underwent pregnancy terminations.
Mr. Peters had a history of drug abuse as well as convictions for
possessing a drug of dependence and falsifying prescriptions when
he infected the women with the potentially deadly blood disease.
While he had informed the medical board about his addiction to
fentanyl and pethidine in 1996, Peters failed to disclose his
hepatitis C status. The Health Department, which had been aware
he was a doctor being monitored for a fentanyl addiction, was
told as soon as he tested positive to the disease, but did not
pass on the information.
Despite being suspended while he sought help for his addiction,
Peters was allowed to return to work under certain monitoring
conditions.
Many of his victims have told of broken relationships, ruined
careers and their ever-present fears of passing on the disease to
their partners, children and others. They have developed
crippling depression, anxiety and stress since learning they had
been exposed to the disease and finding out they had been
infected. Several have been placed in psychiatric care and many
contemplated suicide as a direct result of Peters' actions,
according to victim impact statements.
DRAGER: Nationwide Recall of PS500 Power Supply Conducted
---------------------------------------------------------
Drager has initiated a nationwide recall of the optional PS500
Power Supply Unit used with the Evita V500 and Babylog VN500
ventilators. This voluntary action was a result of an internal
investigation by Drager into complaints that found that the
batteries installed in the PS500 depleted much earlier than
expected, although the battery indicator showed a significantly
charged battery. As a result, the device may not indicate a low
battery charge. The first indication of diminished battery
capacity may occur when the battery is totally depleted.
This recall only affects Evita V500 and Babylog VN500 ventilators
equipped with the optional PS500 power supply unit. Affected
devices were distributed nationally between June 2011 and January
2014.
Initial investigation revealed that the battery capacity was
reduced due to the occurrence of sulfation within the battery.
Frequent short-time use of PS500 battery power can increase
sulfation, further reducing the battery capacity. When sufficient
sulfation occurs, the connection to main power cannot guarantee
fully charged batteries and the charge indicator may not reflect
the currently available battery capacity.
In some cases, neither the "Battery Low" nor the "Battery
Depleted" alarm was triggered when the remaining battery capacity
fell below 10%. However, when the battery depleted totally, the
power fail alarm was generated.
To date, there have been no patient injuries reported due to this
issue. Should the battery become totally depleted, mechanical
ventilation will stop. Manual ventilation will be required until
the device is connected to main power.
The current analysis of the battery data available indicates that
a charged battery exhibiting internal sulfation will still last
for at least 3 minutes. In case of a main power loss, this 3-
minute battery back-up should typically be sufficient until the
emergency main power supply is re-established. The investigation
is ongoing and a permanent solution is being investigated,
designed, and qualified.
As an interim solution, the batteries in the PS500 will be
replaced free of charge. Until the batteries are exchanged,
Drager recommends that the user:
Use an affected device for patient transport only if
absolutely necessary.
Not rely on the battery charge status indicator.
Always supervise the patient and the ventilator during
transport. Ensure that a manual resuscitator is available for
manual ventilation, as recommended in the instructions for use.
If the power failure alarm occurs during transport,
immediately provide manual ventilation and connect the ventilator
to a wall power source to resume ventilation.
After the battery exchange, Drager recommends the following:
Minimize battery usage.
Avoid brief usage and charging of the PS500 (1 - 20 minutes).
Avoid patient transport lasting longer than 1 hour.
Make sure to charge the batteries for at least 24 hours.
The exchange of the existing batteries and the above
recommendations are only a temporary solution to ensure a minimum
operating time of 1 hour independent from main AC power.
The permanent solution, once available, will also be provided
free of charge.
A recall notification has been sent to all current users of the
recalled Evita 500 and Babylog VN500 ventilators and is available
on the Drager website at www.draeger.com. Users are being
contacted by a Drager Service representative to schedule the
replacement of the PS500 batteries free of charge.
For questions regarding the operation and/or servicing of
affected Drager ventilators in the United States, call Drager
Service Technical Support at 1-800-543-5047 (press 4 at the
prompt) between the hours of 8AM to 8PM EDT Monday through
Friday, or contact Drager by email at info.usa@draeger.com. The
US Food and Drug Administration has been notified of this action.
Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.
Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
Drager -- http://www.draeger.com/-- is an international leader
in the fields of medical and safety technology. Our products
protect, support and save lives. Founded in 1889, in 2013 Drager
generated revenues of around EUR 2.37 billion. The Drager Group
is currently present in more than 190 countries and has about
13,500 employees worldwide.
EMPAREDADOS BORICUA: Issues Allergen Alert for Its Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emparedados Boricua located in Bayamon PR, in April warned that
the product "Emparedados Boricua - Chicken and Cheese" packaged
in units of 6.5 oz. contains eggs that are not declared on the
label. People who are allergic to eggs are at risk of serious
allergic reactions if they consume these products. The product
was distributed to stores at gas stations in Puerto Rico from
March 17, 2014.
So far no complaints or reports of adverse events associated with
this problem. Emparedados Boricua is removing the product from
the market. The problem was discovered during a FDA inspection.
Customers with questions or concerns may call 787-635-6938.
ESSEX PROPERTY: Amended Complaints Filed in Suit Over BRE Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed identical, amended complaints in three putative
class action and shareholder derivative actions over a merger
with BRE Properties, Inc., according to Essex Property Trust,
Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
In connection with the announcement of the merger agreement,
three lawsuits have been filed and are pending as of February 10,
2014, seeking, among other things, to enjoin the merger, and an
injunction or other adverse ruling being entered in this lawsuit
may prevent the merger from being effective or from becoming
effective within the expected timeframe (if at all).
Since the announcement of the merger agreement on December 19,
2013, three putative class action and shareholder derivative
actions have been filed on behalf of alleged BRE stockholders
and/or BRE itself in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, under the following captions: Sutton v. BRE Properties,
Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-008425, filed December 23, 2013;
Applegate v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-14-00002,
filed December 30, 2013; and Lee v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al.,
No. 24-C-14-00046, filed January 3, 2014.
All of these complaints name as defendants BRE, the BRE Board,
Essex, and Merger Sub, and allege that the BRE Board breached its
fiduciary duties to BRE's stockholders and/or to BRE itself, and
that the merger involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales
process, and unreasonable deal protection devices that
purportedly preclude competing offers. The complaints further
allege that Essex, Merger Sub, and, in some cases, BRE aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of duty. The complaints seek
injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the merger,
and an award of other unspecified attorneys' and other fees and
costs, in addition to other relief.
On February 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed identical, amended
complaints in the three pending actions. The amended complaints
add allegations that disclosures regarding the proposed merger in
the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on
January 29, 2014 are inadequate.
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Consolidates Privacy Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an order
granting the consolidation of related actions and appointing
interim counsel has been filed in a lawsuit against Facebook
alleging privacy concerns.
The order, which was filed April 15 in the U.S. District Court of
the Northern District of California, states that Campbell v.
Facebook and Shadpour v. Facebook will be consolidated and named
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Carney Bates & Pullman and
Pomerantz LLP as interim class counsel.
On April 4, Facebook filed its response to the plaintiffs' motion
to consolidate related actions and appoint interim counsel.
Facebook "supports plaintiffs' request to consolidate the cases
for pretrial purposes . . . Facebook specifically reserves its
right to oppose class certification on all available grounds
including but not limited to the absence of common questions
susceptible to common answers . . . and that common questions do
not predominate over individualized questions," according to the
response.
The plaintiffs' motion to consolidate related actions and appoint
interim counsel was filed on March 21.
"Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), this Court has
discretion to consolidate actions if they 'involve a common
question of law or fact,'" the motion states. "The Shadpour and
Campbell actions, which the Court has already ordered be related
. . . should now be consolidated."
These actions are predicated on substantially similar factual
allegations, and they assert the same state law claims, according
to the motion. Consolidation will save the court and the parties
considerable time and expense.
Both complaints assert legal violations based on the same alleged
conduct: the alleged scanning of URLs in private messages between
Facebook users for the purpose of delivering targeted advertising
and building user profiles.
"The allegations are more than similar," the motion states. "In
fact, the complaints contain dozens of identical allegations,
ranging from general background on data aggregation and
Facebook's business model, to the core conduct purportedly at
issue in the cases."
The Campbell lawsuit was filed Dec. 30 by Matthew Campbell and
Michael Hurley, who claimed Facebook violated its users' privacy
by using data from private messages to generate targeted
advertisements.
In their class action complaint, Campbell and Hurley claim
contrary to its representation, "private" Facebook messages are
systematically intercepted by the company in an effort to learn
the contents of the users' communications.
Campbell and Hurley claim in the course of the last year,
independent security researchers discovered that Facebook reviews
the contents of its users' private Facebook messages for purposes
unrelated to the facilitation of message transmission.
"When a user composes a Facebook message and includes a link to a
third part website . . . the company scans the content of the
Facebook message, follows the enclosed link and searches for
information to profile the message-sender's web activity," the
complaint states.
This practice is not done to facilitate the transmission of
users' communications via Facebook, but, because it enables
Facebook to mine user data and profit from those data by sharing
them with third parties -- namely advertisers, marketers and
other data aggregators, according to the suit.
Campbell and Hurley claim representing to users that the content
of Facebook messages is "private" creates an especially
profitable opportunity for Facebook, because users who believe
they are communicating on a service free from surveillance are
likely to reveal facts about themselves that they would not
reveal had they known the content was being monitored.
Thus, Facebook has positioned itself to acquire pieces of the
users' profiles that are likely unavailable to other data
aggregators, according to the suit.
On Jan. 21, David Shadpour filed a separate class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in
Oakland, alleging similar facts and asserting the same state law
as the Campbell complaint, according to the motion.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
numbers: 4:13-cv-05996, 5:14-cv-00307
FIRST SOLAR: Court Grants Certification in Pension Schemes' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
granted the motion for class certification filed by Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme in
the suit Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-
cv-00555-DGC, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of our current and former directors and
officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between April 30, 2008, and February 28,
2012. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and prospects. The action
includes claims for damages, and an award of costs and expenses
to the putative class, including attorneys' fees. The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend
this action.
On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the class action the
Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation
Scheme (collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes
filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains
similar allegations and seeks similar relief as the original
complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14,
2012. On December 17, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion
to dismiss. On February 26, 2013, the court directed the parties
to begin class certification discovery, and ordered a further
scheduling conference to set the merit discovery schedule after
the issue of class certification has been decided. On June 21,
2013, the Pension Schemes filed a motion for class certification.
On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the
Pension Schemes' motion for class certification.
FOREST OIL: Lone Pine Continues to Face Shareholder Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Augenbaum v. Lone Pine Resources Inc. et al. continues
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County,
according to Forest Oil Corporation's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
On May 25, 2012, a lawsuit, styled Augenbaum v. Lone Pine
Resources Inc. et al., was brought as a purported class action in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
against Forest, Lone Pine, certain of Lone Pine's current and
former directors and officers (the "Individual Defendants"), and
certain underwriters (the "Underwriter Defendants") of Lone
Pine's initial public offering (the "IPO"), which was completed
on June 1, 2011. The complaint alleges that Lone Pine's
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the IPO contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted
to state material facts relating to forest fires that occurred in
Northern Alberta in May 2011, the rupture of a third-party oil
sales pipeline in Northern Alberta in April 2011, and the impact
of those events on Lone Pine, that the alleged misstatements or
omissions violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, and that
Lone Pine, the Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter
Defendants are liable for such violations. (The complaint was
subsequently amended to drop the allegation regarding the forest
fires.) The complaint further alleges that the Underwriter
Defendants offered and sold Lone Pine's securities in violation
of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and the putative class
members seek rescission of the securities purchased in the IPO
that they continue to own and rescissionary damages for
securities that they have sold. Finally, the complaint asserts a
claim against Forest under Section 15 of the Securities Act,
alleging that Forest was a "control person" of Lone Pine at the
time of the IPO. The complaint alleges that the putative class,
which purchased shares of Lone Pine's common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to Lone Pine's registration statement and
prospectus, was damaged when the value of the stock declined in
August 2011.
