/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140513.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 13, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 94 Headlines ACTIVE POWER: Has Until May 21 to Reply to Dismissal Objection AETNA INC: Terminates Ingenix Class Action Settlement AIR METHODS: Still Faces Labor Litigation in California Court ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Moves to Dismiss Cal. Amended Securities Suit AMY'S KITCHEN: Court Allowed Plaintiff to Amend "Figy" Complaint APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iOS 7 & Grayed Out Issues APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Vacates Approval of MagSafe Settlement ARCELORMITTAL: June 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Litigation Over Iclusig ATLAS AIR: Court Yet to Certify Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suit AUTHOR SOLUTIONS: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed BNSF RAILWAY: Certification of Antitrust Litigation Vacated CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Misclassify IT Employees, Cal. Suit Claims CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Seeks to Junk Last Gas Price "Inflation" Case CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Abuse Victim Balks at Class Action Payment CITIGROUP INC: Approval of N.Y. Stock Suit Accord Endures Appeals CITIGROUP INC: Fee Award in Bond Suit Settlement Under Appeal CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces Suit Over Alternative Investment Funds CITIGROUP INC: Suits Over Credit Default Swaps Unified in N.Y. CITIGROUP INC: Faces Suits in N.Y. Over Alleged Rate Manipulation CITIGROUP INC: Court Blocks Appeals v. Nixing of Antitrust Suit CITIGROUP INC: Moves to Dismiss "Laydon" Lawsuit in New York CITIGROUP INC: Sued by Opt Outs in Interchange Fees Suit Accord CLEOPATRA SHIPPING: Faces Suit Over Galveston Bay Fuel Oil Spill COLUMBIA BANKING: Settlement in Suit Over Merger Wins Approval COMSCORE INC: Trial in Consumers' Suit to Start Q2 2014 DECKERS OUTDOOR: Calif. & Del. Securities Litigations Dismissed EBAY INC: Two Lawsuits v. PayPal Continue in California Court EBAY INC: Lawsuits Over TCPA Violations v. PayPal Continue EBAY INC: NC Appeals Court Ruling in StubHub Action Now Final EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay GENERAL CABLE: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuits in Kentucky GOOGLE INC: Hagens Berman Files Antitrust Class Action HEALTH NET: Removes MFLC Classification Suit to Federal Court HEALTH NET: Pursues Arbitration of Cal. MFLF Classification Suit HEALTH NET: June 4 Hearing Set in Info Security Suit Settlement HEADWATERS INC: Hearing This Month on "Edwards" Suit Settlement HEADWATERS INC: Ruling in Suit Over Davidson Technology Affirmed HEADWATERS INC: Suit by Archstone v. Eldorado Stone in Discovery HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Has MoU to Settle Litigation Over Merger IMPERVA INC: Issued False and Misleading Statements, Suit Says KANE COUNTY, IL: Farmers Insurance Files Flood Class Action LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action LIN MEDIA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger With Media General LIN MEDIA: Sued in Delaware Over Proposed Media General Merger LIVE NATION: Sued Over Bruce Springsteen's Wrecking Ball Tour MANNKIND CORP: Cal. Securities Lawsuit Closes After Settlement MASTERCARD INC: Dismissal of ATM Operators Complaints Appealed MASTERCARD INC: Interchange Litigation Continues in New York MASTERCARD INC: U.S. Securities Suit Settlement Faces Objections MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Face Merchant Fees Suit in Canada MARICOPA COLLEGE DISTRICT: Sued Over Security Breach MAZDA MOTOR: Accused of Selling Vehicles With Defective Engines MEDTRONIC INC: Settles Infuse Product Liability Suits for $22MM MISSOURI: Social Services Department Faces Medicaid Class Action MONSTER BEVERAGE: Works to Settle Securities Lawsuit in Calif. MONSTER BEVERAGE: Faces Lawsuit Over Monster Energy Label, Ad MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Mass. Stock Suit MOODY'S CORP: Appeal Filed in Now Settled "Cheyne SIV" Lawsuit MOODY'S CORP: Rhinebridge SIV Rating Suits Voluntarily Dismissed NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Resolves Suit Over Safety of Model Car Seat OIL STATES: Fails to Pay Overtime to Oilfield Workers, Suit Says ON ASSSIGNMENT: Accrues $2.1MM to Resolve Lawsuit Over Nurse Pay OPKO HEALTH: Still Faces Litigation Over Acquisition of PROLOR OPKO HEALTH: Faces Suit by PROLOR Biotech Shareholders in Nevada PACIFIC GAS: Dismissal of Calif. Customers' Lawsuit Appealed PHILIP MORRIS: Court Reinstates $10.1BB Class Action Verdict POLYCOM INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in Calif. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: ERISA Claim Certification in "Seibert" Denied QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Motion to Dismiss Celera Stock Suit Denied QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Beery" Suit by Female Sales Reps Dismissed SAFETY-KLEEN SERVICES: Certification Hearing in Fees Suit Set SANDISK CORP: Ritz Camera Seeks to Amend Antitrust Claims Anew SANDISK CORP: Dismissal of "Oliver" Suit Over SD Cards Appealed SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in Massachusetts SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Wunstell" Suit Proceeds as Part of MDL No. 2179 SEACOR HOLDINGS: ORM, NRC Await Ruling in Motions Related to MDL SEACOR HOLDINGS: Exposure to E&P, Medical Settlements Reduced SEACOR HOLDINGS: Provides Updates on "DPH FLSA Actions" v. ORM SERVICE CORP: "Moulton" Suit Stayed Pending Amended Claim Filing TAISHAN GYPSUM: Chinese Drywall Poses Ongoing Risk to Families TIER REIT: Texas Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit TRIPLE LEAF: Accused of Deceiving Slimming Herbal Tea Consumers USS-POSCO INDUSTRIES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Face Securities Litigations VONAGE HOLDINGS: Mediation Considered in Calif. Commercial Suit WAL-MART: Fails to Pay Sick Time Wages, Claims Associate Asserts WELLS FARGO: Wins Prelim. OK of Force-Placed Insurance Suit Deal WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Petitions for Writ in Natural Gas Lawsuits WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Battles Flint Hills Over Indemnification WRIGHT MEDICAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit v. BioMimetic Upheld XEROX CORP: Summary Judgment Order in Stock Suit Under Appeal ZYGO CORP: Faces Stockholder Suit Over Acquisition by Ametek * Class Action Among Reasons for Hike in Bank Customer Complaints ********* ACTIVE POWER: Has Until May 21 to Reply to Dismissal Objection -------------------------------------------------------------- Active Power, Inc. has until May 21, 2014 to respond to plaintiffs' opposition to the company's motion to dismiss Don Lee v. Active Power, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:3-cv-00797, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On September 10, 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against the company and certain of the company's former executives. The case is captioned Don Lee v. Active Power, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:3-cv-00797. The complaint alleges that on April 30, 2013, the company announced during a conference call that the company had entered into a strategic distribution partnership with Digital China. However, on September 5, 2013, after the close of trading, the company disclosed that the company's partnership was with Qiyuan Network System Limited, which is neither an affiliate nor a subsidiary of Digital China. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all stockholders. On March 7, 2014, the company filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the company's motion on April 21, 2014. The company has until May 21, 2014, to file the company's reply, and anticipate that it will take several months to obtain a ruling from the court on this motion. AETNA INC: Terminates Ingenix Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- James Burns, Esq., at Dickinson Wright PLLC reports that on March 13, Aetna announced that it would not finalize its proposed settlement of In re Aetna UCR Litigation, a class action proceeding in the District of New Jersey that focused on Aetna's use of a database of "usual and customary" reimbursement rates that plaintiffs alleged had improperly lowered member reimbursements for out of network claims. The private action followed an earlier New York Attorney General investigation into the manner in which Ingenix, at the time a data collection subsidiary of UnitedHealth, calculated usual and customary rates for several insurers, including Aetna. The New York Attorney General ultimately contended that the database had unfairly reduced reimbursements to insureds, leading to settlement with over a dozen health insurers that had used the database. UnitedHealth, Ingenix's parent company, ultimately paid $350 million to resolve the matter. The In re Aetna UCR Litigation focused solely on Aetna's potential private-party liability for its use of the Ingenix database. After several years of litigation, Aetna announced that it was settling the case in December of 2012 for $120 million. However, only days before the final hearing at which the settlement would be approved, Aetna backed out, announcing that the number of plaintiffs "opting out" of the proposed settlement exceeded the cap set forth in the parties' settlement agreement. With the settlement terminated, the litigation now resumes in the New Jersey District Court before Judge Katherine S. Hayden. AIR METHODS: Still Faces Labor Litigation in California Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Air Methods Corporation continues to face a labor lawsuit in California Superior Court, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On January 30, 2013, the company was served with a purported class action lawsuit, Helmick and Williams v. Air Methods Corporation, filed in Superior Court in Alameda County, California. The lawsuit alleges failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to provide rest and meal breaks or to pay compensation in lieu of such breaks, failure to pay timely wages on termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unlawful business practices and unfair competition within the jurisdiction of the state of California. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages and other applicable statutory damages, penalties and wages under the Labor Code, and attorneys' fees, interest and costs. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Moves to Dismiss Cal. Amended Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Align Technology, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a second amended securities complaint filed against it in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock (the "Securities Action"). On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012. The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that during the purported class period defendants failed to take an appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29, 2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of 2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012, which rendered the company's financial statements and projections of future earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S. GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorney's fees. On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended complaint states the same claims as the first amended complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on February 7, 2014. AMY'S KITCHEN: Court Allowed Plaintiff to Amend "Figy" Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed, without prejudice, the first amended complaint in the class action lawsuit styled Robert E. Figy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amy's Kitchen, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-03816-SI. Amy's Kitchen markets and sells a number of products listing "evaporated cane juice" or "organic evaporated cane juice" ("ECJ") as an ingredient on the product's labeling. In his complaint, Mr. Figy alleges that the common or usual name for ECJ is actually "sugar," and that the Defendant uses the term ECJ instead of the term "sugar" to make its products appear healthier to consumers. He further alleges that the Defendant's failure to comply with Food and Drug Administration regulations violates California's Sherman Law, and the California Health and Safety Code. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 369-0800 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com - and - D'Juana Parks, Esq. PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM P.O. Box 4905 Beaumont, TX 77704 Telephone: (409) 835-6000 Facsimile: (409) 813-8647 E-mail: dparks@provostumphrey.com - and - John Keith Hyde, Esq. PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM 490 Park Street Beaumont, TX 77701 Telephone: (409) 838-8892 Facsimile: (409) 813-8606 E-mail: khyde@pulf.com The Defendant is represented by: Dale Joseph Giali, Esq. Michael Langer Resch, Esq. Andrea M. Weiss, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Telephone: (213) 229-9509 Facsimile: (213) 576-8121 E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com mresch@mayerbrown.com aweiss@mayerbrown.com - and - Douglas J. Behr, Esq. Jacquelyn Lorraine Thompson, Esq. KELLER AND HECKMAN LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 W Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 434-4100 E-mail: behr@khlaw.com thompsonj@khlaw.com - and - Robert Stephen Niemann, Esq. KELLER & HECKMAN LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1420 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 948-2800 Facsimile: (415) 948-2808 E-mail: niemann@khlaw.com APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iOS 7 & Grayed Out Issues ------------------------------------------------------------ Patently Apple reports that David Yastrab, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, has filed a class action lawsuit against Apple in California. Much of the complaint revolves around iOS 7 issues and the "Grayed out Issue" in particular. It's clear that many Apple fans were not happy about their iOS 7 experience and so this lawsuit shouldn't come as a surprise. Whether the suit is worth more than $5 million remains to be seen. Nature of the Action This is a consumer class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated who acquired, in the United States and its territories and its protectorates, Apple's iPhone 4, iPhone 4s and iPhone 5 (collectively, the "iPhones") and experienced reduced functionality of their iPhones as a result of the updates to iOS, essentially forcing consumers to render their iPhones obsolete. Apple debuted the iPhone in 2007. Since the first generation iPhone, Apple has released a new iPhone model every year: the iPhone 3G in 2008, the 3GS in 2009, the 4 in 2010, the 4s in 2011, the 5 in 2012, and the iPhone 5c and 5s in 2013. When the iPhone first debuted, it was described by the Wall Street Journal as "a beautiful and breakthrough handheld computer." Every iPhone comes equipped with a mobile operating system called iOS, which, according to Apple, is the "foundation of iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch." iOS consists of a collection of software applications, known as "apps," that allows users to utilize all of the features of Apple products. Since the iPhone was first released there have been many versions of iOS, the most recent being iOS 7 and its update iOS 7.1.Apple has released updates to iOS since the first iPhone. The first iOS update, iOS 1.1.1, was released a mere three months after the original iPhone was released. iOS 1.1.1 added the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store, which gave users the ability to download music directly on their iPhones. Since iOS 1.1.1, Apple has released numerous iOS updates, all of which add new features to the iPhone it is downloaded on. Purportedly, users are prompted to download the newest iOS version onto their device via a message from Apple when it is released. Users have experienced vastly reduced functionality of their iPhones, including, most notably, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity issues, after downloading iOS updates onto their iPhones. For example, the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity issues experienced by users (the "Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Connectivity Issue" or "Grayed out Issue") appears to be most prevalent to iPhone 4s users who downloaded iOS 7. The iPhone 4s is the fifth generation in a line of touchscreen based smartphones designed, developed and marketed by Apple. When the iPhone 4s was first launched, it came standard with iOS 5.0. According to Apple, iOS 7 is a platform for over a million mobile apps, iCloud, and includes security features that prevent unauthorized access to Apple devices. iPhone 4s is the oldest generation iPhone currently sold by Apple. It comes in black or white, 8, 16, 32 or 64 GB models and is available for use on AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint networks. The iPhone 4s and its predecessor, the iPhone 4, share the same stainless steel body type, but are distinguished by the addition of Siri and iCloud in the iPhone 4s. Siri is speech recognition software that comes standard on every iPhone 4 and iPhone 5. It allows users to verbally give their iPhones commands and tasks to complete. Because Siri is capable of both speech input and output, it can purportedly "speak" back to its user. For example, if you ask Siri to add an item to your personal calendar, it is programmed to make the addition to your calendar and verbally confirms that the task is completed. Siri requires either a Wi-Fi or Network connection. When using a Wi-Fi connection for features like Siri, users do not risk incurring overage charges as a result of exceeding the allotted data in a data plan purchased by the user's cellular network, like Verizon, Sprint or AT&T (herein after "Network" or "Network connection"). In addition to Siri, the iPhone 4s originally came equipped with iOS 5. According to Apple, iOS 5 was the first version of iOS to introduce iCloud, described by Apple as "a breakthrough set of free new cloud services that work seamlessly with applications on your iPhone(R), iPad(R), iPod touch(R), Mac(R) or PC to automatically and wirelessly store your content in iCloud and automatically and wirelessly push it to all your devices." Apple prominently features iCloud in many of its iPhone 4s and iPhone 5 advertising campaigns. iCloud is purportedly able to save or backup data to the cloud, such as photos, videos, purchased music, movies, apps, books, TV shows, device settings, ringtones and other features. This allows users to access data stored on the cloud on any Apple device, regardless of the device the information was originally stored on. [Apple's] iCloud is a feature on all iOS versions beginning with iOS 5 and including iOS 7. As stated by Apple, regardless of whether an iPhone is equipped with iOS 5, 6, or 7, iCloud can only wirelessly backup data when the iPhone is locked, connected to a power source and Wi-Fi is turned on and connected. iCloud is unable to backup data on a Network connection alone, and can only do so via a Wi-Fi connection. Apple unveiled iOS 7 on June 10, 2013. The update was described by Apple as "the most significant iOS update since the original iPhone[.]" The update, which could only be downloaded wirelessly via a Wi-Fi connection, changed the entire look of iPhone's interface and added hundreds of new features, some of which include: "Control Center, Notification Center, improved Multitasking, AirDrop(R), enhanced Photos, Safari(R), Siri(R) and . . . iTunes Radio(TM), a free Internet radio service based on the music you listen to on iTunes(R)." Purportedly, iOS 7 added new apps and dramatically increased the efficiency and performance of apps. As of January 2014, there were over one million apps available for download to iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. While some apps may be downloaded using data from a data plan purchased by the user's cellular Network, large apps cannot be downloaded wirelessly over a Network connection, and must be downloaded over a properly operating Wi-Fi network. For example, system updates, like iOS 7, cannot be downloaded wirelessly over a Network connection, only a Wi-Fi connection. Although previous iPhones had Bluetooth, the iPhone 4s was the first equipped with Bluetooth 4.0. According to Apple, Bluetooth allows users to "[e]xchange or synchronize data between Bluetooth enabled computers and devices," "[u]se a Bluetooth enabled wireless keyboard or mouse," "[c]onnect wirelessly to a Bluetooth compatible printer, headset, headphones, or speakers," and "[s]hare your internet connection with other Bluetooth enabled devices." Mike Foley, executive director of the Bluetooth Special Interest Group, commented on the new Bluetooth technology available on the iPhone 4s: "It enables an entirely new class of product into the Bluetooth world." Defendant's advertising and marketing campaigns for the iPhone 4, iPhone 4s and iPhone 5 were and are designed to induce consumers to acquire or purchase the iPhones