FREDERICK HANNA: Removed "Leone" Suit to W.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Leone v. Frederick J. Hanna &
Associates, P.C., Case No. 801100/2014, from the Erie County
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York (Buffalo). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-
cv-00115-JTC to the proceeding.
The lawsuit accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cyrus Bahram Chubineh, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CYRUS CHUBINEH
2655 Millersport Hwy., #714
Getzville, NY 14068
Telephone: (716) 864-0715
Facsimile: (716) 478-8540
E-mail: chubineh@yahoo.com
- and -
Matthew Alan Parham, Esq.
WESTERN NEW YORK LAW CENTER, INC.
237 Main Street, Suite 1130
Buffalo, NY 14203
Telephone: (716) 855-0203
Facsimile: (716) 270-4005
E-mail: mparham@wnylc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas R. Dominczyk, Esq.
Rachel Marin, Esq.
MAURICE & NEEDLEMAN, P.C.
5 Walter E. Foran Boulevard, Suite 2007
Flemington, NJ 08822
Telephone: (908) 237-4550
Facsimile: (908) 237-4551
E-mail: trd@mnlawpc.com
rachel.marin@gmail.com
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Removed "Kanawha" Suit to S.D. West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom Industries, Inc. removed the class action lawsuit styled
Kanawha Gourmet Sandwiches, LLC v. Freedom Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 14-C-55, from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County,
West Virginia, to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-ap-02028 to the proceeding.
Freedom Industries filed a voluntary petition in the Court for
relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on January 17,
2014, as a result of an incident that occurred on January 9,
2014, involving one of its storage tanks located at its
Charleston facility.
On January 10, 2014, Kanawha Gourmet Sandwiches, LLC filed a
putative class action complaint against Freedom and West Virginia
American Water Company in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Arsenault, Esq.
NEBLETT, BEARD & ARSENAULT
2220 Bonaventure Court
P.O. Box 1190
Alexandria, LA 71309
Telephone: (800) 256-1050
Facsimile: (318) 561-2591
E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com
- and -
Harry F. Bell, Jr., Esq.
Jonathan W. Price, Esq.
THE BELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
P.O. Box 1723
Charleston, WV 25326-1723
Telephone: (304) 345-1700
Facsimile: (304) 345-1715
E-mail: hfbell@belllaw.com
jwprice@belllaw.com
- and -
Jerrold Parker, Esq.
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
3301 Bonita Beach Road
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Telephone: (239) 390-1000
Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
Defendant Freedom Industries, Inc., is represented by:
Jason Alter, Esq.
Mark E. Freedlander, Esq.
Michael J. Roeschenthaler, Esq.
Brian C. Root, Esq.
Scott Schuster, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
625 Liberty Avenue, 23rd Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 667-7940
Facsimile: (412) 667-7962
E-mail: jalter@mcguirewoods.com
mfreedlander@mcguirewoods.com
mroeschenthaler@mcguirewoods.com
broot@mcguirewoods.com
sschuster@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
J. Nicholas Barth, Esq.
Stephen L. Thompson, Esq.
BARTH & THOMPSON
PO Box 129
Charleston, WV 25321
Telephone: (304) 342-7111
Facsimile: (304) 342-6215
E-mail: nbarth@barth-thompson.com
sthompson@barth-thompson.com
Defendant West Virginia American Water is represented by:
William C. Ballard, Esq.
A. L. Emch, Esq.
Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., Esq.
JACKSON KELLY PLLC
P. O. Box 553
Charleston, WV 25322
Telephone: (304) 340-1364
Facsimile: (304) 340-1080
E-mail: wcballard@jacksonkelly.com
aemch@jacksonkelly.com
thurney@jacksonkelly.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Stay Motion on Key System Class Action Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an order
granting General Motors' motion for stay has been filed in the
lawsuit against GM over its allegedly defective key system.
GM moved to stay proceedings pending rulings by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York. District Judge Jeffrey S. White
granted GM's motion on April 22.
"This case should be stayed pending the outcome of the MDL
petitions and the bankruptcy court motion, either of which would
substantially limit or eliminate the need for further proceedings
here," the April 11 motion states. "A stay will prevent needless
waste of time and resources of the parties and the court."
Moreover, the motion states, it will protect GM from being
required to litigate identical issues in multiple jurisdictions,
with the danger of inconsistent rulings.
"If plaintiffs' case is not transferred and consolidated in
another federal district, or if the Maciel plaintiffs are not
enjoined (in whole or in part) by the bankruptcy court, they will
not have suffered any prejudice as a result of the temporary stay
requested here," according to the motion.
The motion also mentions GM in two separate ways, "New GM" and
"Old GM." "New GM" refers to General Motors LLC and "Old GM"
refers to General Motors Corporation.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 24 after owners and leaseholders
of GM cars claimed their cars have or had allegedly faulty key
systems. The cars were prone to sudden shut-down, which GM
concealed for a decade, the plaintiffs say.
The plaintiffs in the case, Galdina Maciel, Daniel Cortex, Cindy
Wade, Zachary DeWitt, Roberta Cheraso, Demetrius Smith, Jenee
Byrd, Asuhan Leyva, Jim Gresik, Barbara Ellis Steele, Maria
Raygoza, Barbara Gray and Michele Bennett, purchased or leased
vehicles manufactured by GM, including the 2005-2010 Chevrolet
Cobalt, 2006-2007 Chevrolet HHR, 2006-2007 Pontiac Solstice,
2005-2007 Pontiac G5, 2003-2007 Saturn Ion and 2007 Saturn Sky
vehicles.
Each of the allegedly defective vehicles contains a "uniformly
designed ignition switch, which is substantially similar for all
of the defective vehicles," according to the suit.
"GM had actual knowledge that, because of the way in which the
key system was designed and integrated in the defective vehicles,
the ignition switch can suddenly fail during normal operation,
cutting off engine power and certain electrical systems in the
cars, which, in turn, disables key vehicle components, safety
features . . . or other vehicle functions, leaving occupants
vulnerable to crashes, serious injuries and death," the complaint
states.
The plaintiffs claim GM fraudulently concealed material facts
regarding the scope and extent of problems with its key system,
which have been linked to at least 31 crashes and 13 fatalities
nationally.
The suit contends that GM knew its key system posed an
"increase[ed] risk of injury or fatality" as far back as 2001 but
failed to take proper steps to correct the defects, which could
cause certain Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn cars to shut down
without warning while being driven.
The plaintiffs claim GM was fully aware that the problems
extended beyond just the ignition switch mechanism that has been
the focus of the recall.
The plaintiffs are seeking for the court to certify the action as
a class action; enjoin GM from continuing its unfair business
practices; and compensatory and punitive damages.
They are being represented by Edward D. "Chip" Robertson, Jr.,
who served as Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court; Sharon
L. Potter, a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of
West Virginia; Roland Tellis, Mark Pifko and Isaac Miller of
Baron and Budd; Adam J. Levitt and John E. Tangren of Grant &
Eisenhofer; Lance Cooper of the Cooper Firm; Scott B. Cooper of
the Cooper Law Firm; Cale H. Conley -- cale@conleygriggs.com --
Ranse M. Partin
-- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- and Andrew T. Tennille III --
dre@conleygriggs.com -- of Conley Griggs Partin; James R.
Bartimus -- jb@bflawfirm.com -- of Bartimus, Frickleton,
Robertson & Goza; Mark DiCello and Robert F. DiCello of the
DiCello Law Firm; Joseph J. Siprut of Siprut PC; Niall A. Paul --
npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- and Nathan B. Atkinson --
natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- of Spilman Thomas Battle; and Guy R.
Bucci, Timothy C. Bailey and Lee Javins of Bucci Bailey & Javins.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 4:14-cv-01339
GENERAL MOTORS: Texas Lawyer Balks at Bid to Transfer Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 22, 2014, Hilliard Munoz Gonzales LLP (HMG) responded to
General Motors' motion to transfer the Texas lawsuit regarding GM
vehicles with defective ignition switches to Bankruptcy Court.
GM IS BONE-HEADED AND MORALLY BANKRUPT
Bob Hilliard, lead attorney in the action and partner at HMG,
contacted GM's legal team via email, saying, in part:
"General Motors exhibits a stunning . . . level of corporate
entitlement and arrogance by even attempting such a bone-headed
maneuver . . . . GM's legacy will always be one of epic betrayal
of its customers and its country."
". . . it is simply mind-boggling that (Mary Barra), as GM's CEO,
would authorize such a short-sighted end-run around her own
recent and unequivocal promise (to take responsibility for the
harm caused by the defective ignition switches.)"
". . . GM allowed this defect onto our roads knowing death would
follow and now blithely turns its corporate back on the decades-
long human consequence of such criminal conduct."
"Know this, after today there is at least one bankruptcy label
the entire country believes: GM is morally bankrupt."
GM'S THREE-PART DEFENSE UNRAVELING
Mr. Hilliard said, "GM contends we are suing the Old GM. We're
not. Our claims are against the New GM." He added the New GM
"Trifecta" defense is coming unraveled:
"First, New GM hired the entire Old GM engineering department
that knew of the dangerous defect and suborned perjury of at
least two of those employees in depositions to keep the secret,
only to admit before Congress that they were lying."
"Second, New GM demanded and got all the written evidence under
its control so that even those trying to get to the truth through
Old GM had no access to the incriminating documents. Now they
are being forced to produce those documents under threat of
ongoing criminal investigations."
"Finally, New GM thought it had a 'magic bullet' in the
bankruptcy court sale order allowing discharge of all
fraudulently concealed claims. Even the bankruptcy court now
says its jurisdiction over creditors' disputes with New GM and
New GM's post-sale conduct is clearly debatable."
GM'S CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY
New GM sold inventoried ignition switches that it knew were
dangerously defective and failed to act on Old GM and New GM's
recall obligations regarding the faulty switches.
Mr. Hilliard said that New GM is continuing Old GM's callous
disregard for the safety of millions of Americans who continue to
drive GM vehicles with defective ignition switches. He continued
to stress:
"Everyone who owns one of these recalled vehicles needs to park
it now! When this defect occurs, the power steering will not
work, the power brakes will not work, and the airbags will not
deploy!
"Driving a recalled GM vehicle is like carrying a stick of
dynamite with a slow-burning fuse. When it goes off it will be
sudden, violent and deadly."
About HMG
Hilliard Munoz Gonzales LLP (HMG) -- http://www.hmglawfirm.com/
-- specializes in mass torts, personal injury, product liability,
commercial and business litigation, and wrongful death. Hilliard
Munoz Gonzales LLP has been successfully representing clients in
the United States and Mexico since 1986.
GEORGIA: Faces Class Action Over Gay Marriage Ban
-------------------------------------------------
11Alive reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against the state of Georgia, for banning gay marriage. The
lawsuit was filed on April 22.
Three gay couples and a woman who recently lost her wife filed
the suit.
Georgia voters in 2004 overwhelmingly approved a constitutional
ban on gay marriage. The ban was challenged in courts by gay
rights groups who targeted the wording of the ballot question,
but the state Supreme Court ultimately ruled in 2006 that the
vote was valid.
The state constitution prohibits same-sex marriage and says such
marriages performed in other states aren't legally recognized in
Georgia. Gay marriage is legal in 17 states.
HIGHMARK-UPMC: Seeks Dismissal of Health Insurance Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kris B. Mamula, writing for Pittsburgh Business Times, reports
that an effort to define a class of health insurance consumers
who were harmed by an alleged years-long Highmark-UPMC conspiracy
has failed and should be thrown out of court, lawyers argued on
April 21.
The issue is key in how a federal lawsuit filed by South Hills
real estate developer Royal Mile Co. Inc., Wexford tavern Cole's
Wexford Hotel Inc. and others will be litigated. U.S. District
Court Judge Joy Flowers Conti has been presiding.
The Royal Mile lawsuit claimed that Highmark and UPMC conspired
between 2002 and at least 2008 to inflate health insurance
premiums by freezing national insurers out of the local market.
Judge Conti has dismissed two versions of the lawsuit, which was
first filed in 2010, but left the door open for a third amended
complaint.
But how much more did consumers have to pay for health insurance
as a result of the alleged conspiracy and who were the people
harmed by the arrangement? Highmark and UPMC lawyers focused on
those issues in court filings April 21.
"No matter the cost of the alleged excluded low-cost insurer, it
is implausible to believe every Highmark subscriber would have
switched" to another carrier, lawyer Leon DeJulius from the
downtown offices of Jones Day, argued in a court filing.
"Plaintiffs, therefore, have a very slim reed to save their
class."
"The mere exclusion of low-cost competitors from the marketplace
-- without connection to harm to the plaintiff -- is not
cognizable." Royal Mile is seeking certification as a class
action lawsuit, but Highmark lawyer Margaret Zwisler --
margaret.zwisler@lw.com -- from the Washington, D.C., firm of
Latham & Watkins LLP, in a filing said Royal Mile had failed to
identify the class of people allegedly harmed by the scheme.
"It is apparent from the face of the complaint that the only way
to ascertain the members of the proposed class would be through
individualized mini-trials of each small group's claim that, in a
hypothetical world in which commercial insurers offered lower
rates of some hypothetical amount in the market, those commercial
insurers would have offered those hypothetical lower rates to
each small group and each small group would have bought insurance
from those other companies solely on the basis of those lower
rates," Ms. Zwisler wrote in a court filing on April 21.
"Therefore, this court can and should dismiss the class claims
now."
HSBC FINANCE: Removed "Brown" Suit to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Brown v. HSBC Finance Corp., et
al., Case No. 1422-CC-00019, was removed from the Circuit Court
of St. Louis City to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00323-RWS to the proceeding. The
lawsuit alleges breach of contract.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
MEHRI AND SKALET PLLC
1250 Connecticut Ave.,Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
E-mail: cbriskin@findjustice.com
- and -
James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
CAREY AND DANIS
8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-7700
Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Deborah C. Druley, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP - ST. LOUIS
One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3000
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 241-1800
Facsimile: (314) 259-5959
E-mail: deborah.druley@dentons.com
- and -
Gregory S. Korman, Esq.
Stuart M. Richter, Esq.
KATTEN AND MUCHIN, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 788-4400
Facsimile: (310) 788-4471
E-mail: gregory.korman@kattenlaw.com
stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com
IKO MANUFACTURING: Faces Consumer Suit Over Organic Shingles
------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Bakken, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IKO Manufacturing Inc., a Delaware corporation; IKO
Industries Inc., a Delaware corporation; IKO Industries Ltd., a
Canadian corporation; IKO Midwest Inc., an Illinois corporation;
and IKO Production Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00140-wmc (W.D. Wis., February 21, 2014) is a consumer class
action on behalf of all persons and entities, who purchased
organic-based or matted shingles manufactured and distributed
under various trade names by the Defendants.
IKO sold or distributed organic shingles throughout the United
States, but primarily in the northern and south-eastern United
States between approximately 1979 and 2007.
All IKO Shingles are allegedly manufactured using the same basic
formula: a base layer of organic felt saturated with asphalt, a
middle layer of an oxidized asphalt coating, and a top layer of
mineral granules with a strip of asphalt sealant.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Scott A. Moriarity, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: cnnauen@locklaw.com
rkshelquist@locklaw.com
samoriarity@locklaw.com
- and -
Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
Scott W. Carlson, Esq.
Melissa Weiner Wolchansky, Esq.
HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
1650 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 605-4098
Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
carlson@halunenlaw.com
wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jon D. Robinson, Esq.
Christopher M. Ellis, Esq.
BOLEN ROBINSON & ELLIS
202 South Franklin, 2nd Floor
Decatur, IL 62523
Telephone: (217) 429-4296
Facsimile: (217) 329-0034
E-mail: jrobinson@brelaw.com
cellis@brelaw.com
IMPERIAL OIL: Ruling to Have Effect on Regulatory Investigations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Middlemiss, writing for Financial Post, reports that
litigators were watching with interest a Supreme Court of Canada
case scheduled for April 24, which would decide whether wiretap
information gathered in a Competition Bureau criminal
investigation on gasoline price fixing should be turned over to
class action lawyers prosecuting a civil case.
Lawyers say if Canada's top court rules in favor of disclosing
the evidence, it would have a far-reaching and deleterious effect
on all types of regulatory investigations and the willingness of
parties to co-operate in investigations.
"The case has serious implications for anyone that might be the
target of a class action or civil litigation arising out of
criminal or quasi-criminal regulatory proceedings," said
Lawrence Thacker -- lthacker@litigate.com -- a litigator at
Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP.
"It's unlikely to stop at the Competition Bureau or with wiretap
evidence," he said, adding it will creep down into other areas of
evidence, such as investigator's notebooks and other records.
"The decision could be quite far-reaching and set down matters of
broad principles."
Critics say it also has the potential to dissuade whistleblowers
from coming forward. Cal Goldman, a competition lawyer at
Goodmans LLP in Toronto said: "Whistleblowers who come forward
know they provide information in a completely trusted and fulsome
manner . . . and the Competition Bureau will take all measure to
protect them."
If their identity is later disclosed and they are dragged into a
civil lawsuit, Mr. Goldman said it would discourage people from
coming forward.
The two cases at issue are Imperial Oil v. Simon Jacques and
Couche-Tard Inc. et al v. Simon Jacques.
The litigation centers on a bureau crackdown on gasoline price
fixing that started in 2008 and led to charges against 39
individuals and 15 companies in Quebec. As of August 2013, 31
individuals and seven companies either pleaded or were found
guilty with fines totaling more than $3-million. Six people have
been sentenced to a total of 54 months in jail.
A class action has been launched against 72 parties, including
some of the accused, and some of the criminal cases remain in the
courts.
As part of its investigation, the bureau seized more than 100,000
records, searched more than 80 locations and intercepted 220,000
private communications. The wiretap evidence was disclosed to
the accused.
A Quebec judge ruled that the Competition Bureau had to produce
the wiretaps in the class suit, but ordered they be disclosed
only to lawyers and legal experts.
The Quebec Court of Appeal held that ruling couldn't be appealed,
but approved the lower court reasons and the matter is now in the
hands of the Supreme Court. The Ontario Attorney General has
intervened.
One of the big questions the top court faces is the privacy that
should be accorded to wiretaps, which are granted under Part VI
of the Criminal Code. That section deals with invasion of
privacy and the interception of private communications, which is
normally a crime, but the law expressly allows police to ask a
judge to intercept private communications under a limited range
of conditions.
Section 193(1) of the Criminal Code also makes it an indictable
offence to use or disclose wiretap evidence without consent of
the people involved in the intercepted communication.
Section 193(2) includes a number of exceptions, including where
the private communication is disclosed "in the course of or for
the purpose of giving evidence in any civil or criminal
proceedings . . . in which the person may be required to give
evidence under oath." The Quebec Superior Court relied on this
exception in ordering that the Bureau produce the wiretaps.
The Attorney General Of Ontario argues at the Supreme Court that
the Criminal Code exceptions must be "interpreted in a
conservative manner."
It noted that "the e-discovery era has given rise to concerns
about the prohibitively high expenses associated with civil
litigation and related access to justice problems. Allowing for
greater discoveries of materials in the hands of third parties
-- particularly intercept content -- would only exacerbate those
problems." It urged the court "against inadvertently opening the
door to orders for production in this context."
Sylvie Rodrigue -- srodrigue@torys.com -- a class action defense
lawyer at Torys LLP in Toronto, said the lower court ruling goes
too far and she hopes it is overturned. She said the trial judge
relied on a provision in Quebec's civil procedure laws, which
grants judges broad discretion over the management of a case.
"Class action judges have been using that provision to make
decisions that would make no sense it if was an individual
action."
"You cannot use that provision to trump substantive law," she
added, noting that the Criminal Code is a federal statute.
She said intercepting private communications is a major
infringement of a person's rights. The wiretap evidence was
"obtained in a very specific context," which was to support a
criminal investigation, not a civil suit.
"Provisions which are an exception to this infringement should be
interpreted very restrictively," she said.
However, not everyone agrees. Charles Wright --
charles.wright@siskinds.com -- a class action lawyer at Siskinds
in London, Ont. said "it shouldn't just be a blanket rule that
the evidence would never be given up."
"All the people who overpaid for their gas, why can't they be
told what happened to them? If they want to try to get back the
amount they overpaid, and the evidence exists, why can't they
have it?" he asks.
The court needs to strike a "delicate balance and these are
tricky issues," he said.
INTEGRITY STAFFING: "Busk" Suit Moved From Nevada to Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Busk, et al. v. Integrity
Staffing Solutions, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01854, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky (Louisville). The Kentucky District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00139-JGH to the proceeding.
The case is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants did not pay any of their
warehouse employees anything for the time spent waiting for and
undergoing daily security clearances.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
THIERMAN LAW FIRM
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: josh@thiermanlaw.com
info@thiermanlaw.com
Defendant Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. is represented by:
Cory G. Walker, Esq.
Rick D. Roskelley, Esq.
Roger L. Grandgenett, II, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: (702) 862-8800
Facsimile: (702) 862-8811
E-mail: cgwalker@littler.com
rroskelley@littler.com
rgrandgenett@littler.com
- and -
Neil M. Alexander, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 West Liberty St., Suite 400
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: (775) 348-4888
Facsimile: (775) 786-0127
E-mail: nalexander@littler.com
- and -
Peter D. Navarro, Esq.
JACK, LYON & JONES
11 Music Circle South, Suite 202
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (702) 921-2460
Facsimile: (702) 921-2461
E-mail: peter.navarro@jacksonlewis.com
Defendant Amazon.com, Inc., is represented by:
Joseph A. Nuccio, Esq.
Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP - PRINCETON
502 Carnegie Center
Princeton, NJ 08540-6289
Telephone: (609) 919-6659
Facsimile: (609) 919-6701
E-mail: jnuccio@morganlewis.com
rrosenblatt@morganlewis.com
- and -
Rebecca D. Eisen, Esq.
Theresa Mak, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1328
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: reisen@morganlewis.com
tmak@morganlewis.com
- and -
Scott M. Mahoney, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 950
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: (702) 252-3131
Facsimile: (702) 252-7411
E-mail: smahoney@laborlawyers.com
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Calif. Court Dismisses 2013 Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California entered an order of dismissal without prejudice in the
suit Warren Avery v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-
cv-3733-WHO, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
On August 12, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned Warren Avery v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., Case
No. 13-cv-3733-WHO, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California naming the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as defendants. The
complaint alleged that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's revenues, business practices,
and internal controls. The complaint purported to assert claims
for violations of Sections 10 (b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who
purchased Juniper Networks' securities between April 24, 2012 and
August 8, 2013, inclusive. Plaintiff sought an unspecified amount
of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. On November
12, 2013, the court issued an order appointing Warren Avery as
lead plaintiff. On January 9, 2014, lead plaintiff filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. On
January, 23, 2014, the court entered an order of dismissal
without prejudice.
KROGER CO: Two Private Selection Ice Cream Flavors Recalled
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR) said April 26 it has recalled Private
Selection Chocolate Hazelnut Mascarpone Ice Cream and Private
Selection Caramel Hazelnut Fudge Truffle Ice Cream sold at the
Kroger family of stores in 31 states because the products may
contain egg not listed on the label.
People who are allergic to egg could have a severe reaction if
they consume this product. For consumers who are not allergic to
egg, there is no safety issue with the product. No customer
illnesses have been reported to date.