over other smartphone devices because of their Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connection capabilities, large library of apps, iCloud and Siri -- all of which require a Network connection or Wi-Fi connection to operate. While users may access some features of iCloud without a Wi-Fi connection, in order to backup and save new data to iCloud, the iPhone must be connected to a Wi-Fi connection, locked and plugged into a power source. In its promotions for iPhones 4, 4s and 5, Defendant highlights the iPhone's ability to download later generations of iOS, such as iOS 7. With each update, users receive all the features ofthe newest iPhone model that are supported by their iPhone. According to Apple, "because iOS 7 is engineered to take full advantage of the advanced technologies built into Apple hardware, your devices are always years ahead -- from day one to day whenever." The ability to update the iOS platform on a device is a major draw for consumers because every iOS update adds new features to an older device. For example, when users downloaded iOS 7, not only did their devices inherit new apps and features, iPhone's interface was redesigned to a "simpler, more useful, and more enjoyable" interface. In addition, the update added iTunes radio and an updated photos app which allows users to add filters to photos and auto enhance, rotate, correct red-eye, crop a panorama photo and share photos. iOS 7 also added a Control Center feature and security updates. Notwithstanding Apple's extensive multi-million dollar advertising campaign showcasing the iPhone's ability to wirelessly download the latest features and apps from new versions of iOS, backup and store data using iCloud, and the iPhone 4s and 5's Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connection capabilities, the iPhones failed to perform as advertised for Plaintiff and members of the Class when the iOS 7 update was downloaded. In addition, because of the Grayed out Issue, Plaintiff and Class members who downloaded iOS 7 onto their iPhones discovered their Wi-Fi and Bluetooth were rendered unusable. For example, after the update, they could not wirelessly download any iOS patches or versions because such downloads require a Wi-Fi connection and cannot be downloaded over a Network connection. This meant that Plaintiff and members of the Class could not wirelessly download iOS 7.0.6, which provided, for example, a patch for a major security flaw in iOS 7. After downloading iOS 7, Plaintiff and Class members' iPhones' Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connections became "grayed out" and unusable. This particular problem is referred to on Apple message boards as "grayed out" because the option to turn Wi-Fi on in the iPhone's setting turns gray and cannot be turned on. The iPhone 4s pre-sold over one million units and sold over four million units worldwide the weekend following its release, and the iPhone 5 sold over five million units within the first three days of its launch. Defendant's message alerts, notifying iPhone users that an iOS update is available, were also effective. As of March 21, 2014, 85% of active Apple devices had Downloaded and were running on iOS 7. Once Plaintiff and Class members downloaded iOS 7 onto their iPhones, they were unable to connect to Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. Because of the Grayed out Issue, Plaintiff and Class members could no longer access often free Wi-Fi and thus used data unnecessarily and/or incurred data charges for all data used on their iPhone 4s. In addition, Plaintiff and Class members could no longer backup their device using iCloud, wirelessly download iOS patches or the newest versions of iOS. Defendant's misrepresentations concerning: (i) the iPhones' ability to download and run iOS 7 effectively; (ii) Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connection capabilities; and (iii) the ability to upgrade to new iOS software and run new applications and features, are misleading, false, and reasonably likely to deceive and have deceived Plaintiff and members of the putative Class. Defendant designed, manufactured, marketed, and warranted the iPhone 4, iPhone 4s, Phone 5 and iOS 7 to consumers nationwide. In conjunction with each sale of the iPhone 4, iPhone 4s and iPhone 5, Defendant marketed, advertised and warranted, among other things, that each iPhone 4s was: (i) capable of downloading and running future versions of iOS, such as iOS 7, without adverse effects to the device's Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connection capabilities; (ii) was able to run applications via a Wi-Fi connection; (iii) was able to backup data using iCloud and was otherwise fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used; and (iv) was free from defects in materials and workmanship. Plaintiff and members of the Class have damages, in that they purchased and/or own an iPhone 4, iPhone 4s or iPhone 5, downloaded iOS 7 at Defendant's instruction, and would not otherwise have purchased and downloaded had they known they would be unable to use Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. Defendant knew or should have known that the iPhones were defective in design and/or manufacture, were not fit for their ordinary and intended use, and did not perform in accordance with the advertisements, marketing materials, and warranties disseminated by Defendant in its nationwide marketing and advertising campaign. In addition, Defendant knew or should have known that the iPhones did not conform with the reasonable expectations of ordinary consumers. Indeed, Defendant has received hundreds of comments regarding the iPhone 4s and 5's Wi- Fi an Bluetooth connectivity issues since iOS was released. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers who purchased and/or own the iPhone 4, iPhone 4s or iPhone 5 and experienced Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity issues after downloading iOS 7, in order to halt the dissemination of Apple's false and misleading advertising message, and to obtain redress for those who have acquired an iPhone 4, iPhone 4s or iPhone 5. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sec. 1750, et seq. (the "California Act"); violations of the Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"); breach of express warranty; intentional misrepresentation; and negligent misrepresentation. APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Vacates Approval of MagSafe Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has vacated a lower court's approval of a class action settlement over Apple MagSafe power adapters on April 24. The Ninth Circuit decided that the $3 million in attorneys fees included in the deal had not been cross-checked thoroughly by the lower court and, because of that, the lower court lacked "a sufficient basis for determining the reasonableness of the award," the opinion stated. "The district court's order accepted the lodestar of $1,986,362.00 submitted by plaintiffs' counsel," the court ruled. "But the court did not explain why this figure is reasonable beyond a few boilerplate recitations about the attorneys' skill and the risks of proceeding with the litigation that never reference the specific facts of this case." Approval of the settlement was appealed by the Center for Class Action Fairness, which was founded by Ted Frank. Under some circumstances, counting all hours expended on the litigation -- even those reasonably spent -- may produce an "excessive amount," according to the memo. "The district court then applied a multiplier that increased the total amount of the attorneys' fee award to $3,000,000 without explaining why a multiplier was necessary to adequately compensate class counsel," the opinion stated. "If the court determines on remand that a multiplier is appropriate, it should offer an explanation of its decision that is sufficient to 'assure itself -- and us -- that the amount awarded was not unreasonably excessive in light of the results achieved.'" The appeals court emphasized that Apple's advance agreement to pay class counsel up to $3 million in attorneys fees and $100,000 in expenses "cannot relieve the district court of its duty to assess fully the reasonableness of the fee request," according to the opinion. The district court also did not cross-check the attorneys fee award against the percentage-of-the-recovery method, the opinion states. "Although we have 'encouraged' rather than required courts to cross-check their calculations, the fact that the court made no mention of the value of the settlement, let alone the percentage- of-the-recovery method, contributes to our determination that we 'lack a sufficient basis for determining the reasonableness of the award,'" the court said. If the class action settlement agreement had been left in place, it would have been the settlement of two lawsuits filed against Apple, both of which claimed that Apple's MagSafe power adapters were sold with design flaws that caused them to fray, spark and prematurely fail to work. Consumers who had signed up for the Apple MagSafe class action settlement would have collected $79, $50 or $35 for replacement adapters, depending on when consumers purchased the products, according to court documents. The lawsuits were first filed in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged the flawed power adapters were dangerous fire hazards that prematurely failed. The plaintiffs claimed Apple was aware of the problems, but did not disclose or warn consumers about them and forced consumers to purchase costly replacements upon their failure from Apple. The plaintiffs are being represented by Helen I. Zeldes -- helenz@zhlaw.com -- of Zeldes & Haeggquist LLP; Steven A. Skalet -- sskalet@findjustice.com -- and Craig L. Briskin -- cbriskin@findjustice.com -- of Mehri & Skalet PLLC; Angela C. Agrusa and Camilla Y. Chan of Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor LLP; and Patrick McNicholas and Douglas D. Winter of McNicholas & McNicholas. Apple is being represented by Anne M. Hunter, Alexei Klestoff -- aklestoff@mofo.com -- Heather A. Moser, Andrew David Muhlbach and Penelope Athene Preovolos -- ppreovolos@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The original Apple class action settlement was approved in March 2012. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case numbers: 12-15757, 12-15782 ARCELORMITTAL: June 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- If you bought Steel Products from one or more Defendants between April 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007, you may be affected by three Class Action Settlements. What are the Settlements about? Eight steel manufacturers, ArcelorMittal, Nucor Corporation, United States Steel Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, AK Steel Holding Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., SSAB Swedish Steel Corporation and Commercial Metals Company) were sued by several businesses who allege that the Defendants conspired, in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws, to restrict their output and therefore raise or "fix" the prices for certain steel products sold for delivery in the United States between April 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007. Settlements have been reached with three of the Defendants: Commercial Metals Company, AK Steel Holding Corporation, and Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation. These "Settling Defendants" collectively will pay $15.9 million into a Settlement Fund. The Settling Defendants deny the allegations. The litigation is continuing against the other five Defendants. Who is a Settlement Class Member? You are a Settleent Class Member if you Purchased certain Steel Products directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries or controlled affiliates at any time between April 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007 for delivery in the United States. In general "Steel Products" include carbon steel slabs, plates, sheet and coil products, galvanized and other coated sheet products; billets, blooms, rebar, merchant bar, beams and other structural shapes; and other steel products derived from raw carbon steel and sold by Defendants. The terms "Steel Products" and "Purchased" are more specifically defined in the full Notice and the Settlement Agreements. Will I get a payment? If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you will be eligible to file a claim at a later date to receive money from the Settlements. What are my rights? If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you will release certain legal rights against the Settling Defendants, as set forth in the full Notice and in the Settlement Agreements. If you do not want to take part in the Settlements, you have the right to opt out. To opt out of the Settlements, you must do so by June 16, 2014. Settlement Class Members have the right to object to the Settlements. If you want to object, you must do so by June 16, 2014. Information on how to opt out or object to the Settlements is contained in the full Notice and at http://www.SteelAntitrustSettlement.com You may speak to your own attorney at your expense for help. When is the Approval Hearing? A Final Approval Hearing to consider approval of the Settlements and Plaintiffs' request for reimbursement of litigation expenses is scheduled to be held in Courtroom 2503, Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, on July 10, 2014, at 12:00 p.m. You may appear at the hearing, but your attendance is not required. The date and location for this hearing may be changed on further Order of the Court. This is a Summary, where can I get more information? You can get complete settlement information, including a copy of the full Notice and the Settlement Agreements, by visiting http://www.SteelAntitrustSettlement.com ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Litigation Over Iclusig --------------------------------------------------------------- ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces four securities lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On October 10, 2013, October 17, 2013, December 3, 2013 and December 6, 2013, purported shareholder class actions, styled Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., James L. Burch v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, and Nabil Elmachtoub v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, respectively, were filed in Massachusetts District Court, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuits allege that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in its public disclosures during the period from December 12, 2011 through October 8, 2013 or October 17, 2013, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 9, 2014, the District Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 18, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as contemplated by the order of the District Court. The amended complaint extends the class period for the Securities Exchange Act claims through October 30, 2013. In addition, plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company's officers, present and former directors and certain underwriters made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in connection with the Company's January 24, 2013 follow-on public offering of common stock in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. ATLAS AIR: Court Yet to Certify Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is yet to rule whether or not to certify antitrust class actions filed against Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In 2010, Old Polar entered into an agreement with the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") to resolve issues relating to the previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning alleged manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and other rate components for air cargo services (the "DOJ Investigation"). As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust laws. The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief. In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising prior to 2004. The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs' motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011. There was substantial pretrial written discovery and document production, and a number of depositions were taken. A court hearing on whether or not to certify the case as a class action was held in October 2013 and oral arguments were held in November 2013. The company is unable to reasonably predict the court's ruling or the ultimate outcome of the litigation. The Company, Old Polar and a number of other cargo carriers have also been named as defendants in civil class action suits in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada that are substantially similar to the class action suits in the United States. The plaintiffs in the British Columbia case have indicated they do not intend to pursue their lawsuit against the Company and Old Polar. The company is unable to reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation in Ontario and Quebec. AUTHOR SOLUTIONS: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Cader, writing for Publishers Lunch, reports that in mid-April, Judge Denise Cote rejected all of the substantive motions to dismiss a class action suit brought by author/ customers against Author Solutions, and the suit will move forward. The parties will proceed to discovery and will submit a proposed pre-trial schedule to the court. BNSF RAILWAY: Certification of Antitrust Litigation Vacated ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals vacated a district court's class- certification decision in In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869 and remanded the case to permit the district court to reconsider its decision in light of the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, according to Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints were filed in six federal district courts around the country by rail shippers against BNSF Railway Company and other Class I railroads alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with respect to unregulated freight transportation services in violation of the antitrust laws. The complaints seek injunctive relief and unspecified treble damages. These cases were consolidated and are currently pending in the federal District Court of the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869). Consolidated amended class action complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three other Class I railroads in April 2008. On June 21, 2012, the District Court certified the class sought by the plaintiffs. BNSF Railway and the other three Class I railroads appealed the class-certification decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. On August 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's class-certification decision and remanded the case to permit the District Court to reconsider its decision in light of the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. The Company continues to believe that these claims are without merit and continues to defend against the allegations vigorously. The Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Misclassify IT Employees, Cal. Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Randall Stein, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, a California Corporation, and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC542249 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 10, 2014) arises out of the Defendants' alleged systematic and uniform misclassification of proposed class members as exempt from overtime pay, resulting in the non-payment of overtime compensation and failure to provide compliant rest and meal periods to certain California Information-Technology employees of the Company. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is a California corporation. Cedars- Sinai maintains and transacts business as a health care delivery system operating in Los Angeles and other Central California counties. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq. Michael D. Singer, Esq. Isam C. Khoury, Esq. J. Jason Hill, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 "C" Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com tcohelan@ckslaw.com dkhoury@ckslaw.com jhill@ckslaw.com CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Seeks to Junk Last Gas Price "Inflation" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES) is pursuing the dismissal of a case now pending in federal court in Nevada alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in 2000-2002, according to CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Houston or their predecessor, Reliant Energy, Incorporated (Reliant Energy), and certain of their former subsidiaries have been named as defendants in certain lawsuits. Under a master separation agreement between CenterPoint Energy and a former subsidiary, Reliant Resources, Inc. (RRI), CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries are entitled to be indemnified by RRI and its successors for any losses, including certain attorneys' fees and other costs, arising out of these lawsuits. In May 2009, RRI sold its Texas retail business to a subsidiary of NRG and RRI changed its name to RRI Energy, Inc. In December 2010, Mirant Corporation merged with and became a wholly owned subsidiary of RRI, and RRI changed its name to GenOn Energy, Inc. (GenOn). In December 2012, NRG acquired GenOn through a merger in which GenOn became a wholly owned subsidiary of NRG. None of the sale of the retail business, the merger with Mirant Corporation, or the acquisition of GenOn by NRG alters RRI's (now GenOn's) contractual obligations to indemnify CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries, including CenterPoint Houston, for certain liabilities, including their indemnification obligations regarding the gas market manipulation litigation, nor does it affect the terms of existing guarantee arrangements for certain GenOn gas transportation contracts. 