The recalled Private Selection Hazelnut Mascarpone Ice Cream,
sold in 16 fluid ounce packages with a of UPC 1111052101, was
distributed to Kroger stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia and West Virginia; Dillons and Gerbes stores in Kansas
and Missouri; Baker's stores in Nebraska; Fred Meyer stores in
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington; Fry's stores in Arizona;
King Soopers and City Market stores in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah
and Wyoming; Owen's, Pay Less and Scott's stores in Illinois and
Indiana; Ralphs stores in California; Smith's stores in Arizona,
Idaho, Montana Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah; and QFC stores in
Oregon and Washington.
The recalled Private Selection Caramel Hazelnut Fudge Truffle Ice
Cream, sold in 16 fluid ounce packages with a of UPC 1111052100,
was distributed to Kroger stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and
West Virginia; and Owen's, Pay Less, Scott's, and Food 4 Less
stores in Illinois and Indiana.
Customers in the impacted states should return the product to
stores for a full refund or replacement.
What Kroger is doing
Kroger has removed potentially affected item from store shelves
and initiated its customer recall notification system that alerts
customers who may have purchased recalled Class 1 products
through register receipt tape messages and phone calls.
What customers should do
Customers are asked to carefully check their freezers for the
recalled product. Any opened or unopened products included in
this recall should not be consumed by persons allergic to egg,
and should be returned to their local store for a full refund.
Customers who have questions about this recall may contact Kroger
toll-free at 800-KROGERS (800-576-4377). For more information,
please visit www.kroger.com/recall
Kroger, one of the world's largest retailers, employs more than
375,000 associates who serve customers in 2,640 supermarkets and
multi-department stores in 34 states and the District of Columbia
under two dozen local banner names including Kroger, City Market,
Dillons, Food 4 Less, Fred Meyer, Fry's, Harris Teeter, Jay C,
King Soopers, QFC, Ralphs and Smith's. The company also operates
786 convenience stores, 320 fine jewelry stores, 1,240
supermarket fuel centers and 38 food processing plants in the
U.S. Recognized by Forbes as the most generous company in
America, Kroger supports hunger relief, breast cancer awareness,
the military and their families, and more than 30,000 schools and
grassroots organizations. Kroger contributes food and funds equal
to 200 million meals a year through more than 80 Feeding America
food bank partners. A leader in supplier diversity, Kroger is a
proud member of the Billion Dollar Roundtable and the U.S.
Hispanic Chamber's Million Dollar Club.
LAO THAI NAM: Recalls Number One Sompa Salted Fish
--------------------------------------------------
Lao Thai Nam Corp., of Dallas, Texas has recalled Number One
Sompa Salted Fish, because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can
cause life-threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not
to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.
Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.
Number one Sompa Salted Fish was distributed in the state of
Texas (Irving and Houston areas) through retail stores, prior to
03/31/2014.
Number One Sompa Salted Fish is contained in a clear vacuum
packaged pouch. The pouch contains red and black lettering with a
fish logo on the left hand portion. The product is a 7-ounce
package containing a whole processed Tin Foil Barb fish, UPC: 8
8433200019 4.
No illnesses have been reported to date.
The potential for contamination was noted after a routine FDA
inspection found the process for the fish being manufactured was
not correctly validated.
Consumers who have purchased 7-ounce Number One Sompa Salted Fish
are urged to return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 469-213-8718, Monday -
Friday, 7am - 3:30pm, CDT.
LEGGETT & PLATT: Certification Sought in Ohio Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to certify a class on behalf of both direct and indirect
purchasers were filed in the suit In re: Polyurethane Foam
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196 pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, according to
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.
Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was
initiated in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against
over 20 defendants alleging that competitors of the company's
carpet underlay business unit and other manufacturers of
polyurethane foam products had engaged in price fixing in
violation of U.S. and Canadian antitrust laws.
A number of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, most
without prejudice. Of the U.S. cases remaining, the company has
been named as a defendant in (a) three direct purchaser class
action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) and a consolidated
amended class action complaint filed on February 28, 2011 on
behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam
products; (b) an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended
complaint filed on March 21, 2011; and an indirect purchaser
class action case filed on May 23, 2011; (c) 39 individual direct
purchaser cases filed between March 22, 2011 and October 16,
2013; and (d) two individual cases alleging direct and indirect
purchaser claims under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, one
filed on November 29, 2012 and the other on April 11, 2013. All
of the pending U.S. federal cases in which the company has been
named as a defendant, have been filed in or have been transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:10-MD-2196.
In the U.S. actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and/or a class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of
unspecified damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged
overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at
least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney
fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and
injunctive relief against future violations. On April 15 and May
6, 2011, the company filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct
purchaser and indirect purchaser class actions in the
consolidated case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid
claim. On July 19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to
dismiss. Discovery is underway in the U.S. actions. Motions for
class certification have been filed on behalf of both direct and
indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motions was held January
15, 2014. A decision on class certification is expected in the
upcoming weeks.
LEGGETT & PLATT: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Polyurethane Foam Biz
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated is facing Canadian class action
cases filed by direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane
foam products, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
The company has been named in two Canadian class action cases
(for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam
products), both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co.
Limited and Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al. in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-
10-15164 (amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued
December 30, 2011). In each of the Canadian cases, the
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers,
seek from over 13 defendants restitution of the amount allegedly
overcharged, general and special damages in the amount of $100
million, punitive damages of $10 million, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, and the costs of the investigation and the
action. The company is not yet required to file the company's
defenses in the Canadian actions. In addition, on July 10, 2012,
plaintiff in a class action case (for direct and indirect
purchasers of polyurethane foam products) styled Option
Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits Vitafoam Canada
Limitee, et. al. in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice
(Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended motion
for authorization seeking to add the company and other
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this
case.
LEGGETT & PLATT: Mo. Court Hears Motion to Certify Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri heard a
motion to certify a class in a case that accuses Leggett & Platt,
Incorporated, among others, of violating the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act based upon its alleged illegal price
inflation of flexible polyurethane foam products, according to
the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.
On June 22, 2012, the company was also made party to a lawsuit
brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County,
Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption "Dennis
Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs.
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated." The plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane
foam products in the State of Missouri, alleged that the company
violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon the
company's alleged illegal price inflation of flexible
polyurethane foam products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
actual damages, punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable
attorney fees. The company filed a motion to dismiss this action,
which was denied on November 5, 2012. Discovery has commenced and
plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification. The
parties' briefing is completed, and a hearing on the motion was
held on February 20, 2014.
LSI CORP: Faces Litigations Over Avago Merger Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------
LSI Corporation faces lawsuit over a planned merger it entered
with Avago Technologies Limited, Avago Technologies Wireless
(U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., according to LSI's Feb. 26, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
On January 17, 2014, the Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office)
of the Federal Republic of Germany approved the merger and on
January 29, 2014, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian
Federation approved the merger.
Sixteen purported class action complaints have been filed by
alleged stockholders of LSI against the company, the company's
individual directors, and, in fifteen of the cases, against
Avago. Nine lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
and the seven other lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara. The Delaware
Court of Chancery has entered an order consolidating the Delaware
actions into a single action. These actions generally allege that
the members of the company's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the merger because the merger
was not in the best interest of the company, the merger
consideration is unfair, and certain other terms of the merger
agreement are unfair. Among other remedies, the lawsuits seek to
enjoin the merger, or in the event that an injunction is not
entered and the merger closes, to rescind the merger or obtain
unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The company
and the company's board of directors believe these claims are
entirely without merit, and intend to vigorously defend these
actions.
The company expects to close the merger during the first half of
2014. Following completion of the merger, the company will become
a wholly owned subsidiary of Avago, the company's common stock
will be delisted from The NASDAQ Stock Market and deregistered
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and as such, the
company will no longer file periodic reports with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
MATTEL INC: Bares Updates on Suits Related to Carter Bryant, MGA
----------------------------------------------------------------
In its Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, Mattel,
Inc. provided updates on Litigation Related to Carter Bryant and
MGA Entertainment, Inc.
In April 2004, Mattel filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Carter Bryant ("Bryant"), a former Mattel
design employee. The suit alleges that Bryant aided and assisted
a Mattel competitor, MGA Entertainment, Inc. ("MGA"), during the
time he was employed by Mattel, in violation of his contractual
and other duties to Mattel. In September 2004, Bryant asserted
counterclaims against Mattel, including counterclaims in which
Bryant sought, as a putative class action representative, to
invalidate Mattel's Confidential Information and Proprietary
Inventions Agreements with its employees. Bryant also removed
Mattel's suit to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. In December 2004, MGA intervened as a
party-defendant in Mattel's action against Bryant, asserting that
its rights to Bratz properties are at stake in the litigation.
Separately, in November 2004, Bryant filed an action against
Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The action sought a judicial declaration
that Bryant's purported conveyance of rights in Bratz was proper
and that he did not misappropriate Mattel property in creating
Bratz.
In April 2005, MGA filed suit against Mattel in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. MGA's
action alleges claims of trade dress infringement, trade dress
dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and
unjust enrichment. The suit alleges, among other things, that
certain products, themes, packaging, and/or television
commercials in various Mattel product lines have infringed upon
products, themes, packaging, and/or television commercials for
various MGA product lines, including Bratz. The complaint also
asserts that various alleged Mattel acts with respect to
unidentified retailers, distributors, and licensees have damaged
MGA and that various alleged acts by industry organizations,
purportedly induced by Mattel, have damaged MGA. MGA's suit
alleges that MGA has been damaged in an amount "believed to reach
or exceed tens of millions of dollars" and further seeks punitive
damages, disgorgement of Mattel's profits and injunctive relief.
In June 2006, the three cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. On
July 17, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims
that Bryant had asserted against Mattel, including Bryant's
purported counterclaims to invalidate Mattel's Confidential
Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements with its
employees, and Bryant's claims for declaratory relief.
In November 2006, Mattel asked the Court for leave to file an
Amended Complaint that included not only additional claims
against Bryant, but also included claims for copyright
infringement, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") violations, misappropriation of trade secrets,
intentional interference with contract, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty of loyalty, and
unfair competition, among others, against MGA, its Chief
Executive Officer Isaac Larian, certain MGA affiliates and an MGA
employee. The RICO claim alleged that MGA stole Bratz and then,
by recruiting and hiring key Mattel employees and directing them
to bring with them Mattel confidential and proprietary
information, unfairly competed against Mattel using Mattel's
trade secrets, confidential information, and key employees to
build their business. On January 12, 2007, the Court granted
Mattel leave to file these claims as counterclaims in the
consolidated cases, which Mattel did that same day.
Mattel sought to try all of its claims in a single trial, but in
February 2007, the Court decided that the consolidated cases
would be tried in two phases, with the first trial to determine
claims and defenses related to Mattel's ownership of Bratz works
and whether MGA infringed those works. On May 19, 2008, Bryant
reached a settlement agreement with Mattel and is no longer a
defendant in the litigation. In the public stipulation entered by
Mattel and Bryant in connection with the resolution, Bryant
agreed that he was and would continue to be bound by all prior
and future Court Orders relating to Bratz ownership and
infringement, including the Court's summary judgment rulings.
The first phase of the first trial, which began on May 27, 2008,
resulted in a unanimous jury verdict on July 17, 2008 in favor of
Mattel. The jury found that almost all of the Bratz design
drawings and other works in question were created by Bryant while
he was employed at Mattel; that MGA and Isaac Larian
intentionally interfered with the contractual duties owed by
Bryant to Mattel, aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of his duty
of loyalty to Mattel, aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of the
fiduciary duties he owed to Mattel, and converted Mattel property
for their own use. The same jury determined that defendants MGA,
Larian, and MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited infringed Mattel's
copyrights in the Bratz design drawings and other Bratz works,
and awarded Mattel total damages of approximately $100 million
against the defendants. On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a
series of orders rejecting MGA's equitable defenses and granting
Mattel's motions for equitable relief, including an order
enjoining the MGA party defendants from manufacturing, marketing,
or selling certain Bratz fashion dolls or from using the "Bratz"
name. The Court stayed the effect of the December 3, 2008
injunctive orders until further order of the Court and entered a
further specified stay of the injunctive orders on January 7,
2009.