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, RRI, was a participant in gas trading in the California and Western markets. These lawsuits, many of which were filed as class actions, alleged violations of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits sought 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. CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Abuse Victim Balks at Class Action Payment -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Banks and Colleen Egan, writing for The West Australian, report that the national law firm that represented former orphanage residents in a class action against the Christian Brothers was fighting for its commission and not for the victims, a man who was abused at Bindoon told the royal commission in Perth on April 30. Edward Delaney told the public hearing that he had heard about the class action by Slater & Gordon and attended a meeting in Melbourne, where he was told he should sign a final offer that would give him about $3000. "For what we went through, I felt this amount was an insult," he said at the third day of evidence at the Perth hearing of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Mr. Delaney said he thought it was "disgusting", but he was told it was $3000 or nothing and he signed a document. "I am sorry I signed that document," he said. The Perth hearing is investigating the abuse of boys at the Christian Brothers' Bindoon, Clontarf, Castledare and Tardun homes from the 1940s to 1960s. Criticism of Slater & Gordon's handling of the class action has been heard in the evidence of numerous former residents over the past three days. Slater & Gordon lawyers were scheduled to give evidence at the commission on May 1. Former Bindoon resident Gordon Grant said on April 30 he had accepted $10,000 from the class action in return for signing away his legal rights. "Most of these guys have never spoken to a lawyer," he said. "Most of these guys were pensioners, out of work, didn't have anything, so they accepted a lousy $2000." In a letter written to the Christian Brothers congregation on April 30, Oceania Province professional standards executive director Brian Brandon said the men had been heard and their pain was acknowledged Brother Brandon reiterated the Christian Brothers apology first made in 1993, saying what had happened at the four homes was indefensible and of the deepest shame to the order. Acting director-general of the WA Department for Child Protection and Family Support Emma White told the inquiry that a search of records found no documents from the 1940s and 50s. But an unannounced visit to Bindoon in 1947 had resulted in a letter to the Catholic Archbishop of Perth and a recommendation that boys not be admitted until education facilities improved. A note on the file read: "I think you will agree, as minister for education, that boys of school age being brought out from England under the migrant scheme must at least be given a chance to be properly educated." CITIGROUP INC: Approval of N.Y. Stock Suit Accord Endures Appeals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals against a final order that approved a settlement reached in In Re Citigroup Inc. Securities litigation have been dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Citigroup and Related Parties were named as defendants in the consolidated putative class action IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Citigroup common stock from January 1, 2004 through January 15, 2009. On November 9, 2010, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing all claims except those arising out of Citigroup's exposure to CDOs for the time period February 1, 2007 through April 18, 2008. On August 30, 2012, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the parties' proposed settlement, under which Citigroup agreed to pay $590 million in exchange for a release of all claims asserted on behalf of the settlement class. A fairness hearing was held on April 8, 2013. On August 1, 2013, the court entered a final order approving the settlement. Appeals from the final order have been dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number 07 Civ. 9901 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), and 13-3531, 13-3539, and 13-3710 (2d Cir.). CITIGROUP INC: Fee Award in Bond Suit Settlement Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- An objector to the settlement of In Re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litigation filed a notice of appeal from the fee award, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Citigroup and Related Parties were named as defendants in the consolidated putative class action IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION, also filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of $71 billion of debt securities and preferred stock issued by Citigroup between May 2006 and August 2008. On July 12, 2010, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, but denying defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims under Section 11. On March 25, 2013, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the parties' proposed settlement, under which Citigroup agreed to pay $730 million in exchange for a release of all claims asserted on behalf of the settlement class. A fairness hearing was held on July 23, 2013. On August 20, 2013, the court entered a final order approving the settlement. In a separate order dated December 19, 2013, the court awarded fees to class counsel. On January 14, 2014, an objector to the settlement filed a notice of appeal from the fee award. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number 08 Civ. 9522 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces Suit Over Alternative Investment Funds ----------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. continues to face a suit filed on behalf of investors in CSO Ltd., CSO US Ltd., and Corporate Special Opportunities Ltd., according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2012 on behalf of investors in CSO Ltd., CSO US Ltd., and Corporate Special Opportunities Ltd., whose investments were managed indirectly by a Citigroup affiliate. Plaintiffs assert a variety of state common law claims, alleging that they and other investors were misled into investing in the funds and, later, not redeeming their investments. The complaint seeks to recover more than $400 million on behalf of a putative class of investors. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12-cv-7717 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Suits Over Credit Default Swaps Unified in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized numerous putative class actions filed by various entities against Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Citibank, N.A., alleging anticompetitive conduct in the credit default swaps industry and ordered them transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Putative class action complaints have been filed by various entities against Citigroup, CGMI and Citibank, N.A., among other defendants, alleging anticompetitive conduct in the CDS industry and asserting various claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act as well as a state law claim for unjust enrichment. On October 16, 2013, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized numerous putative class actions filed by various entities against Citigroup, CGMI and Citibank, N.A., among other defendants, alleging anticompetitive conduct in the credit default swaps industry and ordered that those actions pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Denise Cote. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 1:13-cv-03357 (N.D. Ill.), 1:13-cv-04979 (N.D. Ill.), 1:13-cv-04928 (S.D.N.Y.), 1:13-cv-05413 (N.D. Ill.), and 1:13-cv-05417 (N.D. Ill.), 1:13- cv-05725 (N.D. Ill.), and 13-cv-6116 (S.D.N.Y.). CITIGROUP INC: Faces Suits in N.Y. Over Alleged Rate Manipulation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. is facing lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging it colluded to manipulate the WM/Reuters rate (WMR), according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Numerous foreign exchange dealers, including Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, and, in certain cases, Citigroup Forex, Inc., are named as defendants in putative class actions that are proceeding on a consolidated basis before Judge Schofield in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the defendants colluded to manipulate the WM/Reuters rate (WMR), thereby causing the putative classes to suffer losses in connection with WMR-based financial instruments. The plaintiffs assert federal and state antitrust claims and claims for unjust enrichment, and seek compensatory damages, treble damages where authorized by statute, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:13-cv-7789. Additionally, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, and CKI, as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers, are named as defendants in a putative class action captioned SIMMTECH CO. v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, ET AL., that is also proceeding before Judge Schofield in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of persons who traded foreign currency with the defendants in Korea, alleging that the class suffered losses as a result of the defendants' alleged WMR manipulation. The plaintiff asserts federal and state antitrust claims, and seeks compensatory damages, treble damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:13-cv-7953. CITIGROUP INC: Court Blocks Appeals v. Nixing of Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied appeals against the dismissal of claims in the Libor-based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation against Citigroup Inc., according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On September 17, 2013, the plaintiff class of indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt securities filed an appeal in the Second Circuit of Judge Buchwald's March 29, 2013 and August 23, 2013 orders. The Schwab plaintiffs filed a separate appeal in the Second Circuit on September 24, 2013. Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other U.S. Dollar (USD) LIBOR panel banks, are defendants in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (the LIBOR MDL), appearing under docket number 1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.). Judge Buchwald appointed interim lead class counsel for, and consolidated amended complaints were filed on behalf of, three separate putative classes of plaintiffs: (i) over-the- counter (OTC) purchasers of derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR; (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR; and (iii) indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt securities. Each of these putative classes alleged that the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBOR in violation of the Sherman Act and/or the Commodity Exchange Act, thereby causing plaintiffs to suffer losses on the instruments they purchased. Also consolidated into the MDL proceeding were individual civil actions commenced by various Charles Schwab entities alleging that the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress the USD LIBOR rates in violation of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and California state law, causing the Schwab entities to suffer losses on USD LIBOR-linked financial instruments they owned. Plaintiffs in these actions sought compensatory damages and restitution for losses caused by the alleged violations, as well as treble damages under the Sherman Act. The Schwab and OTC plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief. Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, moved to dismiss all of the actions. On March 29, 2013, Judge Buchwald issued an opinion and order dismissing the plaintiffs' federal and state antitrust claims, RICO claims and unjust enrichment claims in their entirety, but allowing certain of the plaintiffs' Commodity Exchange Act claims to proceed. On August 23, 2013, Judge Buchwald issued a decision resolving several motions filed after the March 29, 2013 order. Pursuant to the August 23, 2013 decision, on September 10, 2013, consolidated second amended complaints were filed by interim lead plaintiffs for the putative classes of (i) OTC purchasers of derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR and (ii) purchasers of exchange- traded derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR. Each of these putative classes continues to allege that the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBOR: (i) OTC purchasers assert claims under the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment. On September 17, 2013, the plaintiff class of indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt securities filed an appeal in the Second Circuit of Judge Buchwald's March 29, 2013 and August 23, 2013 orders. The Schwab plaintiffs filed a separate appeal in the Second Circuit on September 24, 2013. The Second Circuit dismissed the appeals on October 30, 2013, and denied the plaintiffs' motions to reconsider dismissal on December 16, 2013. As part of the August 23, 2013 order, Judge Buchwald also continued the stay of all actions that have been consolidated into the LIBOR MDL proceeding after June 29, 2012. Citigroup and/or Citibank, N.A. are named in 36 such stayed actions. The stayed actions include lawsuits filed by, or on behalf of putative classes of, community and other banks, savings and loans institutions, credit unions, municipalities and purchasers and holders of LIBOR-linked financial products. As a general matter, plaintiffs allege that defendant panel banks artificially suppressed USD LIBOR, thereby decreasing the amount plaintiffs would have received in the absence of manipulation. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, various forms of enhanced damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the following docket numbers: 1:12-cv-4205 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:12-cv-5723 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:12-cv-5822 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:12-cv- 6056 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:12-cv-6693 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:12-cv-7461 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 2:12-cv- 6294 (E.D.N.Y.) (Seybert, J.); 2:12-cv-10903 (C.D. Cal.) (Snyder, J.); 3:12-cv-6571 (N.D. Cal.) (Conti, J.); 3:13-cv-106 (N.D. Cal.) (Beller, J.); 4:13-cv-108 (N.D. Cal.) (Ryu, J.); 3:13-cv- 109 (N.D. Cal.) (Laporte, J.); 3:13-cv-48 (S.D. Cal.) (Sammartino, J.); 5:13-cv-62 (C.D. Cal.) (Phillips, J.); 1:13-cv- 346 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:13-cv-407 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 5:13-cv-122 (C.D. Cal.) (Bernal, J.); 1:13-cv-1016 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:13-cv-1456 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:13-cv-1700 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:13-cv-342 (E.D. Va.) (Brinkema, J.); 1:13-cv-2297 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 4:13-cv-2244 (N.D. Cal.) (Hamilton, J.); 3:13-cv-2921 (N.D. Cal.) (Chesney, J.); 3:13-cv-1466 (S.D. Cal.) (Lorenz, J.); 3:13-cv- 2979 (N.D. Cal.) (Tigar, J.); 4:13-cv-2149 (S.D. Tex.) (Hoyt, J.); 2:13-cv-1476 (E.D. Cal.) (Mueller, J.); 1:13-cv-4018 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 2:13-cv-4352 (E.D. Pa.) (Restrepo, J.); 4:13-cv-334 (S.D. Iowa) (Pratt. J.); 4:13-cv-335 (S.D. Iowa) (Pratt, J.); 1:13-cv-7720 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:13-cv-7720 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:13-cv-5278 (N.D. Cal.) (Vadas, J.); and 1:14-cv-146 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Moves to Dismiss "Laydon" Lawsuit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The defendants in the suit Laydon v. Mizuho Bank Ltd. et al. have moved to dismiss a second amended complaint, and briefing on the motions to dismiss was already completed, according to Citigroup Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On April 30, 2012, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned LAYDON V. MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 30, 2012, naming as defendants banks that are or were members of the panels making submissions used in the calculation of Japanese yen LIBOR and TIBOR, and certain affiliates of those banks, including Citigroup, Citibank, N.A., CJL and CGMJ. On April 15, 2013, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that defendants, including Citigroup, Citibank, N.A., CJL and CGMJ, manipulated Japanese yen LIBOR and TIBOR in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act. The second amended complaint asserts claims under these acts and for unjust enrichment on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities that engaged in U.S.-based transactions in Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts between January 2006 and December 2010. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, treble damages under the Sherman Act, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The defendants have moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, and briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on October 16, 2013. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:12-cv-3419 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Sued by Opt Outs in Interchange Fees Suit Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. is facing two lawsuits filed by merchants, including large national merchants, that requested exclusion from the class settlements in In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee And Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed against Citigroup and Related Parties, together with Visa, MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various federal district courts and consolidated with other related cases in a multi-district litigation proceeding before Judge Gleeson in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This proceeding is captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard- branded payment cards as well as membership associations that claim to represent certain groups of merchants, allege, among other things, that defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the price of interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit card transactions and to restrain trade through various Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California statutes. Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of classes of U.S. merchants, treble damages, including all interchange fees paid to all Visa and MasterCard members with respect to Visa and MasterCard transactions in the U.S. since at least January 1, 2004, as well as injunctive relief. Supplemental complaints have also been filed against defendants in the putative class actions alleging that Visa's and MasterCard's respective initial public offerings were anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and that MasterCard's initial public offering constituted a fraudulent conveyance. On July 13, 2012, all parties to the putative class actions, including Citigroup and Related Parties, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) setting forth the material terms of a class settlement. The class settlement contemplated by the MOU provides for, among other things, a total payment by all defendants to the class of $6.05 billion; a rebate to merchants participating in the damages class settlement of 10 basis points on interchange collected for a period of eight months by the Visa and MasterCard networks; changes to certain network rules that would permit merchants to surcharge some payment card transactions subject to certain limitations and conditions, including disclosure to consumers at the point of sale; and broad releases in favor of the defendants. Subsequently, all defendants and certain of the plaintiffs who had entered into the MOU executed a settlement agreement consistent with the terms of the MOU. Visa and MasterCard have also entered into a settlement agreement with merchants that filed individual, non-class actions. While Citigroup and Related Parties are not parties to the individual merchant non-class settlement agreement, they are contributing to that settlement, and the agreement provides for a release of claims against Citigroup and Related Parties. On November 27, 2012, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed class settlements and provisionally certified two classes for settlement purposes only. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York held a hearing on September 12, 2013 to consider whether the class settlements should be finally approved. On December 13, 2013, the court entered an order granting final approval to the class settlement, and on January 14, 2014, the court entered a final judgment. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.). A number of objectors have filed an appeal of the final approval order with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Numerous merchants, including large national merchants, have requested exclusion (opted out) from the class settlements, and some of those opting out have filed complaints against Visa, MasterCard, and in some instances one or more issuing banks. Two of these suits, 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL., and SPEEDY STOP FOOD STORES, LLC, ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL., name Citigroup as a defendant. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under docket numbers 1:13-CV-04442 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.) and 13-10- 75377A (Tex. D. Ct). CLEOPATRA SHIPPING: Faces Suit Over Galveston Bay Fuel Oil Spill ---------------------------------------------------------------- William John Patton, Sidney Langley, Pam Cage and Claude Cage, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cleopatra Shipping Agency, Ltd., and Kirby Inland Marine L.P., Case No. 3:14-cv-00113 (S.D. Tex., March 28, 2014) alleges personal injury resulting from the March 22 fuel oil spill in Galveston Bay. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Alan Grigg, Esq. Rick Leeper, Esq. SPIVEY GRIGG LLP 48 East Avenue Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-6061 Facsimile: (512) 474-1605 E-mail: dicky@grigg-law.com rick@grigg-law.com - and - Calvin C. Fayard, Jr., Esq. CALVIN C. FAYARD, JR. APC 519 Florida Ave. SW Denham Springs, LA 70726 Telephone: (225) 664-4193 E-mail: calvinfayard@fayardlaw.com - and - Frank C. Dudenhefer, Jr., Esq. 5200 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70115 Telephone: (504) 616-5226 COLUMBIA BANKING: Settlement in Suit Over Merger Wins Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County entered an order approving a settlement reached in Gary M. Klein v. West Coast Bancorp, et al., Case No. 1210-12431, according to Columbia Banking System, Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On October 3, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah against West Coast, its directors, and the Company challenging the merger: Gary M. Klein v. West Coast Bancorp, et al., Case No. 1210-12431. The complaint names as defendants West Coast, all of the former members of West Coast's board of directors, and the Company. The complaint alleges that the West Coast directors breached their fiduciary duties to West Coast and West Coast shareholders by agreeing to the merger at an unfair price. The complaint also alleges that the merger was being driven by an unfair process, that the directors approved provisions in the merger agreement that constitute preclusive deal protection devices, that certain large shareholders of West Coast were using the merger as an opportunity to sell their illiquid holdings in West Coast, and that West Coast directors and officers would obtain personal benefits from the merger not shared equally by other West Coast shareholders. The complaint further alleges that West Coast and the Company aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. Thereafter, a second lawsuit challenging the merger was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Clackamas County: Leoni v. West Coast Bancorp et al., Case No. CV12100728. The two lawsuits have been consolidated for all purposes in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County. While the Company believes that the claims in both complaints were without merit, the Company agreed, in order to avoid the expense and burden of continued litigation and pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus related to the merger. Accordingly, prior to the closing of the merger on April 1, 2013, West Coast and the other defendants in the two actions entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle both actions. Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, Plaintiffs' counsel has conducted certain confirmatory discovery, and the Company approved the form of a stipulation of settlement, which has been executed by the parties. The stipulation of settlement is subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to West Coast's stockholders. On February 18, 2014, the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County conducted a final hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement and entered an order approving settlement. The order resolves and releases all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders before final approval of the settlement. COMSCORE INC: Trial in Consumers' Suit to Start Q2 2014 ------------------------------------------------------- Merits based discovery in a suit filed by Mike Harris and Jeff Dunstan against comScore, Inc. is completed and trial is anticipated to start in the second quarter of 2014, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On August 23, 2011, the Company received notice that Mike Harris and Jeff Dunstan, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging, among other things, violations by the Company of the Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act as well as unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including statutory damages per violation and punitive damages, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees of the plaintiffs. In October 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, removed the claim relating to alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. On April 2, 2013, the District Court issued an order certifying a class for only three of the four claims, refusing to certify a class for unjust enrichment. Merits based discovery is completed and trial is anticipated to start in the second quarter of 2014. DECKERS OUTDOOR: Calif. & Del. Securities Litigations Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Two securities lawsuits filed against Deckers Outdoor Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware were dismissed, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On May 31, 2012, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its officers. On August 1, 2012, a similar purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its officers. These actions alleged violations of the federal securities laws and were purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities between October 27, 2011 and April 26, 2012. Both cases were dismissed with prejudice, and no appeal was taken from either dismissal. EBAY INC: Two Lawsuits v. PayPal Continue in California Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The suits Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc. and Moises Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc. continue in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to eBay Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits (Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc. and Moises Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These lawsuits contain allegations related to violations of aspects of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E and violations of a previous settlement agreement related to Regulation E, and/or allege that PayPal improperly held users' funds or otherwise improperly limited users' accounts. These lawsuits seek damages as well as changes to PayPal's practices, among other remedies. A determination that there have been violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E or violations of other laws relating to PayPal's practices could expose PayPal to significant liability. A lawsuit that has been filed by a consumer association in Germany also addresses PayPal's practices to hold users' funds and aims at more transparency in the terms and conditions towards consumers as to when a user can expect PayPal to impose account limitations. Any changes to PayPal's practices resulting from these lawsuits could require PayPal to incur significant costs and to expend substantial resources, which could delay other planned product launches or improvements and further harm the company's business. EBAY INC: Lawsuits Over TCPA Violations v. PayPal Continue ---------------------------------------------------------- Two lawsuits alleging violations of The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) against PayPal, Inc. continue in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according to eBay Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Two putative class-action lawsuits have been filed containing allegations that the company's businesses violated the TCPA. Roberts v. PayPal (filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in February 2012) contains allegations that commercial advertisements for PayPal products and services were sent via text message to mobile phones without prior consent. In May 2013, the Court granted PayPal's motion for summary judgment challenging the viability of plaintiff's individual claim on grounds that plaintiff consented to receive the text message and entered judgment in favor of PayPal. Plaintiff has filed an appeal of this judgment. Murray v. Bill Me Later (filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in June 2012) contains allegations that Bill Me Later made calls featuring artificial or prerecorded voices without prior consent. These lawsuits, and other private lawsuits not currently alleged as class actions, seek damages (including statutory damages) and injunctive relief, among other remedies. Given the enormous number of communications the company sends to the company's users, a determination that there have been violations of laws relating to PayPal's or Bill Me Later's practices (or those of any of the company's other companies) under the TCPA or other communications-based statutes could expose the company to significant damage awards that could, individually or in the aggregate, materially harm the company's business. EBAY INC: NC Appeals Court Ruling in StubHub Action Now Final ------------------------------------------------------------- According to eBay Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, two plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit in October 2007 in North Carolina Superior Court alleging that StubHub sold (and facilitated and participated in the sale) of concert tickets to plaintiffs with the knowledge that the tickets were resold in violation of North Carolina's maximum ticket resale price law (which has been subsequently amended). In February 2011, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, concluding that immunity under the Communications Decency Act did not apply. The trial court further held that StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices statute as it pertained to the two named plaintiffs, and certified its decision for immediate appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. In February 2012, the North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's decision, and the Court of Appeals' decision is now final. eBay noted that similar actions are expected in other states and other jurisdictions, such as Ontario. Laws and regulations governing the resale of event tickets outside the U.S. (for example, in Europe) may be more restrictive, and carry harsher penalties and fines, than corresponding U.S. laws and regulations. For example, France passed a law in 2012 prohibiting the habitual resale of event tickets without permission from the event organizer and Belgium passed a similar law in 2013 prohibiting habitual sale and subjecting occasional resale to a price cap. Restrictions on ticket resale are also under consideration by the Dutch Parliament and various state governments in Australia. In addition, the unauthorized resale of football (soccer) tickets is illegal in the U.K., where a StubHub site was launched in 2011. "While the company secured a number of commercial partnerships in the UK in order to enable our customers to buy and sell football (soccer) tickets, if the company is unable to maintain these partnerships or develop new partnerships on acceptable terms, the company's tickets business would suffer," eBay added. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------ Vin Gurrieri and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge signed off on April 21 on a settlement that calls for Experian Information Solutions Inc. to pay $8 million to end claims that it illegally disclosed consumers' credit reports to a towing debt collection company. Judge Claudia Wilkin preliminarily approved the deal to resolve claims by a certified class of consumers accusing Experian of willfully violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by turning over consumer reports containing their credit information to collection agency Finex Group LLC, as it attempted to collect on debts incurred for towed vehicles. "The proposed settlement agreement is preliminarily approved because it falls within the range that is fair, reasonable and adequate," Judge Wilkin said. The $8 million deal, submitted for approval in March, calls for each class member with a valid claim to receive $375. The settlement also includes incentive awards of up to $10,000 to each named plaintiff and $2.25 million in attorneys' fees. The class members had initially sought damages of between $100 and $1,000 per class member, according to court documents. Initially certified in April 2012, the class members will include "all consumers whose consumer reports were furnished by Experian to Finex in connection with Finex's efforts to collect on a towing deficiency claim from Jan. 12, 2009, to the present." Each claimant has until Sept. 2, 2014, to either submit a claim or exclude themselves from the deal. They must also prove that they owned a vehicle that was towed, that they did not initiate the towing transaction and that the debt was not reduced to judgment. Excluded from the class, however, are any people who subsequently filed for bankruptcy following the time their credit reports were turned over by Experian, according to the settlement. Because Experian insisted on a cap of $8 million for its total exposure, however, the plaintiffs acknowledged that "theoretically there could be so many claims that a pro-rata reduction could be required," a circumstance that the class members said could happen but that is "highly unlikely." Filed in 2011 by named plaintiff Roane Holman and later amended to include plaintiffs Narcisco Navarro Hernandez and Miguel A. Alvarez, the suit also claimed that Experian failed to verify that Finex was using the reports it received for a permissible purpose, even though Experian had reason to believe Finex was not doing so. Finex, a collection agency that specializes in collecting claims for towing companies, entered into a subscriber agreement with Experian in January 2008 that lasted until November 2010. During the course of the partnership, Finex received more than 40,000 Collection Advantage reports from Experian that contained credit information taken from the credit reporting agency's consumer credit database and contained a so-called recovery score that ranks accounts based on the likelihood debtors will pay the debt, according to court documents. Finex, which was named as a defendant in the original 2011 complaint, was removed after it agreed to turn over documents regarding its business relationship with Experian to help Holman in the case against the credit agency in exchange for Holman dropping her claims against Finex, according to court documents. The heads of Finex alleged they asked Experian if they were getting information they were not supposed to in light of a 2009 decision by the Ninth Circuit in Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Association, which held that collection of a towing-related debt didn't provide a permissible purpose to obtain or furnish a credit report when it didn't constitute a transaction initiated by the consumer and wasn't a judicially established debt, according to court documents. Experian allegedly told Finex the reports were legal, a contention that Experian later disputed, according to court documents. An attorney representing the class members declined to comment Wednesday on the settlement, and attorneys for Experian were not immediately available for comment. The plaintiffs are represented by Andrew J. Ogilvie and Mark F. Anderson of Anderson Ogilvie & Brewer LLP and Balam Osberto Letona of the Law Offices of Balam O. Letona. Experian is represented by Daniel J. McLoon -- djmcloon@jonesday.com -- and Michael G. Morgan -- mgmorgan@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day. The case is Holman v. Experian Information Solutions Inc. et al., number 4:11-cv-00180, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. GENERAL CABLE: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuits in Kentucky ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation is facing shareholder lawsuits in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Two civil complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by named plaintiffs on behalf of purported classes of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities, in one case which was filed on October 21, 2013 between May 3, 2011 and October 14, 2013, inclusive, and in the other case, which was filed on December 4, 2013, between May 2, 2011 and November 4, 2013, inclusive, against the Company, Gregory Kenny, the company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian Robinson, its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. The complaints, which were transferred to the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky, allege claims under the anti-fraud and controlling person liability provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging generally, among other assertions, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding revenue recognition and other Company financial matters and failed to state material facts, including, among other things, that there was a lack of adequate internal controls, thereby artificially inflating the prices at which the company's securities traded. The complaints seek damages in undefined amounts, as well as attorney's fees, experts' fees and other costs. In addition, a derivative complaint was filed on January 7, 2014 in the Campbell County, Kentucky Circuit Court against all but one member of the company's Board of Directors, including Mr. Kenny, a former director and against Mr. Robinson and two former ROW officials, one of whom is a former executive officer of the Company. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly failing to ensure that the Company implemented and maintained adequate internal controls over its accounting and financial reporting functions and by knowingly disseminating to stockholders materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial results and internal controls. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, appropriate equitable relief to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, attorney's fees, experts' fees and other costs. GOOGLE INC: Hagens Berman Files Antitrust Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman, a consumer rights class-action law firm, on May 1 disclosed that it has filed a nationwide antitrust class-action lawsuit against Google claiming the search engine giant illegally monopolized, and financially and creatively stagnated the American market of internet and mobile search. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Google's monopoly of these markets stems from the company's purchasing of Android mobile operating system (Android OS) to maintain and expand its monopoly by pre-loading its own suite of applications onto the devices by way of secret Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADA). According to the suit, these agreements were hidden and marked to be viewed only by attorneys. According to the suit, Google's role in placing this suite of apps, including Google Play, and YouTube, among others, has hampered the market and kept the price of devices made by competing device manufactures like Samsung and HTC artificially high. "It's clear that Google has not achieved this monopoly through offering a better search engine, but through its strategic, anti-competitive placement, and it doesn't take a forensic economist to see that this is evidence of market manipulation," said Steve Berman, attorney representing consumers and founding partner of Hagens Berman. "Simply put, there is no lawful, pro- competitive reason for Google to condition licenses to pre-load popular Google apps like this." The complaint claims that if device manufacturers bound by Google's distribution agreements were free to choose a default search engine other than Google, the overall quality of Internet search would improve. "The more use an internet or mobile search engine gets, the better it performs based on that use," Mr. Berman said. "Instead of finding a way to legitimately out-compete other internet and mobile search providers, they instead decided to choke off competition through this cynical, anti-consumer scheme." The complaint notes that Google's monopoly not only suppresses its competition but also keeps the company itself from improving. "This comes down to a combination of Google's power in the U.S. general mobile search market and their power in the realm of tablet and smartphone manufacturers," Mr. Berman said. "As a result of the pricing conspiracy, everyone loses. Google and its competitors face an uncompetitive, stagnant market, and consumers are forced into one option." According to the lawsuit, Google's MADAs are contracts in restraint of trade that are designed to maintain and extend its monopolies in general search and handheld general search. The lawsuit claims Google is in violation of a variety of federal and state antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California Cartwright Act and California Unfair Competition Law. The named plaintiffs include Gary Feitelson, a resident of Louisville, Kentucky and owner of an HTC EVO 3D mobile phone, and Daniel McKee, a resident of Des Moines, Iowa and owner of a Samsung Galaxy S III mobile phone. According to the complaint, in both situations, the owners' phones should have cost less and had better search capabilities as the result of competition that would have ensued, had Google's MADA restraints not existed. The lawsuit seeks to represent all U.S. purchasers of any Android OS mobile telephone or tablet as to which Google and the manufacturer of such device has entered into a contract or contracts, including the MADA, by which Google has conditioned the right to pre-load any application from a suite of Google applications on to manufacturer's mandatory acceptance. The lawsuit seeks damages for individuals who have purchased these devices at an artificially high price due to Google's alleged price-fixing, anticompetitive restrictions. Concerned consumers are encouraged to contact a Hagens Berman attorney by emailing Google@hbsslaw.com or calling (206) 623- 7292. Additional information about the investigation is available at http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases-and-investigations/cases/Google About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices nine cities. HEALTH NET: Removes MFLC Classification Suit to Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Health Net, Inc. removed a case relating to the independent contractor classification of Military Family Life Consultants from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to the company's March 3, 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 three related litigation matters pending in Washington state court and California federal court relating to the independent contractor classification of Military Family Life Consultants ("MFLCs") who contracted with the company's subsidiary, Managed Health Network Government Services, Inc. ("MHNGS"), to provide short-term, non-medical counseling at U.S. military installations throughout the country. On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and MHN Services d/b/a MHN Services Corporation (also a subsidiary), on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of current and former MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors in the state of Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors under Washington law and are entitled to the wages and overtime pay that they would have received had they been classified as non- exempt employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. The company moved to compel the case to arbitration, and the court denied the motion on September 30, 2011. The company appealed the decision. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision on August 15, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the company removed this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. HEALTH NET: Pursues Arbitration of Cal. MFLF Classification Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Health Net, Inc. is pursuing to compel arbitration in a suit pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California over the classification of Military Family Life Consultants, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington action, as well as twelve other named plaintiffs, filed a proposed collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. They also seek penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court has since transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Northern District of California") to relate it to a virtually identical suit filed on October 2, 2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health Network, Inc. ("MHN") (also a subsidiary). The October 2012 Northern District of California suit alleges misclassification under the FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class, as well under several state laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in California, New Mexico, Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and North Carolina. On October 24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll the statutes of limitations for overtime violations in the following states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. On November 1, 2012, the company moved to compel arbitration in the Northern District of California, and the court denied the motion on April 3, 2013. The company noticed its appeal of that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 8, 2013. On April 25, 2013, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional FLSA collective action certification to allow notice to be sent to the FLSA collective action members. The court stayed all other proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. On September 13, 2013, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal based on collateral estoppel in light of the Washington Supreme Court's August 15, 2013 ruling. The company opposed that motion. The appeal and Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss are currently pending. HEALTH NET: June 4 Hearing Set in Info Security Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- A final approval hearing is set June 4, 2014 for the settlement of three related litigation matters pending against Health Net, Inc. in California state and federal courts relating to information security issues, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On January 21, 2011, International Business Machines Corp. ("IBM"), which handles the company's data center operations, notified the company that it could not locate several hard disk drives that had been used in the company's data center located in Rancho Cordova, California. The company since determined that personal information of approximately two million former and current Health Net members, employees and health care providers is on the drives. Commencing on March 14, 2011, the company provided written notification to the individuals whose information is on the drives. To help protect the personal information of affected individuals, the company offered them two years of free credit monitoring services, in addition to identity theft insurance and fraud resolution and restoration of credit files services, if needed. On March 18, 2011, a putative class action relating to this incident was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "Central District of California"), and similar actions were later filed against the company in other federal and state courts in California. A number of those actions were transferred to and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (the "Eastern District of California"), and the two remaining actions are currently pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco ("San Francisco County Superior Court") and the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento ("Sacramento County Superior Court"). The consolidated amended complaint in the federal action pending in the Eastern District of California was filed on behalf of a putative class of over 800,000 of the company's current or former members who received the written notification, and also named IBM as a defendant. It sought to state claims for violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the California Customer Records Act, and sought statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each class member, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and other relief. On August 29, 2011, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On January 20, 2012, the district court issued an order dismissing the consolidated complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their action in federal court. On April 20, 2012, an amended complaint with a new plaintiff was filed against the company but no longer asserted claims against IBM. The amended complaint asserted the same causes of action and sought the same relief as the earlier complaint. On June 18, 2012, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which is currently pending. The San Francisco County Superior Court proceeding was instituted on March 28, 2011 and is brought on behalf of a putative class of California residents who received the written notification, and seeks to state similar claims against the company, as well as claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeks similar relief. The company moved to compel arbitration of the two named plaintiffs' claims. The court granted the company's motion as to one of the named plaintiffs and denied it as to the other. The company appealed the latter ruling, but subsequently dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the plaintiff as to whom the company's motion to compel arbitration was granted filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal seeking review of that ruling. On July 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Superior Court to vacate its order granting the motion to compel arbitration and to enter an order denying the motion to compel. The Sacramento County Superior Court proceeding was instituted on April 3, 2012 and is brought on behalf of a putative class of California members whose information was contained on the unaccounted for drives. The action contains the same claims and seeks the same relief as the case pending in the Eastern District of California. On June 18, 2012, the company filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of this complaint, which is currently pending. In July 2013, the company entered into a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiffs in the three putative class actions described above. On October 23, 2013, counsel for the named plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement with the Sacramento County Superior Court. The Court granted that motion on November 21, 2013, and has scheduled the final approval hearing for June 4, 2014. On January 21, 2014, notices were sent to class members advising them of the Settlement Agreement and providing them with information regarding the benefits available to them, as well as their rights to object or opt out of the Settlement Agreement. In the event the Settlement Agreement receives final approval, each of the three putative class actions described will be dismissed with prejudice, and all class members who do not opt out will release all claims they may have related to or arising from the unaccounted-for server drives. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which would cover all individuals whose personal information was identified as being on the unaccounted-for server drives, class members who did not previously accept the company's offer of the credit monitoring and related services described would be eligible to receive such credit monitoring and related services for a period of two years at no cost to them. Class members who previously accepted the company's original offer would be eligible to receive one additional year of such services. In addition, under the Settlement Agreement, class members would be eligible to receive reimbursement for certain unreimbursed losses arising from identity theft during a specified time period, up to a cap of $50,000 per class member, and $2 million in the aggregate. The Settlement Agreement also provides that the company will continue the company's ongoing activities to enhance the company's information security measures, including the encryption of data at rest on the company's servers and storage area networks. The company will also be responsible for the payment of the award by the Sacramento County Superior Court of approximately $2.3 million in fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel for the three class actions. Finally, the company will be responsible for the costs of administering the Settlement Agreement. In the event that the Sacramento County Superior Court does not grant final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and the parties are unable to negotiate a revised settlement agreement that is finally approved by the Court, the pending litigation described will continue. In the event the Settlement Agreement described receives final approval, the company does not believe that the terms of the Settlement Agreement would have a material impact on the company's consolidated financial statements. HEADWATERS INC: Hearing This Month on "Edwards" Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion for preliminary approval of a settlement reached in a suit filed by James W. Edwards against Headwaters Incorporated is set to be heard by the United States District Court for the District of Utah in May 2014, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In May 2013, James W. Edwards, purportedly a stockholder of Headwaters Incorporated, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against current and former members of the Board of Directors of the Company and against Headwaters Incorporated. The complaint alleges that the Board breached its fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets in connection with the Compensation Committee's grant of certain stock appreciation rights to the Company's Chief Executive Officer in November 2011 under the 2010 Incentive Plan (Plan). The complaint alleges that the 2011 grant exceeded Plan limits and that the 2013 Proxy Statement in connection with the Company's 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders contained false and misleading information concerning the 2011 grant. The complaint seeks an order rescinding the 2011 grant, unspecified damages and other remedies, plus interest, attorney fees, and costs. The complaint is brought derivatively on behalf of Headwaters Incorporated and as a purported class action on behalf of all shareholders of record as of December 31, 2012. Defendants filed their initial response to the complaint in January 2014. The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in February 2014 and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement is set to be heard by the District Court in May 2014. If an order of preliminary approval is granted, the parties will proceed with additional steps towards a settlement and thereafter file a motion for final approval of the settlement. HEADWATERS INC: Ruling in Suit Over Davidson Technology Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee with regards to compensatory damages award in a suit related to a synthetic fuel technology invented by James G. Davidson, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In 1998, Headwaters entered into a technology purchase agreement with James G. Davidson and Adtech, Inc. The transaction transferred certain patent and royalty rights to Headwaters related to a synthetic fuel technology invented by Davidson. In 2002, Headwaters received a summons and complaint from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee filed by former stockholders of Adtech alleging, among other things, fraud, conspiracy, constructive trust, conversion, patent infringement and interference with contract arising out of the 1998 technology purchase agreement entered into between Davidson and Adtech on the one hand, and Headwaters on the other. All claims against Headwaters were dismissed in pretrial proceedings except claims of conspiracy and constructive trust. The District Court certified a class comprised of substantially all purported stockholders of Adtech, Inc. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages from Headwaters in the approximate amount of $43.0 million plus prejudgment interest and punitive damages. In June 2009, a jury reached a verdict in a trial in the amount of $8.7 million for the eight named plaintiffs representing a portion of the class members. In September 2010, a jury reached a verdict after a trial for the remaining 46 members of the class in the amount of $7.3 million. In April 2011, the trial court entered an order for a constructive trust in the amount of approximately $16.0 million (the same amount as the sum of the previous jury verdicts), and entered judgment against Headwaters in the total approximate amount of $16.0 million, in accordance with the verdicts and order on constructive trust. Headwaters filed a supersedeas bond and a notice of appeal from the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Plaintiffs also filed notice of an appeal. The Federal Circuit transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on the basis of jurisdiction. A panel of the Sixth Circuit held oral arguments in March 2013 and in April 2014 affirmed the judgment of the District Court in a divided decision. HEADWATERS INC: Suit by Archstone v. Eldorado Stone in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is underway in a complaint filed by Archstone in the Nassau County Supreme Court of the State of New York, seeking among others, class action defense fees accrued as a result of construction damage to its apartment complex, according to Headwaters Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Archstone owns an apartment complex in Westbury, New York. Archstone alleges that moisture penetrated the building envelope and damaged moisture sensitive parts of the buildings which began to rot and grow mold. In 2008, Archstone evicted its tenants and began repairing the 21 apartment buildings. Also in 2008, Archstone filed a complaint in the Nassau County Supreme Court of the State of New York against the prime contractor and its performance bond surety, the designer, and Eldorado Stone, LLC which supplied architectural stone that was installed by others during construction. The prime contractor then sued over a dozen subcontractors who in turn sued others. Most parties filed cross- claims for contribution and indemnity against Eldorado Stone and others. Archstone claims as damages approximately $36.0 million in repair costs, $19.0 million in lost lease payments and rent abatement, $7.0 million paid to tenants who sued Archstone, and $7.0 million for class action defense fees, plus prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. Eldorado Stone answered denying liability and tendered the matter to its insurers who are paying for the defense of the case. Eldorado Stone sought summary judgment on three of Archstone's four claims. After an interlocutory appeal, the three claims were dismissed. Archstone is seeking further review. The remaining Archstone claim of common law indemnification applies to damages paid to the tenants and associated attorney's fees. Meanwhile, discovery is underway. HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Has MoU to Settle Litigation Over Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Heritage Financial Corporation entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for the settlement of the putative shareholder class action lawsuit In Re Washington Banking Company Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 13-2-38689-5 SEA, according to Heritage's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On April 4, 2014, Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs providing the terms of an agreement in principle among Washington Banking, its directors, Heritage and the plaintiffs for the settlement of the putative shareholder class action lawsuit captioned In Re Washington Banking Company Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 13-2-38689-5 SEA, pending before the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County (the "Action"). The Action alleges that Washington Banking's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Washington Banking and its shareholders in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 23, 2013 (the "Merger Agreement"), under which Washington Banking and Heritage will combine their organizations in a strategic combination, with Washington Banking merging with and into Heritage (the "Merger"). The Action also alleges, among other things, that Heritage aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Washington Banking's directors and that the public disclosures concerning the Merger are misleading in various respects. Under the terms of the MOU, plaintiffs' counsel also has reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs. If the Court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. There can be no assurance, however, that the parties will ultimately enter into a definitive settlement agreement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties enter into such an agreement. In the absence of either event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. The settlement of the Action will not affect the Merger consideration to be paid to Washington Banking's shareholders in connection with the proposed Merger. IMPERVA INC: Issued False and Misleading Statements, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Viswanath V. Shankar, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Imperva, Inc., Shlomo Kramer and Terrence J. Schmid, Case No. 4:14-cv-01680-PJH (N.D. Cal., April 11, 2014) alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations and business and its financial results. Imperva is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Redwood Shores, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Imperva provides data security solutions focused on providing visibility and control over business data across systems within the data center. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 110 West A Street, Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 255-1856 E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com KANE COUNTY, IL: Farmers Insurance Files Flood Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Schory, writing for Kane County Chronicle, reports that Farmers Insurance Co. is suing Kane County and 12 of its municipalities in a class-action lawsuit, alleging that the local governments failed to take adequate steps to prevent flood damage from torrential rains in April 2013. Farmers Insurance sues Kane, municipalities over 2013 flooding Also named in similar class-action lawsuits filed are Cook, Will, DuPage, Lake and McHenry counties and all or nearly all their municipalities. The Kane lawsuit -- filed on behalf of the insurance company, those insured with the company and property owners who sustained extensive flood damage -- alleges the county and local governments had "adequate time and opportunity" to take action before the flooding that took place April 17 and 18, 2013. Named as defendants are Kane County, Batavia, Geneva, St. Charles, North Aurora, Sugar Grove, South Elgin, Gilberts, Aurora, Montgomery, Elgin, Dundee Township and Big Rock. The suit claims that local governments ignored the effects of climate change on rainfall and took no steps, or inadequate ones, to address the problem. "During the past 40 years, climate change in Kane County has caused rains to be of greater volume, greater intensity and greater duration than pre-1970 rainfall history evidenced," according to the lawsuit. "Rendering the rainfall frequency return tables employed by the reclamation district and each named municipal defendant inaccurate and obsolete." As recently as 2008, municipalities "adopted the scientific principle that climate change caused increases in rainfall amount, intensity and duration . . . as evidenced by their adoption of the Chicago Climate Action Plan," the lawsuit states. Last April's rains were "not an 'Act of God' " but within "the climate-change adjusted 100-year rainfall return frequency, relating to the Chicago Climate Action Plan." "Many sanitary sewer water invasions . . . were so rapid that geysers of sewer water shot out from floor drains, toilets, showers and other basement floor openings," the suit states. Farmers attorney Stuart Brody did not return phone messages seeking comment. Trent Frager, spokesman for Farmers Insurance, would not say how much the company is trying to recover in damages. Mr. Frager said the company filed the lawsuit because officials believe the damage caused was "completely preventable." "Farmers has taken what we believe is the necessary action to recover payments made on behalf of our customers, for damages caused by what we believe to be a completely preventable issue, as well as to prevent it from happening again," Mr. Frager said in a statement. Kane County Chairman Chris Lauzen and Geneva Mayor Kevin Burns said they had not seen the complaint and could not comment about it. Sugar Grove Village President Sean Michels said he knew of only a handful of houses in a couple of subdivisions that were flooded last year. He said there were fewer flooding incidents because the village had taken steps to mitigate them. "I wonder why they're in the insurance business if they do not want to assume the risk," Mr. Michels said. "Obviously, this is something the attorneys will get wealthy over, and we will pay higher premiums." "Anybody can sue anybody for anything," Batavia Mayor Jeff Schielke said. "After the 1996 flood event, Batavia spent several million dollars and totally rebuilt much of our sewer systems," Mr. Schielke said. "Every area that was impacted, we spent the money . . . and have not had any major problems I'm aware of in recent years." Mr. Schielke said building additional flood control measures would amount to a major property tax hike to pay for it. The case is scheduled to be in Kane County Court on July 3. LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on May 1 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Lihua International, Inc. common stock during the period from August 9, 2012 through April 30, 2014, seeking to recover damages for violations of the federal securities laws. To join the Lihua class action, visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. 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 Lihua and certain of its officers and directors for issuing false and misleading statements about the Company's business and financial condition. The Complaint alleges that: (1) Lihua's business experienced a significant downturn starting from late 2012; (2) Lihua's production activities slowed down dramatically in 2013, and have almost ceased after January 31, 2014; (3) Lihua's warehouse has been seized by the local PRC court; (4) Defendant Jianhua Zhu, Lihua's Chairman and CEO, attempted to move inventory in order to hide them from creditors, and is now being investigated by the police for larceny. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 30, 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 Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@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. LIN MEDIA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger With Media General ---------------------------------------------------------------- International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. LIN Media LLC, John R. Muse, Royal W. Carson III, Peter S. Brodsky, William H. Cunningham, Vincent L. Sadusky, Michael A. Pausic, Douglas W. McCormick, William S. Banowsky, Jr., HM Capital Partners LLC, Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund III, L.P., HM3 Coinvestors, L.P. Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund IV, L.P., Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Private Equity Fund IV, L.P., HM4-EQ Coinvestors, L.P., Hicks, Muse & Co. Partners, L.P., Muse Family Enterprises, Ltd., JRM Interim Investors, L.P., Media General, Inc., Mercury New Holdco, Inc., Mercury Merger Sub 1, Inc., Mercury Merger Sub 2, LLC, Case No. 9538-VCN (Del. Ch. Ct., April 15, 2014) alleges that the Board of Directors of LIN Media violated fiduciary duties to all LIN Media Stockholders. The case arises, according to the complaint, because HM Capital Partners LLC, which is reportedly shutting down and, thus, looking to liquidate its portfolio investments, has used its control of the Lin Media Board to ensure that a corporate sale to Media General will let HMC exchange its entire Lin Media stake for cash, while the Company's public investors are left to accept principally Media General stock. Private equity firm HM Capital, previously known as Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst, Inc., HM Capital co-founder and Lin Media director John Muse together hold approximately 38% of the economic interests of Lin Media. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Pension Fund is a holder of LIN Media LLC's Class A Common Stock. LIN Media LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. LIN Media is a local multimedia company that operates or services 43 television stations and seven digital channels across 23 markets in the United States, enabling it to reach 10.5% of U.S. homes that have a television. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Media General, Inc., is a Virginia corporation that owns and operates 31 network-affiliated broadcast television stations in 28 US markets. Mercury New Holdco, Inc., a Virginia corporation, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Media General, but will be the resulting parent company if the proposed merger with LIN Media is consummated. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart M. Grant, Esq. Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq. Jeff A. Almeida, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street, Suite 700 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com gjarvis@gelaw.com jalmeida@gelaw.com - and - Mark Lebovitch, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com LIN MEDIA: Sued in Delaware Over Proposed Media General Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Pryor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lin Media LLC, John R. Muse, Royal W. Carson III, Peter S. Brodsky, William H. Cunningham, Vincent L. Sadusky, Michael A. Pausic, Douglas W. Mccormick, William S. Banowsky, Jr., HM Capital Partners LLC, Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund III, L.P., HM3 Coinvestors, L.P. Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund IV, L.P., Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Private Equity Fund IV, L.P., HM4-EQ Coinvestors, L.P., Hicks, Muse & Co. Partners, L.P., Muse Family Enterprises, Ltd., JRM Interim Investors, L.P., Media General, Inc., Mercury New Holdco, Inc., Mercury Merger Sub 1, Inc., Mercury Merger Sub 2, LLC, Case No. 9577-VCN (Del. Ch. Ct., April 25, 2014) arises from the merger of the Company with Media General. On March 21, 2014, the Lin Media Board approved a merger transaction in which Media General ostensibly agreed to pay $27.82 per Lin Media share. LIN Media LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. LIN Media is a local multimedia company that operates or services 43 television stations and seven digital channels across 23 markets in the United States, enabling it to reach 10.5% of U.S. homes that have a television. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Media General, Inc., is a Virginia corporation that owns and operates 31 network-affiliated broadcast television stations in 28 US markets. Mercury New Holdco, Inc., a Virginia corporation, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Media General, but will be the resulting parent company if the proposed merger with LIN Media is consummated. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart M. Grant, Esq. Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq. Jeff A. Almeida, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street, Suite 700 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com gjarvis@gelaw.com jalmeida@gelaw.com - and - Mark C. Gardy, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: (201) 567-7377 E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com LIVE NATION: Sued Over Bruce Springsteen's Wrecking Ball Tour ------------------------------------------------------------- Marilyn Forst, on behalf of herself and the Putative class v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., Live Nation Concerts, Live Nation Ticketing LLC and ABC Corp. 1- 20, Case No. 3:14-cv-02452-AET-TJB (D.N.J., April 17, 2014) alleges that Live Nation withheld more than 5% of the tickets available for the Bruce Springsteen's 2012 Wrecking Ball tour, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq. Greg Michael Kohn, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 201 Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 Facsimile: (973) 618-9194 E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com gkohn@nagelrice.com MANNKIND CORP: Cal. Securities Lawsuit Closes After Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Consolidated Securities Action against MannKind Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has now concluded after it settled for $16.0 million, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Beginning January 31, 2011, several complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and four of the company's officers -- Alfred E. Mann, Hakan S. Edstrom, Dr. Peter C. Richardson (a former officer) and Matthew J. Pfeffer -- on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's common stock. The complaints include claims asserted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and were brought as purported shareholder class actions. In general, the complaints alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and prospects for AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California consolidated the pending actions for all purposes. The consolidated action is referred to as the Securities Action. On July 23, 2012, the Company, while continuing to deny all allegations of wrongdoing or liability whatsoever arising out of the Securities Action, and without in any way admitting fault or liability, entered into a stipulation of settlement to resolve the Securities Action. The current and former officers and directors named as individual defendants in the consolidated lawsuits also entered into the stipulation of settlement. In exchange for a release of all claims by the class members, among others, and a dismissal of the consolidated lawsuits, the Company agreed (i) to cause the Company's insurers to pay class members and their attorneys a total of $16.0 million; and (ii) to issue to class members and their attorneys 2,777,778 shares of the Company's common stock. The Company also agreed that if the consolidated closing bid price for the Company's common stock is below $1.00 per share on the date the U.S. District Court enters an order of final judgment, then the Company will issue into the Escrow Account an additional 1,000,000 shares of its common stock. On September 12, 2012, the U.S. District Court preliminarily approved the settlement. On December 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued the Order and Final Judgment, providing final approval of the settlement for the securities action. The Order and Final Judgment consisted of requiring the Company to cause its insurers to pay $16.0 million and to issue the 2,777,778 shares of its common stock in accordance with the stipulation of settlement. The Order and Final Judgment did not include the requirement of the Company to issue the additional 1,000,000 shares of its common stock. In late September and in early October, following the preliminary approval of the settlement, the Company's insurers remitted payment of the $16.0 million into the Escrow Account. On December 31, 2012, following final approval of the settlement, the Company initiated the transfer of the 2,777,778 shares of its common stock into the Escrow Account. The stock transfer settled on January 2, 2013. The shares were issued pursuant to an exemption from registration provided by Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. As of December 31, 2012, the Securities Action was concluded. MASTERCARD INC: Dismissal of ATM Operators Complaints Appealed -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the "ATM Operators Complaint" have appealed the dismissal of both their complaints and their motion to amend their complaints against Mastercard Inc. and Visa Inc., according to Mastercard's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint"). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM Consumer Complaints"). The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints that largely mirror their prior complaints. MasterCard moved to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. In February 2013, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the complaints. The plaintiffs' motion seeking approval to amend their complaints was denied by the district court in December 2013. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of both their complaints and their motion to amend their complaints. MASTERCARD INC: Interchange Litigation Continues in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ MasterCard International Incorporated continues to face a consolidated interchange litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (MDL No. 1720), according to Mastercard Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints are styled as class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in the complaints are generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state law. The complaints allege, among other things, that MasterCard, Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services. The cases have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action complaint that seeks treble damages, as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. MASTERCARD INC: U.S. Securities Suit Settlement Faces Objections ---------------------------------------------------------------- The court granted final approval to a settlement reached in a securities suit filed against Mastercard Inc. in the United States, and objectors have filed appeals against the settlement, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release, without adequate consideration, MasterCard's right to assess them for MasterCard's litigation liabilities. In November 2008, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its entirety with leave to file an amended complaint. The class plaintiffs repled their complaint. The causes of action and claims for relief in the complaint generally mirror those in the plaintiffs' original IPO- related complaint although the plaintiffs have attempted to expand their factual allegations based upon discovery that has been garnered in the case. The class plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. In July 2009, the class plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs served confidential expert reports detailing the plaintiffs' theories of liability and alleging damages in the tens of billions of dollars. The defendants served their expert reports in December 2009 rebutting the plaintiffs' assertions both with respect to liability and damages. In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International Incorporated entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing agreement with a number of financial institutions. The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which MasterCard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant litigations. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the financial institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a settlement involving only MasterCard and the financial institutions with respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards, MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement. In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation and the defendants separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs (the terms of which were consistent with a memorandum of understanding that was executed by the parties in July 2012). The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement. MasterCard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its business practices, including its No Surcharge Rule. The court granted final approval of the settlement in December 2013, which has been appealed by objectors to the settlement. Merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the MasterCard and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the class settlement. MasterCard anticipates that most of the larger merchants who opted out of the settlement will initiate separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 25 opt-out complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in various jurisdictions. Those cases are in the early stages and the defendants have consolidated all of these matters (except for one state court action) in front of the same court that is overseeing the approval of the settlement. In addition, certain competitors have raised objections to the settlement, including Discover. Discover's objections include a challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain of the rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. MasterCard recorded a pre-tax charge of $770 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 and an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in the second quarter of 2012 relating to the settlement agreements. In 2012, MasterCard paid $790 million with respect to the settlements, of which $726 million was paid into a qualified cash settlement fund related to the merchant class litigation. At December 31, 2013, MasterCard had $723 million in the qualified cash settlement fund classified as restricted cash on its balance sheet. The class settlement agreement provided for a return to the defendants of a portion of the class cash settlement fund based upon the percentage of purchase volume represented by the opt out merchants. This resulted in $164 million from the cash settlement fund being returned to MasterCard in January 2014 and reclassified at that time from restricted cash to cash and cash equivalents. In the fourth quarter of 2013, MasterCard recorded an incremental net pre-tax charge of $95 million related to these opt out merchants, representing a change in its estimate of possible losses relating to these matters. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2013, MasterCard had accrued a liability of $818 million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt out merchant cases. The portion of the accrued liability relating to the opt out merchants does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the opt out merchant matters were litigated to a final outcome, in which case MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability. MasterCard's estimate involves significant judgment and may change depending on progress in settlement negotiations or depending upon decisions in any opt out merchant cases. In addition, in the event that the merchant class litigation settlement approval is overturned on appeal, a negative outcome in the litigation could have a material adverse effect on MasterCard's results of operations, financial position and cash flows. MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Face Merchant Fees Suit in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- MasterCard Inc. provides updates on purported class actions filed against it in Canada alleging it engaged in a conspiracy to increase or maintain fees paid by merchants on credit card transactions at its May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In December 2010, the Canadian Competition Bureau (the "CCB") filed an application with the Canadian Competition Tribunal to strike down certain MasterCard rules related to point-of-sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge" rules. In July 2013, the Competition Tribunal issued a decision in MasterCard's favor and dismissed the CCB's application, which was not appealed. In December 2010, a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit was commenced against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of the CCB application to the Canadian Competition Tribunal and sought compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In March 2011, a second purported class action lawsuit was commenced in British Columbia against MasterCard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial institutions, and in May 2011 a third purported class action lawsuit was commenced in Ontario against the same defendants. These suits allege that MasterCard, Visa and the financial institutions have engaged in a conspiracy to increase or maintain the fees paid by merchants on credit card transactions and establish rules which force merchants to accept all MasterCard and Visa credit cards and prevent merchants from charging more for payments with MasterCard and Visa premium cards. The British Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5 billion. The British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and legal costs. In April 2012, the Quebec suit was amended to include the same defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia and Ontario suits. With respect to the status of the proceedings: (1) the Quebec suit has been stayed, (2) the Ontario suit is being temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds, and (3) the British Columbia court held a class certification hearing in April 2013. Additional complaints styled as class actions have been filed in Saskatchewan and Alberta. The claims in these complaints largely mirror the claims in the British Columbia and Ontario suits. MARICOPA COLLEGE DISTRICT: Sued Over Security Breach ---------------------------------------------------- Greg Argos, writing for CBS5, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against the Maricopa County Community College District alleging the district has not done enough for the victim's of last year's security breach. The complaint, filed April 28, alleges the district had known about vulnerabilities in its information technology systems for years, but had "negligently, recklessly and/or knowingly failed to take appropriate steps to remediate those vulnerabilities." "In broad brush strokes, we are asking for compensation for the victims, (and) protection for the victims," said Mark Fuller, an attorney for Gallagher & Kennedy, the firm which filed the complaint. Mr. Fuller described the information exposed as much more than simple credit card numbers. "It's a gift-wrapped pack of information," he said. "It's dates of birth, addresses, names, social security numbers and a wide variety of other information, some of which has not been disclosed by the district. We still don't know the full extent of (the breach)," he said. One of the plaintiffs named in the complaint is Gary Vigneault. Mr. Vigneault, a retired Phoenix police officer, both attended and was an adjunct professor at MCCCD. He said his information has been used by identity thieves to open credit cards, and even file a tax return under his name. If a judge certifies the complaint, the district could be forced to pay $2,500 per person. That would equal more than $6 billion in pay outs, though that is unlikely as a final settlement. Maricopa County Community Colleges refused repeated requests from CBS 5 News for an on-camera interview. Rather, spokesperson Tom Gariepy released this written statement: "We don't comment on the merits of a lawsuit that has been filed except to say that we are prepared to defend the case vigorously." Gallagher & Kennedy attorneys plan to be back in the courtroom on Monday, urging a Superior Court judge to move forward with their application to get MCCCD to produce public records in conjunction with their data breach case. MAZDA MOTOR: Accused of Selling Vehicles With Defective Engines --------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Paschal, individually, and on behalf' of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-00594-AG-RNB (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2014) is brought on behalf of all persons in the state of California, who purchased or leased a 2004-2008 Mazda RX8 vehicle, manufactured, distributed, and sold by Mazda Motor of America, Inc., and its related subsidiaries or affiliates. Because of defects in the design, manufacture, and assembly of the engines installed in the Class Vehicles, the Class Vehicles, and their engines, are by their nature susceptible to frequent mechanical failure, Ms. Paschal contends. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., is a California corporation. Mazda designs, manufactures, constructs, assembles, markets, distributes, and sells automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States of America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen M. Harris, Esq. KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: (818) 547-5000 Facsimile: (818) 547-5329 E-mail: smh@kpclegal.com - and - Robert L. Starr, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23277 Ventura Boulevard Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1002 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: robert@starrlawmail.com MEDTRONIC INC: Settles Infuse Product Liability Suits for $22MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alexander, writing for Star Tribune, reports that in a first of its kind settlement, Medtronic said on May 6 it would pay $22 million to end product liability lawsuits involving 950 people who used its controversial Infuse Bone Graft product. But that appears to be only the beginning. The Fridley-based medical device company said 3,800 similar claims, some of them not yet filed, could create settlement costs for it of $120 million to $140 million. It plans to take a special charge for those costs against the results of its recently-completed fiscal fourth quarter. Plaintiffs' attorneys allege the Infuse Bone Graft caused injury after being used in ways that weren't approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. When the FDA approved Infuse in 2002, it was for use in the lower back. But many of the claims against Medtronic allege that patients suffered ill-effects when Infuse was used on bones in other parts of the body, such as the neck. In addition, some of the suits allege that Medtronic misled doctors about the safety of using Infuse for these so-called "off label," or non-FDA-approved uses. Doctors are free to use medical products as they see fit, but medical device makers such as Medtronic are not supposed to market the product for off-label purposes. In one of the product liability suits filed in Minnesota, Hennepin County Judge Laurie Miller noted that a doctor was willing to testify that Medtronic-affiliated physicians misrepresented the safety of Infuse in non-FDA-approved uses. The settlements follow a report last year that two independent university studies found Medtronic overstated the benefits of Infuse. And in 2012, Medtronic agreed to an out-of-court settlement in which it paid $85 million to disgruntled investors who said the company had inflated its stock price by not disclosing that Infuse was being used largely in ways that were not approved by the government. The product liability settlements also are occurring at a time when Medtronic had begun losing one of its most effective arguments for avoiding trials in the Infuse cases. It had invoked U.S. Supreme Court decisions that usually exclude people injured by federally-approved medical devices from suing their makers, convincing judges that the company was protected by law from the Infuse suits. But judges in some state and federal courts decided to let Infuse cases go forward because of the special circumstances involved: the bone grafts were used in ways not approved by the FDA. Still, Medtronic in April avoided trial in the first Infuse product liability case to get that far. It won a summary judgment after the plaintiff dropped Medtronic from her product liability lawsuit in California Superior Court; she continued to sue other medical companies in connection with her injuries. The university studies critical of Medtronic came about after spine experts and U.S. lawmakers charged that Medtronic-sponsored studies of Infuse overstated the product's benefits and downplayed its risks. To clear the air, Medtronic commissioned two independent reviews. Last June, the reviews, conducted by University of York in England and at Oregon Health and Science University, concluded that Infuse was no more effective than the older, traditional method of spurring bone growth. But the Oregon group said that Medtronic-sponsored publications had reported Infuse test results in a way to make it look as if Infuse were more effective than traditional treatment. Medtronic said last June that the two studies confirmed what the company had long claimed: That Infuse was a safe and effective product, although it posed some risks that must be considered by patients and doctors. MISSOURI: Social Services Department Faces Medicaid Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Phillips, writing for KY3, reports that a Dallas County woman is at the front end of a $7.6 million dollar class action settlement with the Missouri Department of Social Services. Romona Willhoite is the named client in what became a 14,000 person class action Medicaid lawsuit in Willhoite v Missouri Department of Social Services, et al. Craig Heidemann -- cheidemann@bolivarlaw.com -- of Douglas, Haun and Heidemann in Bolivar was one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case. He says the state was violating federal law with its practice of placing liens on Medicaid recipients' personal injury settlements in order to recoup medical charges. The suit relied on the 2006 United Supreme Court decision, Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ahlborn. Mr. Heidemann says, "While the Department is legally obligated to seek reimbursement for medical charges it paid on behalf of Medicaid recipients, federal law prohibits states from using certain methods to recover these funds. The State of Missouri recovered money from the settlements in excess of the amounts they received as reimbursement for their medical bills by asserting liens on their entire settlements." Mr. Heidemann says his clients won summary judgments from federal judges twice, which he says forced the state to the bargaining table for settlement talks. The settlement announced this week comes after a couple of months of negotiations. Mr. Heidemann says the 14,000 people come from Missouri and many other states. Under the terms of the settlement, the Missouri Department of Social Services will reimburse class members for amounts taken using the unlawful lien procedures. Additionally, the Department agreed to change its process for recovering funds from Medicaid clients. Mr. Heidemann says the individual settlement amounts range from $50 to as much as $50,000. MONSTER BEVERAGE: Works to Settle Securities Lawsuit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California entered an Order staying a consolidated securities suit against Monster Beverage Corporation to allow the parties time to complete their negotiations and to prepare and file papers seeking approval of any proposed settlement, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "District Court"). On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District Court. After the District Court consolidated the two actions and appointed the Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws was filed on August 28, 2009 (the "Consolidated Class Action Complaint"). The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007 (the "Class Period"). It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the Company's distribution coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. ("AB") and its sales of "Allied" energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public information. Plaintiff also alleged that the Company's financial statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain promotional expenses. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of damages. The District Court dismissed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend, on July 12, 2010. Plaintiff thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws on August 27, 2010 (the "Amended Class Action Complaint"). While similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint dropped certain of the allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and made certain new allegations, including that the Company engaged in "channel stuffing" during the Class Period that rendered false or misleading the Company's reported sales results and certain other statements made by the defendants. In addition, it no longer named Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant. On September 4, 2012, the District Court dismissed certain of the claims in the Amended Class Action Complaint, including plaintiff's allegations relating to promotional expenses, but denied defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the majority of plaintiff's claims, including plaintiff's channel stuffing allegations. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification on December 6, 2012, which the court denied, without prejudice, on January 17, 2014. Fact discovery in the action was stayed pending resolution of the class certification motion. Following a mediation conducted by an independent mediator, the parties are currently negotiating the terms of a possible settlement of the action. On February 11, 2014, the District Court entered an Order staying the action to allow the parties time to complete their negotiations and to prepare and file papers seeking approval of any proposed settlement. A status conference is scheduled for March 13, 2014. MONSTER BEVERAGE: Faces Lawsuit Over Monster Energy Label, Ad ------------------------------------------------------------- Monster Beverage Corporation has been named as a defendant in various false advertising putative class actions and in a private attorney general action, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly labeled and advertised Monster Energy brand products that allegedly were ineffective for the advertised benefits (including, but not limited to, an allegation that the products do not hydrate as advertised because they contain caffeine). The plaintiffs further allege that the Monster Energy brand products at issue are unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients that allegedly could result in illness, injury or death. In connection with these product safety allegations, the plaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequate warnings and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energy drink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure, palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects and/or that the products themselves are unsafe). Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state consumer protection statutes, including unfair competition and false advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, and, in some cases, injunctive relief. The Company regards these cases and allegations as having no merit. Furthermore, the Company is subject to litigation from time to time in the normal course of business, including intellectual property litigation and claims from terminated distributors. Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of such litigation, based on the facts known to the Company, management believes that such litigation in the aggregate will likely not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Mass. Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a hearing on the motion of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. to dismiss a securities suit filed against it, but the court has not yet issued a decision, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Jan. 31, 2013. On June 11, 2012, the company announced the pending restatement of the Company's financial statements for the periods ending on or before January 31, 2012 (the "June 11, 2012 Announcement"), related to the Company's accounting treatment of rebates associated with volume discounts provided by vendors. The restated financial statements were filed on January 11, 2013. After the June 11, 2012 Announcement, stockholders of the Company commenced three purported class actions in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts arising from the circumstances described in the June 11, 2012 Announcement (the "Securities Actions"), entitled, respectively: (i) Irene Collier, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11044-DJC, filed June 12, 2012 (the "Collier Action"); (ii) Alexander Shnerer Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11078-DJC, filed June 18, 2012 (the "Shnerer Action"); and (iii) Harold Heszkel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler, and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11279-DJC, filed July 11, 2012 (the "Heszkel Action"). Each of the Securities Actions purports to be brought on behalf of those persons who purchased shares of the Company between September 26, 2007 through and including June 8, 2012 (the "Class Period") and alleges that failure to timely disclose the issues raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement during the Class Period rendered defendants' public statements concerning the Company's financial condition materially false and misleading in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Securities Actions. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 11, 2013. On November 8, 2013, the Court held a hearing on the Company's motion, but it has not yet issued a decision. MOODY'S CORP: Appeal Filed in Now Settled "Cheyne SIV" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Two plaintiffs whose claims were not covered by a settlement reached in a suit filed by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank against subsidiaries of Moody's Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the Court's denial of class certification, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were subsequently added to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19, 2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11 plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody's for aiding and abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on November 7, 2012, the court granted two of these motions, reinstating the claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed. On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013. On April 24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements, the 14 plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these claims as against all defendants, and the Court so ordered that stipulation on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover certain claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed by the Court. On May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their claims and also seeking reversal of the Court's denial of class certification. According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in earlier proceedings, they seek approximately $76 million in total compensatory damages in connection with the two claims at issue on the appeal. MOODY'S CORP: Rhinebridge SIV Rating Suits Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement in a suit over the rating of securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Rhinebridge Plc, plaintiffs stipulated to the voluntary dismissal of putative class actions, according to Moody's Corp.