The parties filed and argued additional motions for post-trial
relief, including a request by MGA to enter judgment as a matter
of law on Mattel's claims in MGA's favor and to reduce the jury's
damages award to Mattel. Mattel additionally moved for the
appointment of a receiver. On April 27, 2009, the Court entered
an order confirming that Bratz works found by the jury to have
been created by Bryant during his Mattel employment were Mattel's
property and that hundreds of Bratz female fashion dolls infringe
Mattel's copyrights. The Court also upheld the jury's award of
damages in the amount of $100 million and ordered an accounting
of post-trial Bratz sales. The Court further vacated the stay of
the December 3, 2008 orders, except to the extent specified by
the Court's January 7, 2009 modification.
MGA appealed the Court's equitable orders to the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. On December 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
heard oral argument on MGA's appeal and issued an order staying
the District Court's equitable orders pending a further order to
be issued by the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit opinion
vacating the relief ordered by the District Court was issued on
July 22, 2010. The Ninth Circuit stated that, because of several
jury instruction errors it identified, a significant portion --
if not all -- of the jury verdict and damage award should be
vacated.
In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit found that the District Court
erred in concluding that Mattel's Invention agreement
unambiguously applied to "ideas;" that it should have considered
extrinsic evidence in determining the application of the
agreement; and if the conclusion turns on conflicting evidence,
it should have been up to the jury to decide. The Ninth Circuit
also concluded that the District Judge erred in transferring the
entire brand to Mattel based on misappropriated names and that
the Court should have submitted to the jury, rather than deciding
itself, whether Bryant's agreement assigned works created outside
the scope of his employment and whether Bryant's creation of the
Bratz designs and sculpt was outside of his employment. The Court
then went on to address copyright issues which would be raised
after a retrial, since Mattel "might well convince a properly
instructed jury" that it owns Bryant's designs and sculpt. The
Ninth Circuit stated that the sculpt itself was entitled only to
"thin" copyright protection against virtually identical works,
while the Bratz sketches were entitled to "broad" protection
against substantially similar works; in applying the broad
protection, however, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower court
had erred in failing to filter out all of the unprotectable
elements of Bryant's sketches. This mistake, the Court said,
caused the lower court to conclude that all Bratz dolls were
substantially similar to Bryant's original sketches.
Judge Stephen Larson, who presided over the first trial, retired
from the bench during the course of the appeal, and the case was
transferred to Judge David O. Carter. After the transfer, Judge
Carter granted Mattel leave to file a Fourth Amended Answer and
Counterclaims which focused on RICO, trade secret and other
claims, and added additional parties, and subsequently granted in
part and denied in part a defense motion to dismiss those
counterclaims.
Later, on August 16, 2010, MGA asserted several new claims
against Mattel in response to Mattel's Fourth Amended Answer and
Counterclaims, including claims for alleged trade secret
misappropriation, an alleged violation of RICO, and wrongful
injunction. MGA alleged, in summary, that, for more than a decade
dating back to 1992, Mattel employees engaged in a pattern of
stealing alleged trade secret information from competitors' "toy
fair" showrooms, and then sought to conceal that alleged
misconduct. Mattel moved to strike and/or dismiss these claims,
as well as certain MGA allegations regarding Mattel's motives for
filing suit. The Court granted that motion as to the wrongful
injunction claim, which it dismissed with prejudice, and as to
the allegations about Mattel's motives, which it struck. The
Court denied the motion as to MGA's trade secret misappropriation
claim and its claim for violations of RICO.
The Court resolved summary judgment motions in late 2010. Among
other rulings, the Court dismissed both parties' RICO claims;
dismissed Mattel's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and
portions of other claims as "preempted" by the trade secrets act;
dismissed MGA's trade dress infringement claims; dismissed MGA's
unjust enrichment claim; dismissed MGA's common law unfair
competition claim; and dismissed portions of Mattel's copyright
infringement claim as to "later generation" Bratz dolls.
Trial of all remaining claims began in early January 2011. During
the trial, and before the case was submitted to the jury, the
Court granted MGA's motions for judgment as to Mattel's claims
for aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty and conversion.
The Court also granted a defense motion for judgment on portions
of Mattel's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets relating
to thefts by former Mattel employees located in Mexico.
The jury reached verdicts on the remaining claims in April 2011.
In those verdicts, the jury ruled against Mattel on its claims
for ownership of Bratz-related works, for copyright infringement,
and for misappropriation of trade secrets. The jury ruled for MGA
on its claim of trade secret misappropriation as to 26 of its
claimed trade secrets and awarded $88.5 million in damages. The
jury ruled against MGA as to 88 of its claimed trade secrets. The
jury found that Mattel's misappropriation was willful and
malicious.
In early August 2011, the Court ruled on post-trial motions. The
Court rejected MGA's unfair competition claims and also rejected
Mattel's equitable defenses to MGA's misappropriation of trade
secrets claim. The Court reduced the jury's damages award of
$88.5 million to $85.0 million. The Court awarded MGA an
additional $85.0 million in punitive damages and approximately
$140 million in attorney's fees and costs. The Court entered a
judgment which totaled approximately $310 million in favor of
MGA.
On August 11, 2011, Mattel appealed the judgment, challenging on
appeal the entirety of the District Court's monetary award in
favor of MGA, including both the award of $170 million in damages
for alleged trade secret misappropriation and approximately $140
million in attorney's fees and costs. On January 24, 2013, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Mattel's
appeal. In that ruling, the Court found that MGA's claim for
trade secrets misappropriation was not compulsory to any Mattel
claim and could not be filed as a counterclaim-in-reply.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the portion of the
judgment awarding damages and attorney's fees and costs to MGA
for prevailing on its trade secrets misappropriation claim,
totaling approximately $172.5 million. It ruled that, on remand,
the District Court must dismiss MGA's trade secret claim without
prejudice. In its ruling, the Court of Appeals also affirmed the
District Court's award of attorney's fees and costs under the
Copyright Act. Accordingly, Mattel recorded a litigation accrual
of approximately $138 million during the fourth quarter of 2012
to cover these fees and costs.
Because multiple claimants asserted rights to the attorney's fees
portion of the judgment, on February 13, 2013, Mattel filed a
motion in the district court for orders permitting Mattel to
interplead the proceeds of the judgment and releasing Mattel from
liability to any claimant based on Mattel's payment of the
judgment.
On February 27, 2013, MGA filed a motion for leave to amend its
prior complaint in the existing federal court lawsuit so that it
could reassert its trade-secrets claim. Mattel opposed that
motion. On December 17, 2013, the district court denied MGA's
motion for leave to amend and entered an order dismissing MGA's
trade-secrets claim without prejudice. Also on December 17, 2013,
following a settlement between MGA and certain insurance
carriers, the district court denied Mattel's motion for leave to
interplead the proceeds of the judgment.
On December 21, 2013, a stipulation regarding settlement with
insurers and payment of judgment was filed in the district court,
which provided that (i) Mattel would pay approximately $138
million, including accrued interest, in full satisfaction of the
copyright fees judgment, (ii) all parties would consent to entry
of an order exonerating and discharging the appeal bond posted by
Mattel, and (iii) MGA's insurers would dismiss all pending
actions related to the proceeds of the copyright fees judgment,
including an appeal by Evanston Insurance Company in an action
against Mattel that was pending in the Ninth Circuit. On December
23, 2013, Mattel paid the copyright fees judgment in the total
sum, including interest, of approximately $138 million. On
December 26, 2013, the court entered an order exonerating and
discharging the appeal bond posted by Mattel, and on December 27,
2013, MGA filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. On
December 30, 2013, Evanston Insurance Company's appeal in its
action against Mattel was dismissed.
On January 13, 2014, MGA filed a new, but virtually identical,
trade-secrets claim against Mattel in Los Angeles County Superior
Court. Mattel was served with the complaint on January 23, 2014.
In its complaint, MGA purports to seek damages in excess of $1
billion. Mattel believes that MGA's claim should be barred as a
matter of law, and intends to vigorously defend against it.
Accordingly, Mattel does not believe a loss is probable and,
therefore, a liability has not been accrued as of December 31,
2013.
MIRAVALLE FOODS: Recalls Ground Annato Because of Health Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miravalle Foods, Inc. of El Monte, CA, is conducting a
voluntarily recall on its 0.75 ounce packages of Miravalle brand
Achiote Molido Ground Annato spice because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea,
vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection
with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the
bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial
infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.
The recalled packages of Ground Annato 0.75 oz. were distributed
in California, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Nevada, Washington and
Oregon, in retail stores.
The product comes in a 0.75 ounce, clear plastic package marked
with lot # 0015 & #0018 on the top of the UPC number
(712810005020).
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.
The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
by FDA revealed the presence of Salmonella in some 0.75 ounce
packages of "Ground Annato."
Production of the product has been suspended while FDA,
California Department of Public Health, and Miravalle Foods, Inc.
continue their investigation as to the source of the problem.
Consumers who have purchased 0.75 ounce packages of Ground Annato
with Lot # 0015 & 0018 are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 626-575-7551, Monday through Friday 8AM to 4:30PM
Pacific.
MONTREAL MAINE: Lawyers Urge Claimants to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that lawyers are now urging everyone in the
town -- a town that still bears the scars of the July 6, 2013
derailment that killed 47 people in a massive conflagration -- to
register for a class-action lawsuit. The deadline for filing
damage claims is less than two months away.
"If you don't do it you're taking a risk," said lawyer
Jeff Orenstein.
So far more than 3,100 people have filed claims for damages, and
Mr. Orenstein and his firm are hoping that number will rise to
more than 6,000.
"I think the key here is if in fact we do succeed in a global
settlement you don't want to be left out of that," Mr. Orenstein
said.
The Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway filed for bankruptcy
protection within months of the train crash which is why the main
legal target is the firm's $25-million insurance policy but
lawyers are also pursuing cases against the federal government,
with class-action lawyer Joel Rochon accusing Ottawa of neglected
its duties.
"Regulations were in place but there was a distinct failure to
enforce those regulations," he said, adding that lawyers are also
looking to go after the federal government in this case.
The lawyers say it's impossible to know how much money may end up
being distributed if the class action is successful but they
expect the sum to be huge.
The Quebec government alone has already spent $400 million
cleaning up Lac Megantic, and the work is not yet completed.
"We are working hard to negotiate not only with MMA but companies
close to MMA to increase the amount available," said Mr. Rochon.
A Sherbrooke judge begins hearings on June 9 to determine whether
he will authorize the class-action lawsuit.
Those hearings are expected to last about three weeks, with a
decision coming as early as this fall.
NOH FOODS: Recalls Coconut Pudding Haupia Due to Undeclared Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOH FOODS OF HAWAII, of Honolulu, HI and Gardena, CA is
voluntarily recalling its 2 ounce, 4 ounce, and 3 lb. (48 oz)
packages of "Hawaiian Coconut Pudding" because they may contain
undeclared dairy product. People who have allergies to milk or
dairy products run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.
The recalled "Hawaiian Coconut Pudding" has been distributed
nationwide in retail stores and through mail orders.
The product comes in a 2 ounce, 4 ounce, and 48 ounce yellow and
white package with the following UPC numbers:
073562000504 for the 2 oz package
073562000559 for the 4 oz package
073562000511 for the 48 oz package (3 lbs)
The company received a consumer complaint and although no serious
injury or illness was reported, they have initiated a voluntary
recall of this product or the concern only to those individuals
who have allergies to dairy.
Concerned consumers who have purchased any of these items are
urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact NOH FOODS OF HAWAII at 808-
944-0655 or 310-324-6770 between the hours of 8 a.m. through 5
p.m. Pacific Standard Time
Production for the product has been corrected with notations
"Contains: MILK"
NOVA PRODUCTS: Nationwide Recall of Dietary Supplements Conducted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nova Products, Inc. of Aston, Pennsylvania announced a
voluntarily recalling the following products: African Black Ant
(Lot# 2006-000926), Black Ant (Lot# 2006-3627878), XZen Gold
(Lot# 130310GL), ZXen Platinum (Lot# 130520PL), XZen 1200 (Lot#
13051012), XZone Gold (Lot# 131110GL), XZone 1200 (Lot# 13071012)
and Mojo Risen (Lot# 10081359) at the retail level. Lot numbers
are identified on the back or side of each product. FDA
laboratory analysis on these products has determined that they
contain undeclared amounts of sildenafil and tadalafil, active
ingredients of FDA-approved drugs used to treat erectile
dysfunction.
These undeclared active ingredients pose a threat to consumers
because they can interact with nitrates found in some
prescription drugs (such as nitroglycerin), resulting in
decreased blood pressure. Prescription drugs containing nitrates
are frequently prescribed for individuals with diabetes, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease. Additionally,
these products may cause side effects such as headaches and
flushing.
These products are marketed as dietary supplements for sexual
enhancement and packaged in blister packs, envelopes, bottles,
and/or boxes distributed to consumers nationwide at retail
stores. Nova Products, Inc. has discontinued distribution and
sales of these products.
Nova Products, Inc. is notifying its distributors by mail of this
voluntary recall. Consumers that possess these products should
stop using them immediately and can return the products to Nova
Products, Inc., 5 Mount Pleasant Road, Aston, Pennsylvania.
Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Nova
Products, Inc. by telephone at 610-459-7709 between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. EST. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that
may be related to taking or using these products. Consumers can
report adverse reactions or quality control problems to the FDA's
MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program online, by regular mail,
or by fax as follows:
Complete and submit reporting form online at
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm;or
Mail or fax reporting form. Download form at
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmor call 1-800-332-1088
to request a reporting form. Complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-1078.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.
PACER INTERNATIONAL: Removes "Ruelas" Labor Suit to Cal. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacer International, Inc. transferred the suit Manuela Ruelas
Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage to the Federal District Court for the
Southern District of California, according to the company's Feb.
26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
On August 20, 2013 the company was served with a complaint styled
Manuela Ruelas Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage, California Superior
Court, San Diego, Case No. 37-2013-00063453CU-OE-CTL. Ruelas is
contracted to Pacer Cartage as an independent contractor driver.
She alleges that she should be considered an employee under the
California Labor Code, and seeks pay for meal breaks, rest breaks
and overtime, and alleges certain violations of the California
Labor Code. Ruelas seeks to maintain the action as a class action
on behalf of similarly situated Pacer Cartage contractors. This
lawsuit is in the preliminary stages, and no discovery has been
conducted. The information available to the Company at this time
does not indicate that it is probable that a liability had been
incurred, and the Company could not reasonably estimate the
amount, or range of amounts, of any liability that would be
incurred if these claims were resolved against it. The company
removed the case to Federal District Court for the Southern
District of California.
PACER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chancery Court for Davidson County consolidated five
shareholder cases under the caption In re Pacer International,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 14-39-IV, according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.
"Between January 8 and January 16, 2014, five substantially
identical putative class actions were filed in the Tennessee
Chancery Court against Pacer, its directors, XPO and Merger Sub
challenging the merger. The first of those actions, entitled
Iseman v. Pacer International, Inc. et al., was filed in the
Chancery Court for Shelby County. The remaining four, entitled
Weingarten v. Pacer International, Inc. et al.; Mahmutagic v.
Pacer International, Inc. et al.; Frazier v. Pacer International,
Inc. et al.; and Blackwell v. Pacer International, Inc. et al.,
were filed in the Chancery Court for Davidson County. By
stipulation and order dated February 18, 2014, the Iseman case
was transferred to Davidson County and, by order dated February
20, 2014, the Chancery Court for Davidson County consolidated the
five pending cases under the caption In re Pacer International,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 14-39-IV. The operative
complaint in the consolidated case alleges, among other things,
that the directors of Pacer breached their fiduciary duties to
Pacer's shareholders in connection with the proposed acquisition
of Pacer by XPO and its indirect wholly owned subsidiary, Merger
Sub, by agreeing to the proposed merger at an allegedly unfair
price pursuant to a purportedly flawed and conflicted sales
process, by including certain allegedly preclusive deal-
protection measures, and by misrepresenting and/or omitting
certain allegedly material information. The complaint alleges
that XPO and Merger Sub aided and abetted these breaches of
fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the merger, as
well as attorneys' and experts' fees and certain other damages.
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd., an Israeli communications
operator, on April 24 disclosed that it was served with a lawsuit
and a motion for the recognition of this lawsuit as a class
action, filed against Partner on April 1, 2014 in the Haifa
District Court.
The claim alleges that Partner charged its customers for cellular
internet services abroad not in accordance with the subscriber
agreement.
If the lawsuit is recognized as a class action the total amount
claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately NIS2 Billion.
Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable, at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of
certainty, the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range
of potential exposure, if any.
PFIZER INC: Faces "Orrell" Suit in S.D. Iowa Over Lipitor Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosalie Orrell v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00061-REL-CFB
(S.D. Iowa, February 21, 2014) is an action for damages suffered
by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as
Atorvastatin Calcium).
Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood. Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.
New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies,
and medical practitioners.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roxanne Barton Conlin, Esq.
ROXANNE CONLIN & ASSOCIATES
319 Seventh Street, Suite 600
Des Moines, IA 50309
Telephone: (515) 283-1111
Facsimile: (515) 282-0477
E-mail: roxlaw@aol.com
- and -
Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
Baltimore, MD 21208
Telephone: (410) 653-3200
Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
LCraig@myadvocates.com
- and -
Brad Seidel, Esq.
NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
Building B, Suite 350
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 328-5333
E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com
- and -
Austin Tighe, Esq.
Vic Feazell, Esq.
Eleeza Johnson, Esq.
FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard
Building C-101
Austin, TX 78730
Telephone: (512) 372-8100
Facsimile: (512) 372-8140
E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com
vic@feazell-tighe.com
eleeza@feazell-tighe.com
PFIZER INC: Sued in Iowa Over Suffering Caused by Lipitor Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Lumley v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00062-SMR-CFB
(S.D. Iowa, February 23, 2014) is an action for damages suffered
by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as
Atorvastatin Calcium).
Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood. Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.
New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies,
and medical practitioners.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roxanne Barton Conlin, Esq.
ROXANNE CONLIN & ASSOCIATES
319 Seventh Street, Suite 600
Des Moines, IA 50309
Telephone: (515) 283-1111
Facsimile: (515) 282-0477
E-mail: roxlaw@aol.com
- and -
Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
Baltimore, MD 21208
Telephone: (410) 653-3200
Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
LCraig@myadvocates.com
- and -
Brad Seidel, Esq.
NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
Building B, Suite 350
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 328-5333
E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com
- and -
Austin Tighe, Esq.
Vic Feazell, Esq.
Eleeza Johnson, Esq.
FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard
Building C-101
Austin, TX 78730
Telephone: (512) 372-8100
Facsimile: (512) 372-8140
E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com
vic@feazell-tighe.com
eleeza@feazell-tighe.com
PFIZER INC: Settles Neurontin Class Action for $190 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Staton, writing for FiercePharma, reports that in the
latest settlement of a Big Pharma-delays-generics case, Pfizer
has agreed to pay $190 million to wrap up a class-action suit
over its seizure drug Neurontin. More than a decade old, the
lawsuit claimed that Pfizer did some fast tap-dancing to prolong
its Neurontin monopoly.
A group of Neurontin purchasers initially filed antitrust claims
in 2002, saying that Pfizer's efforts to bat away generic
versions cost them many millions of dollars. Among the steps
Pfizer allegedly took to protect Neurontin from competition were
"sham" patent lawsuits, misrepresentations to the patent courts,
and improperly filed patents with the FDA. Pfizer's off-label
marketing also led to overspending on the drug, the plaintiffs
claimed.
The class-action settlement comes several years after Pfizer
agreed to pay $430 million to wrap up a U.S. Justice Department
marketing probe. The company has also fought other marketing-
related allegations, including one racketeering case that ended
in a $142 million judgment. Pfizer lost a Supreme Court bid in
December to overturn that verdict.
RENAISSANCE HOSPITAL: Plaintiffs' Lawyer Seeks Jury Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Meaux, writing for The Port Arthur News, reports that the
attorney for two former employees of the defunct Renaissance
Hospital in Groves is now asking for a jury trial in the class
action suit.
Houston attorney Nitin Sud filed the civil action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division on April 22, according to court documents.
The defendants in the case are Jason LeDay and Kiglapait Hospital
Corporation.
In addition, the Texas Workforce Commission has issued several
orders finding the Kiglapait Hospital Corporation liable for
unpaid wages and other issues.
Former employees Tiffany Aaron and Eboni Horn-Watson filed the
class-action suit on behalf of themselves and all other employees
in July 2013 against Jason LeDay, hospital administrator, and the
hospital for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act because employees were not provided with 60 days
notice of the hospital closure, violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act for failure to provide continuing
health benefits and notification of COBRA rights after
termination, breach of contract for failure to pay accrued paid
time off and violation of Fair Labor Standards for unpaid wages
due for their last week of work.
The 49-bed general and medical facility at 5500 39th St., in
Groves abruptly shut its doors in late April 2013.
Utilities to the Groves hospital were shut-off in the fall of
2013 and the city has had the grass cut several times since then
and placed a lien on the property for the charges.
"We've heard nothing," Groves City Manager D. Sosa said regarding
the lack of communication between Mr. LeDay and the city. "We
had to secure an open door a while back and the police department
went inside. It looks like people had a coffee break and just
left. The building is secure and there is no damage inside."
There was speculation at one time that the hospital was up for
sale again but the city has yet to hear from either Mr. LeDay,
his attorney or a banking or lending institution regarding the
property.
The hospital was once a top employer in the city but through the
years ownership changed hands and financial troubled ensued.
"We hope some other entity either buys the property as a hospital
or purchases it to create a rehab center or a medical teaching
school, something," he said.
Unfortunately for the city this may not happen.
"Unless LeDay paid cash for the hospital, and I doubt that, then
some bank is holding the papers," he said. "And I have a feeling
that in order to recoup that money that bank will try and resale
the property although we haven't heard from any bank or lender at
this time."
According to court documents, the defense attorney's withdrew
from the case in late November and new attorneys came on board
but failed to submit responses. Mr. Sud contends that the
defendants "have repeatedly delayed discovery in this case for
several months, and they have now violated a court order
requiring them to respond," according to the court document.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Accused of Retaliating Against Employee
------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Giraldo v. Samsung Electronics LatinoAmerica Miami, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-20662-UU (S.D. Fla., February 22, 2014) alleges
that the Plaintiff was falsely accused of stealing Company
materials in an ongoing retaliation against her for her
exercising her rights for unpaid, job-protected leave under the
Family and Medical Leave Act.
Samsung Electronics LatinoAmerica Miami, Inc., is a Florida
corporation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Militzok, Esq.
MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
The Yankee Clipper Law Center
3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 727-8570
Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kelly-Ann Gibbs Cartwright, Esq.
Nicholas Benjamin Greene, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 374-8500
Facsimile: (305) 789-7799
E-mail: kelly-ann.cartwright@hklaw.com
nicholas.greene@hklaw.com
SPAR BUSINESS: Merchandisers Seek to Recover Damages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maceo Rodgers and Lee McClung, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spar Business
Services, Inc., Robert G. Brown and William H. Bartels, Case No.
3:14-cv-00055 (S.D. Tex., February 21, 2014) seeks damages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, taxable costs of the court,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed as merchandisers working for SPAR.
SPAR is a business entity. The Individual Defendants are the
owners of SPAR.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John F. Melton, Esq.
MELTON & KUMLER, L.L.P.
2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 330-0017
Facsimile: (512) 330-0067
E-mail: jmelton@meltonkumler.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Delia Alexandra Isvoranu, Esq.
Robert D. Eassa, Esq.
SEDGWICK LLP
333 Bush St., 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94520
Telephone: (415) 627-1578
E-mail: delia.isvoranu@sedgwicklaw.com
robert.eassa@sedgwicklaw.com
ST JUDE MEDICAL: Amended Claim Filed in Canadian Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
An amended claim was filed in a Canadian proposed class
proceeding against St. Jude Medical, Inc. alleging that Riata ST
Silicone Defibrillation Leads were prone to insulation abrasion,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 28, 2013.
In April 2013, a lawsuit seeking a class action was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington by plaintiffs alleging they suffered injuries
caused by Riata and Riata ST Silicone Defibrillation Leads. This
matter has been resolved and the case has been dismissed.
As of February 21, 2014, the Company is aware of 44 lawsuits from
plaintiffs alleging injuries caused by, and asserting product
liability claims concerning, Riata and Riata ST Silicone
Defibrillation Leads. Most of the lawsuits have been brought by
single plaintiffs, but some of them name multiple individuals as
plaintiffs. Five separate multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been
initiated against the Company that involve more than one
unrelated plaintiff: a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining 29
unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior Court of California
for the city and county of Los Angeles on April 4, 2013; a multi-
plaintiff lawsuit joining two unrelated claimants was filed in
the Superior Court of California for the city and county of Los
Angeles on April 4, 2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining two
claimants was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on April 4, 2013; a multi-
plaintiff lawsuit joining three unrelated claimants was filed in
the Superior Court of California for the city and county of Los
Angeles on April 29, 2013; and a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining
21 unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior Court of
California for the city and county of Los Angeles on July 15,
2013. Of the 44 lawsuits, 18 cases are pending in federal courts,
including three in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, nine in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, one in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, one in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York, one in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York, one in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, one in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky and one in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia. The remaining 26 lawsuits are pending in state courts
across the country, including seven in Minnesota, sixteen in
California, one in Indiana, one in Georgia and one in Kentucky.
In November 2013, an amended claim was filed in a Canadian
proposed class proceeding alleging that Riata leads were prone to
insulation abrasion and breach, failure to warn and conspiracy.
The plaintiffs took no action between their 2008 filing and the
amended claim they filed in November 2013. The Company has filed
its statement of intent to defend in response to the amended
claims, and the plaintiffs have not taken any further action.
Although some of the claimants in the aforementioned suits allege
no specific injuries, the majority of the claimants allege bodily
injuries as a result of surgical revision or removal and
replacement of Riata leads, or other complications, which they
attribute to the leads. The majority of the claimants who seek
recovery for implantation and/or surgical removal of Riata leads
are seeking compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and
declaratory judgments that the Company is liable to the claimants
for any past, present and future evaluative monitoring, and
corrective medical, surgical and incidental expenses and losses.
Several claimants also seek punitive damages. The Company is
responsible for legal costs incurred in defense of the Riata
product liability claims including any potential settlements,
judgments and other legal defense costs.
ST JUDE MEDICAL: No New Hearing Set in Appeal Over Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The oral argument concerning the appeal against the dismissal of
a suit over Silzone against St. Jude Medical, Inc. was expected
to be heard in November 2013, but that hearing date was adjourned
and no new hearing date has been scheduled, according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 28,
2013.
The Company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in
March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product
with Silzone coating, which the Company stopped selling in
January 2000. The Company's outstanding Silzone cases consist of
one class action in Ontario and one individual case in Ontario.
In June 2012, the Ontario Court ruled in the Company's favor on
all nine common class issues in a class action involving Silzone
patients, and the case was dismissed. In September 2012, counsel
for the class filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal for the
Province of Ontario. The oral argument concerning the appeal was
expected to be heard in November 2013, but that hearing date was
adjourned and no new hearing date has been scheduled. The
individual case in Ontario requests damages in excess of $1
million (claiming unspecified special damages, health care costs
and interest). Based on the Company's historical experience, the
amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any
relationship to the amount claimed. To the extent that the
Company's future Silzone costs (inclusive of settlements,
judgments, legal fees and other related defense costs) exceed its
remaining historical insurance coverage of approximately $10
million, the Company would be responsible for such costs.
ST JUDE MEDICAL: Oct. Trial Set in Minn. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The trial of a March 2010 Securities Class Action Litigation
against St. Jude Medical, Inc. in federal district court in
Minnesota is presently scheduled for October 2014, according to
the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 28,
2013.
In March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action status
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude
Medical common stock between April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009.
The lawsuit relates to the Company's earnings announcements for
the first, second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a
preliminary earnings release dated October 6, 2009. The
complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and other relief as
well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown in demand for its
products and was not receiving anticipated orders for cardiac
rhythm management devices. Class members allege that the
defendant's failure to disclose the information resulted in the
class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially
inflated price. In December 2011, the Court issued a decision
denying a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in October
2010. In October 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action and the discovery phase of the
case closed in September 2013. On October 15, 2013, the
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. A hearing
concerning that motion took place with the Court in January 2014
and a ruling is expected later in 2014. Subject to the outcome of
this hearing, the trial of this class action matter is presently
scheduled for October 2014.
ST JUDE MEDICAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling is expected later in 2014 in a motion to dismiss a
consolidated and amended securities complaint filed against
St. Jude Medical, Inc. in federal district court in Minnesota,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 28, 2013.
On December 7, 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and an
officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged violations of
the federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of the defendants between October 17,
2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint, which seeks
unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees,
challenges the Company's disclosures concerning its high voltage
cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported class period.
On December 10, 2012, a second securities class action lawsuit
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and certain officers for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of the Company between October 19,
2011 and November 20, 2012. The second complaint pursues similar
claims and seeks unspecified damages and other relief as well as
attorneys' fees. In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two
cases and appointed a lead counsel and lead plaintiff. In
September 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated and amended complaint. Oral argument concerning this
motion to dismiss occurred in January 2014, and a ruling is
expected later in 2014.
STONYFIELD: Recall 188 6-packs of Yobaby Peach/Pear Yogurt Cups
---------------------------------------------------------------
Organic yogurt maker Stonyfield is recalling 188 6-packs of 4 oz
YoBaby Peach/Pear cups with the code date June 05 2014 (UPC
052159701161).
The 4 oz 6-packs were shipped to Target stores in Alabama,
Virginia, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South
Carolina and Walmart stores in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey
and Delaware. A full list of potentially affected stores can be
found at Stonyfield.com.
The recall comes in response to internal testing of the product
that revealed the possibility that some product shipped from its
Londonderry plant may be affected by coliform contamination.
Although the potential problem is not widespread, Stonyfield is
taking this measure to ensure the safety of its consumers.
Stonyfield advised its distribution network to immediately remove
these specific code-dated yogurts from retail shelves. No other
Stonyfield products were affected.
Consumers who purchased the potentially affected YoBaby yogurts
from Walmart or Target with this code date are asked to return
opened and unopened containers to their retailers to be
reimbursed for the full value of the purchase. Affected yogurts
were only available for purchase on or after April 23, 2014.
Consumers with questions should contact Stonyfield Consumer
Relations at 1-800-PRO-COWS or email at crelations@Stonyfield.com
"Our first priority has always been and always will be the
welfare of our consumers," says Esteve Torrens, Stonyfield CEO.
"While we continue to investigate this issue and believe that the
risk of injury is extremely remote, we feel that this voluntary
measure is the prudent and responsible step at this time."
This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug
Administration.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $4.4MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Truckinginfo reports that the trucking company Swift
Transportation has agreed to pay $4.4 million to settle a federal
class action lawsuit over claims if failed to inform prospective
drivers about their rights involving records used during the
hiring process.
The case was filed last summer by James Ellis III. He applied to
be a Swift driver in 2012 but was turned away due to his
background check. He will receive a $5,000 settlement while
seven other named plaintiffs will each get $1,000. The
settlement includes more than 10,000 people who applied for
driving jobs with Swift from July 23, 2008 through Sept. 30 2012.
The suit claimed Swift failed to people who applied for jobs they
can access the same information as the company for background
checks and question the information the company reviews in making
hiring decisions.
It also alleged Swift violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act for several years by not informing Ellis and other driver
applicants they had a right to get a free copy of the report used
by Swift and could dispute any information on it.
Swift has denied the accusations all along but has reportedly
clarified to applicants its hiring practices.
It is up to the court to give preliminary approval to the deal.
TARGET CORP: First Farmers Bank Sues Over Data Security Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Farmers & Merchants National Bank, First Farmers &
Merchants National Bank, First Farmers & Merchants State Bank,
First Farmers & Merchants State Bank of Grand Meadow, and First
Farmers & Merchants Bank, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated financial institutions v. Target Corporation,
Case No. 0:14-cv-00497-PAM-JJK (D. Minn., February 22, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants were damaged by Target's failure to
protect the personal and financial information of its customers.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Reinhardt, Esq.
Garrett Blanchfield, Esq.
Brant D. Penney, Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
E-1250 First National Bank Building
332 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 287-2100
Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
E-mail: mreinhardt@comcast.net
g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
b.penney@rwblawfirm.com
- and -
Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
Richard Shevitz, Esq.
Scott Gilchrist, Esq.
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
Randall B. Weill, Esq.
Sigmund D. Schutz, Esq.
Michael S. Smith, Esq.
PRETI FLAHERTY
One City Center
P.O. Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112-9546
Telephone: (207) 791-3000
Facsimile: (207) 791-3111
E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
rweill@preti.com
sschutz@preti.com
msmith@preti.com
- and -
Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
William G. Caldes, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
bcaldes@srkw-law.com
- and -
Gary B. Friedman, Esq.
Tracey Kitzman, Esq.
FRIEDMAN LAW GROUP
270 Lafayette Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10012
Telephone: (212) 680-5150
Facsimile: (646) 277-1151
E-mail: gfriedman@flgllp.com
tkitzman@flgllp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael A. Ponto, Esq.
Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
90 S 7th St., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
Telephone: (612) 766-7000
Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
E-mail: michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com
wendy.wildung@faegrebd.com
TESLA MOTORS: Cal. Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Stock Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted the motion of Kazim Acar to serve as lead plaintiff
in a securities suit against Tesla Motors, Inc., according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.
In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant
to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5. The claims were originally asserted by
plaintiff Robert Rahimi, against Tesla and two of its executive
officers, Elon Musk and Deepak Ahuja. On February 14, 2014, the
Court granted the motion of Kazim Acar to serve as lead
plaintiff, and gave him leave to file an amended complaint within
60 days. The current complaint seeks damages, attorney fees and
other relief, and alleges, among other things, that Tesla made
false and/or misleading representations and omissions including
with respect to the safety of the Model S vehicle and Tesla's
ability to meet public expectations with respect to its financial
performance. The current complaint is brought on behalf of a
putative class consisting of "all persons other than Defendants
who purchased Tesla's securities between May 10, 2013 and
November 6, 2013, inclusive." It is possible the amended
complaint will modify the class or the class period.
UNI-PIXEL INC: Shareholder Litigation in Texas Court Remains
------------------------------------------------------------
Uni-Pixel, Inc. continues to face a securities lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.
In June 2013, two purported class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
and the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
against the Company and its CEO, CFO, and Chairman. The Southern
District of New York complaint was voluntarily dismissed by
plaintiff on July 2, 2013. The surviving complaint alleges that
the company and its officers and directors violated the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly false and
misleading statements concerning its licensing agreements and
product development. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period from December 7, 2012 to May 31, 2013.
UNUM GROUP: Awards in Lawsuit v. Unum Life Subject of Appeals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals and cross-appeals over damage and interest awards are
filed in a suit lodged by Denise Merrimon, and Bobby S. Mowery
against Unum Life Insurance Company of America in the United
States District Court for the District of Maine, according to
Unum Group's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.
In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others
similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maine. This class action alleges that the company breached
fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under certain
group life insurance policies when the company paid life
insurance proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained
asset accounts rather than by mailing checks. Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of beneficiaries under group life insurance
contracts that were part of the ERISA employee welfare benefit
plans and under which the company paid death benefits via
retained asset accounts. The plaintiffs' principal theories in
the case are: (1) funds held in retained asset accounts were plan
assets, and the proceeds earned by the company from investing
those funds belonged to the beneficiaries, and (2) payment of
claims using retained asset accounts did not constitute payment
under Maine's late payment statute, requiring the company to pay
interest on the undrawn retained asset account funds at an annual
rate of 18 percent.
In February 2012, the District Court issued an opinion rejecting
both of plaintiffs' principal theories and ordering judgment for
the company. At the same time, however, the District Court held
that the company breached a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries
by failing to pay rates comparable to the best rates available in
the market for demand deposits. The District Court also certified
a class of people who, during a certain period of time, were
beneficiaries under certain group life insurance contracts that
were part of ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and were paid
death benefits using retained asset accounts. A bench trial was
held on the issue of damages in June and July of 2013. In
September 2013, the District Court awarded damages based on a
benchmark it created by averaging the interest rates paid on
money market mutual funds and money market checking accounts.
Based on these averages, the District Court found that for
certain periods of the class the company should have paid
additional interest and awarded damages of $12.1 million and
prejudgment interest of $1.3 million. Subsequent to this
judgment, in September 2013 the company filed an appeal to the
First Circuit Court of Appeals, and plaintiffs filed a cross
appeal.
UNUM GROUP: Dismissal of Lawsuits Over Unclaimed Policy Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of complaints in State of
West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. Provident Life and
Accident Insurance Company and State of West Virginia ex rel.
John D. Perdue v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company,
according to Unum Group's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.
In December 2012, State of West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue
v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company and State of
West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. Colonial Life & Accident
Insurance Company were filed in the Circuit Court of Putnam
County, West Virginia. These two separate complaints alleged
violations of the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act by
failing to identify and report all unclaimed insurance policy
proceeds due to be escheated to West Virginia. The complaints
sought to examine company records and assess penalties and costs
in an undetermined amount. In December 2013, the court dismissed
both complaints, holding that the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed
Property Act does not require insurance companies to periodically
search the Social Security Administrations' Death Master File or
escheat unclaimed life insurance benefits until a claim has been
submitted. In January 2014, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal
of both complaints.
UNUM GROUP: "Don" Suit v. Unum Life Pending in C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The suit Ruben Don v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America,
Wedner Insurance Group, Inc. dba The Morton Wedner Insurance
Agency continues in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, according to Unum Group's Feb.
26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
In May 2013, a purported class action complaint entitled Ruben
Don v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Wedner Insurance
Group, Inc. dba The Morton Wedner Insurance Agency, and Does 1-
30, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California
insureds who were issued long-term care policies containing an
inflation protection feature. The plaintiff alleges that the
company incorrectly administered the inflation protection
feature, resulting in an underpayment of benefits. The complaint
makes allegations against the company for breach of contract, bad
faith, fraud, violation of Business and Professions Code 17200,
and injunctive relief. In June 2013, the company removed the case
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The company is in the process of preparing the
company's response to this complaint.
VITA FOOD: Undeclared Milk Prompts Recalls of ELF Herring Fillets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vita Food Products, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois has notified the
public that it is recalling 2,280 individual plastic jars of 12
ounce Elf Herring Fillets in Wine Sauce that actually contains
herring fillets in sour cream and therefore contains undeclared
milk. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product. There have been no illnesses reported
to date in connection with this product.
The product was sent to retailers in Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota and Wisconsin beginning on December 26, 2013.
The single lot of ELF Herring Fillets in Wine Sauce that is the
subject of this public announcement and recall should have been
labeled as another ELF-branded product, Herring Fillets in Real
Sour Cream. As a result, the ingredients in the recalled Herring
Fillets in Wine Sauce product are not accurately stated and it
contains an undeclared milk allergen. Products from this lot can
be identified by the best if used before date of 21 May 14 and
lot number 03553, which can be found on the backside of the jar
at the bottom of the label. The front of the label says "Elf
Herring Fillets in Wine Sauce." Mislabeled products that are
subject to recall will be obvious to consumers because the
recalled product's white sour cream sauce can be seen through the
clear plastic jar. Properly labeled Elf Herring Fillets in Wine
Sauce product has a clear sauce and is not subject to this
recall.
Any consumer who purchased a product with the best if used before
date and lot number above may request a refund by mailing the
product label or a copy of the receipt to Vita Food Products,
Inc., Attn: Customer Service, 2222 West Lake Street. Chicago,
Illinois 60612. Consumers may also call the company at (800) 989-
VITA Monday through Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Central) with
questions. If you are experiencing any unusual or severe symptoms
such as those described above, go to an emergency room
immediately or contact your physician for immediate advice.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.
VULCAN MATERIALS: Named in Suits Over Texas Brine's Salt Mine
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action related to the discovery of a sinkhole at a salt
mine operated by Texas Brine Company was filed in federal court
in the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans, according to
Vulcan Materials Company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.
During the operation of its former Chemicals Division, Vulcan was
the lessee to a salt lease from 1976 to 2005 in an underground
salt dome formation in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. The Texas
Brine Company operated this salt mine for the account of Vulcan.
Vulcan sold its Chemicals Division in 2005 and assigned the lease
to the purchaser, and Vulcan has had no association with the
leased premises or Texas Brine Company since that time. In August
2012, a sinkhole developed near the salt dome and numerous
lawsuits were filed in state court in Assumption Parish,
Louisiana. Other lawsuits, including class action litigation,
were also filed in August 2012 in federal court in the Eastern
District of Louisiana in New Orleans. There are numerous
defendants to the litigation in state and federal court. Vulcan
was first brought into the litigation as a third-party defendant
in August 2013 by the Texas Brine Company. Vulcan has since been
added as a direct and third-party defendant by other parties,
including a direct claim by the State of Louisiana. The damages
alleged in the litigation range from individual plaintiffs'
claims for property damage, to the State of Louisiana's claim for
response costs, to claims for indemnity and contribution from
Texas Brine. It is alleged that Vulcan was negligent as a lessee
under the salt lease, that Vulcan breached the salt lease, and
that Vulcan breached an operating agreement with Texas Brine.
WELLS ENTERPRISES: Recalls Blue Bunny Premium Ice Cream
-------------------------------------------------------
Wells Enterprises, Inc., maker of Blue Bunny ice cream said May 3
it has recalled Blue Bunny Premium Bordeaux Cherry Chocolate Ice
Cream sold at retail grocery stores in Kansas, Indiana and Iowa
because the product may contain egg not declared on the label.
People who are allergic to egg could have a severe reaction if
they consume this product. For consumers who are not allergic to
egg, there is no safety issue with this product. No customer
illnesses have been reported to date.
The recalled Blue Bunny Premium Bordeaux Cherry Chocolate Ice
Cream, sold in 56 fluid ounce packages with LOT #40010 TTT 19115
18:00 4100 and a UPC 070640034123 with a Best Used By Date of
10/9/15, was distributed to a limited number of stores in Kansas,
Indiana and Iowa.
Customers in the impacted states should return the product to
stores for a full refund or replacement.
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Files Writ of Certiorari in Natural Gas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. and other defendants in a suit filed
by direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various
states filed their petition for a writ of certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed class actions against WPX and others alleging the
manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking
unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to
the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery
and pre-trial issues.
In 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX's joint motions
for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims
because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the FERC exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the
plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs
appealed the court's ruling and on April 10, 2013, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded
the cases to the district court to permit the plaintiffs to
pursue their state antitrust claims for natural gas sales that
were not subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.
On August 26, 2013, WPX and the other defendants filed their
petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Dispute With Flint Hills Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA) has asked the court
to reconsider and clarify its ruling barring it from seeking
indemnification from The Williams Companies, Inc. in relation to
contamination allegedly emanating from the Flint Hills Oil
Refinery in North Pole, Alaska, according to the company's Feb.
26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
In January 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state
court in Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of individual property
owners whose water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly
emanating from the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole,
Alaska. The suit named our subsidiary, Williams Alaska Petroleum
Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a
subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as defendants. The company
owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when the company sold
it to FHRA. The company and FHRA have made claims under the
pollution liability insurance policy issued in connection with
the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA. The company and FHRA
also filed claims against each other seeking, among other things,
contractual indemnification alleging that the other party caused
the sulfolane contamination.
In 2011, the company and FHRA settled the James West claim. The
company and FHRA subsequently filed motions for summary judgment
on the other's claims. On November 5, 2013, the court ruled that
the applicable statute of limitations bars all FHRA's claims
against the company and dismissed those claims with prejudice.
FHRA has asked the court to reconsider and clarify its ruling,
and the company anticipates that FHRA will appeal the court's
decision.
The company currently estimates that its reasonably possible loss
exposure in this matter could range from an insignificant amount
up to $32 million, although uncertainties inherent in the
litigation process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might
cause its exposure to exceed that amount.
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on April 23 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina against World
Acceptance Corporation on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company during the
period from April 25, 2013 through March 12, 2014.
World Acceptance is one of America's largest providers of
installment loans. The Company offers short-term small loans,
medium-term larger loans, and related credit insurance products
and services to those who have limited access to other sources of
consumer credit.
The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's loan
practices do not abide by the Consumer Financial Protection Act
and/or the Truth in Lending Act; (ii) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (iii) as a result of the
above, the Company's financial statements, assurances and
expectations with regard to the Company's growth, operations and
business prospects were false and misleading at all relevant
times.
You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action
at www.saxenawhite.com.
If you purchased World Acceptance stock between April 25, 2013
and March 12, 2014, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker
(lhooker@saxenawhite.com) at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.
If you purchased World Acceptance common stock during the Class
Period of April 25, 2013 through March 12, 2014, and wish to
apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your
behalf must be filed with the Court no later than June 23, 2014.
You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in
the class action. Please note that you may also retain counsel
of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a
class member.
Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead
counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide,
the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf
of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.
WRIGHT MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pastor Camacho, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown v. Wright Management, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-01291 (N.D. Ill., February 21, 2014) arises under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for
the Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime pay to the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.
Wright Management, Inc. is an Illinois corporation. Wright
operates multiple McDonald's restaurant locations in Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
David E. Stevens, Esq.
Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
dstevents@flsalaw.com
sarendt@flsalaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David Joseph Stein, Esq.
Matthew James Egan, Esq.
PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHARTERED
One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 578-7845
E-mail: dstein@pretzel-stouffer.com
megan@pretzel-stouffer.com
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Appeal Date v. Dismissal of Stock Suit Lapses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a consolidated securities suit against ZELTIQ
Aesthetics, Inc. is now final, according to the company's Feb.
26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.
On March 13, 2012, an alleged purchaser of the Company's publicly
traded common stock, Ivan Marcano, filed a securities class
action in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda,
entitled Marcano v. Nye, et al., Case No. RG12621290. The
complaint alleged that the Company made false and misleading
statements or omitted to state facts necessary to make the
disclosures not misleading in its Form S-1, and the amendments
thereto, issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering. The claims were asserted under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933. On March 15, 2012, April 3, 2012, and
May 24, 2012, three additional and substantially similar lawsuits
were filed in the same court, some adding the Company's
underwriters as defendants. All four cases were consolidated and
a consolidated complaint was deemed operative. On August 24,
2012, the Company filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint.
Subsequently, Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the Company's outside
directors and its underwriters from the litigation without
prejudice. On November 9, 2012, the court sustained the Company's
demurrer with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on January 14, 2013, again asserting claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The second
amended complaint sought compensatory damages and equitable
relief on behalf of the class for an amount to be proven at
trial. On February 25, 2013, the Company filed a demurrer to the
second amended complaint. On May 17, 2013, the Court issued an
order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and ordering
the action dismissed. On June 7, 2013, the Court entered a
judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. Plaintiffs' time
in which to appeal the judgment has lapsed and the Court's
dismissal is final.
*********
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.
Ma. Cristina Canson, 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 * * *