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In October 2009, plaintiffs King County, Washington and Iowa Student Loan Liquidity Corporation each filed substantially identical putative class actions in the Southern District of New York against two subsidiaries of the Company and several other defendants, including two other rating agencies and IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG. These actions arose out of investments in securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Rhinebridge Plc (the "Rhinebridge SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. Each complaint asserted a claim for common law fraud against the rating agency defendants, alleging, among other things, that the credit ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Rhinebridge SIV were false and misleading. The case was assigned to the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. In April 2010, the court denied the rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss. In June 2010, the court consolidated the two cases and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things, added Morgan Stanley & Co. as a defendant. In January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that asserted claims against the rating agency defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the new claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim and a claim for aiding and abetting fraud; on September 28, 2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. Plaintiffs did not seek class certification. On September 7, 2012 the rating agencies filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims against them. On January 3, 2013, the Court issued an order dismissing the claim for aiding and abetting fraud against the rating agencies but allowing the claim for fraud to proceed to trial. In June 2012 and March 2013, respectively, defendants IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG (and a related entity) and Fitch, Inc. informed the court that they had executed confidential settlement agreements with the plaintiffs. On April 24, 2013, pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement, the plaintiffs stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of all remaining claims as against the remaining defendants, including Moody's, and the Court so ordered that stipulation on April 26, 2013. NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Resolves Suit Over Safety of Model Car Seat -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported national Canadian class action alleging that a certain model car seat sold by an affiliate of Newell Rubbermaid Inc. did not satisfy all requisite government safety standards was resolved in 2013, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. The Company was a party to three purported state class actions and one purported national Canadian class action. The cases included allegations that a certain model car seat sold by an affiliate of the Company did not satisfy all requisite government safety standards. Each of these actions was resolved in 2013 on terms favorable to the Company. The City of Sao Paulo's Green and Environmental Office (the "Sao Paulo G&E Office") was seeking fines of up to approximately $4.0 million related to alleged improper storage of hazardous materials at the Company's tool manufacturing facility located in Sao Paulo, Brazil. In December 2013, the Company received notice from the Sao Paolo G&E Office that the notice of fine had been canceled, thus resolving the matter. OIL STATES: Fails to Pay Overtime to Oilfield Workers, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oil States Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00126 (S.D. Tex., April 15, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff, and others workers like him, were typically scheduled for 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week, for weeks at a time out in the oilfield but they never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a single work week. Oil States Industries, Inc. performs substantial business activities in the Southern District of Texas, including throughout the Corpus Christi Division. Oil States is a global oilfield services and manufacturing company with significant completion and land drilling operations in every major United States shale basin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P. State Bar No. 24078444 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com ON ASSSIGNMENT: Accrues $2.1MM to Resolve Lawsuit Over Nurse Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- On Assignment, Inc. accrued approximately $2.1 million for a settlement to resolve an alleged class action dispute regarding the payment of certain of its nurses, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. The Company is involved in various legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company has accrued approximately $2.1 million for a settlement, inclusive of all plaintiffs' costs and legal expenses, to resolve an alleged class action dispute regarding the payment of certain of the company's nurses when the company owned a Nurse Travel division from 2008 to 2013. OPKO HEALTH: Still Faces Litigation Over Acquisition of PROLOR -------------------------------------------------------------- In re PROLOR Biotech, Inc. Shareholders' Litigation (Case No. A- 13-680860-B) continues, according to OPKO Health, Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Several lawsuits have been filed against PROLOR, the members of PROLOR's Board of Directors, and OPKO challenging the merger, and an adverse judgment in any such lawsuit may have a material adverse effect on the company's financial condition as well as divert the attention of the company's management and resources generally. Six putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the company's acquisition of PROLOR. In July 2013, the individual actions were consolidated for all purposes into an amended class action complaint as part of the In re PROLOR Biotech, Inc. Shareholders' Litigation (Case No. A-13-680860-B). The lawsuit names PROLOR, the members of PROLOR's Board of Directors, and OPKO as defendants. The lawsuit is brought by purported holders of PROLOR's common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of PROLOR's stockholders, asserting claims that (i) PROLOR's Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Merger by, among other things, purportedly failing to maximize stockholder value, (ii) PROLOR and its Board of Directors failed to disclose material information concerning the proposed Merger, and (iii) OPKO aided and abetted PROLOR's Directors' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuit seeks various damages, an award of all costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as certain equitable relief, including rescission of the merger. Although the company believes that the claims made in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend such claims vigorously; there can be no assurance that the company will prevail. An unfavorable resolution of any such litigation surrounding the acquisition could have a material adverse impact on the company's financial condition. In addition, the cost of defending the litigation, even if resolved favorably, could be substantial. Such litigation could also substantially divert the attention of the company's management and resources in general. OPKO HEALTH: Faces Suit by PROLOR Biotech Shareholders in Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------- OPKO Health, Inc. continues to face a consolidated suit filed by PROLOR Biotech, Inc. shareholders in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada, according to OPKO's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On April 29, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada against PROLOR Biotech, Inc. ("PROLOR"), the members of the PROLOR Board of Directors, individually (including Drs. Frost and Hsiao and Steven Rubin), and the Company. From May 1, 2013 through May 6, 2013, the company was named in an additional five putative class actions lawsuits filed in the Eight Judicial District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada against the same defendants. On July 17, 2013, these six suits were consolidated, for all purposes, into an amended class action complaint, and on or around October 25, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint. The lawsuit is brought by purported holders of PROLOR's common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of PROLOR's stockholders, asserting claims that PROLOR's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by purportedly failing to maximize stockholder value, that PROLOR and its Board of Directors failed to disclose material information to PROLOR's stockholders, and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, including increased consideration to PROLOR's stockholders, equitable relief, including, among other things, rescission of the Merger Agreement along with rescissionary damages, and an award of all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees. PACIFIC GAS: Dismissal of Calif. Customers' Lawsuit Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiffs in a suit filed on behalf of all California residents who were customers of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company have appealed the dismissal of the case to the California Court of Appeal, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On August 23, 2012, a complaint was filed in the San Francisco Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and the Utility (and other unnamed defendants) by individuals who seek certification of a class consisting of all California residents who were customers of the Utility between 1997 and 2010, with certain exceptions. The plaintiffs allege that the Utility collected more than $100 million in customer rates from 1997 through 2010 for the purpose of various safety measures and operations projects but instead used the funds for general corporate purposes such as executive compensation and bonuses. The plaintiffs allege that PG&E Corporation and the Utility engaged in unfair business practices in violation of California state law. The plaintiffs seek restitution and disgorgement, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. PG&E Corporation and the Utility contest the plaintiffs' allegations. In May 2013, the court granted PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's request to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the CPUC has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised by the plaintiffs' allegations. The plaintiffs have appealed the court's ruling to the California Court of Appeal. PHILIP MORRIS: Court Reinstates $10.1BB Class Action Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------ Kyla Asbury, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that the Fifth District Appellate Court has reinstated a $10.1 billion Madison County bench verdict in a class action lawsuit against Philip Morris USA that alleges the company misled consumers about "light" and "low tar" cigarettes. The class action lawsuit, which was filed in 2000 by attorney Stephen Tillery, alleged Philip Morris deceptively marketed light cigarettes. The lawsuit was the nation's first to accuse a tobacco company of consumer fraud, and the original verdict awarded Mr. Tillery's team almost $2 billion in fees. Reaching its decision to reinstate the 2003 verdict, the panel concluded that Madison County Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth exceeded the scope of his Section 2-1401 review when he "attempted to predict how the supreme court would rule on the question of damages." Contrary to the tobacco giant's assertion, the appeals panel determined that Ruth's discussion of what the Illinois Supreme Court would have decided had it addressed certain issues is "inherently speculative in a way its discussion of the impact of the new information on the issue it actually did decide is not." "For these reasons, the order denying the petition for relief from judgment must be reversed," Justice Melissa Chapman wrote for the panel. Justices Bruce Stewart and S. Gene Schwarm, who took over for Justice James Wexstten on the panel following his retirement in December, concurred in the 30-page ruling. Philip Morris, which is owned by Altria Company, said it would seek immediate review by the Illinois Supreme Court. While the review is pending, the appellate court's decision is stayed automatically. "Almost 10 years ago, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the Price judgment as contrary to Illinois law," said Murray Garnick, Altria Client Services senior vice president and associate general counsel. "The Fifth District Court of Appeals' decision . . . conflicts with that ruling and essentially overrules a decision of a higher court." In 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the judgment against Philip Morris, which was imposed by former Madison Circuit Judge Nicholas G. Byron, sitting without a jury. The original case, which was filed on behalf of Sharon A. Price alleged that Illinois smokers were deceived in purchasing Marlboro "Lights" and Cambridge "Lights" cigarettes and were entitled to a refund. The Illinois Supreme Court later threw out the verdict, saying the Federal Trade Commission allowed companies to characterize or label their cigarettes as "light" and "low tar." The state Supreme Court ruled that Philip Morris could not be held liable under state law even if the terms were misleading or false. The U.S. Supreme Court let that ruling stand in 2006, and Judge Byron dismissed the case the next month. However, in a 5-4 decision in 2008, the nation's high court ruled in favor of three Maine residents who said smokers should be able to use state consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers for promoting "light" and "low tar" brands. Mr. Tillery said that that decision counted as new evidence and could be applied to reinstate his case, and the Fifth District on Tuesday agreed. The class action lawsuit claims that Philip Morris knew when it introduced light cigarettes in 1971 that they were no healthier than regular cigarettes and that the light version actually contained a more toxic form of tar. The suit claimed that the tobacco company deceptively promoted health benefits of light and lowered tar and nicotine cigarettes. The defendant argued during the appeals process that while the trial court can grant relief from its own order dismissing the petition, it cannot grant relief from the Supreme Court's order reversing the judgment. "The flaw in this argument is that the only ruling the supreme court actually reversed was the trial court's ruling on the defendant's section 10b(1) defense," the opinion states. "Although it is true that the court may well have reversed the judgment on other grounds, it would not have done so without considering the merits of those issues. We find that granting relief from judgment has the effect of reinstating the proceedings with the verdict intact." Mr. Garnick said the law does not allow the Fifth District to reopen a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court based on speculation about the possible impact of subsequent events on the higher court's ruling. "In addition, the Fifth District erred in ordering reinstatement despite the fact that the Illinois Supreme Court previously raised other problems with the judgment, including whether the case was properly certified as a class action," Mr. Garnick said in a press release. Mr. Tillery said in a statement: "We are pleased with the Fifth District's well-reasoned decision and are happy that Philip Morris will finally be held accountable for deceiving Illinois consumers." Mr. Garnick said that if the Illinois Supreme Court declines to review the case at this point, Philip Morris will pursue an appeal, to which a $250 million bond cap would apply. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration now prohibits the use of "Lights" and other descriptors unless a manufacturer receives authorization to use the terms. The FDA began regulating tobacco products in 2009 with the passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The $10.1 billion verdict included $1.8 billion in attorneys fees. POLYCOM INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The defendants in the suit Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No.3:13-cv-03476-SC filed motions to dismiss an amended complaint, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Following the July 23, 2013 announcement regarding the departure of the Company's former CEO, the SEC initiated an investigation, a class action lawsuit was filed, and derivative lawsuits were filed. In July 2013, the Company was informed that the SEC was investigating the Audit Committee's review of Mr. Miller's expenses and his resignation. The investigation is ongoing, and the SEC has requested information from the Company. The Company is cooperating with the investigation. On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, captioned Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No.3:13-cv-03476-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel. On February 24, 2014,the lead plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that, between January 20, 2011 and July 23, 2013, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose information regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, including with respect to its former Chief Executive Officer's expense submissions and the Company's internal controls. The lawsuit further alleges that the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading. The amended complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: ERISA Claim Certification in "Seibert" Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff's motion for class certification of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act claim in Seibert v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. was denied, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In November 2010, a putative class action entitled Seibert v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. was filed against the Company and certain former officers of the Company in New Jersey state court, on behalf of the Company's sales people nationwide who were over forty years old and who either resigned or were terminated after being placed on a performance improvement plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants' conduct violates the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), and seeks, among other things, unspecified damages. The defendants removed the complaint to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added claims under ERISA. The Company filed a motion seeking to limit the application of the NJLAD to only those members of the purported class who worked in New Jersey and to dismiss the individual defendants. The motion was granted. The only remaining NJLAD claim is that of the named plaintiff. Both parties have filed summary judgment motions. The defendants' motion was granted in part, but denied as to an ERISA claim, and the plaintiff's motion was denied. The plaintiff's motion for class certification of the ERISA claim was denied. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Motion to Dismiss Celera Stock Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated's motion to dismiss In re Celera Corp. Securities Litigation was denied, according to Quest's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp. Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Celera Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding a financial restatement. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's stock during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations were made. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. In August 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia seeking various business records, including records related to the Company's compliance program, certain marketing materials, certain product offerings, and test ordering and other policies. The Company is cooperating with the request. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Beery" Suit by Female Sales Reps Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Diagnostics Incorporated's motion to compel arbitration in a suit filed on behalf of female sales representatives was granted and the case was dismissed, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In January 2012, a putative class action entitled Beery v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and a subsidiary, on behalf of all female sales representatives employed by the defendants from February 17, 2010 to the present. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants discriminate against these female sales representatives on account of their gender, in violation of the federal civil rights and equal pay acts, and seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages. The Company's motion to compel arbitration was granted and the case was dismissed. In the arbitration, the plaintiffs requested to proceed on a class basis. The Company objected to the plaintiffs' request. The arbitrator denied the plaintiff's request. SAFETY-KLEEN SERVICES: Certification Hearing in Fees Suit Set ------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on class certification in a suit alleging that Safety- Kleen Services, Inc. improperly assessed fuel surcharges and extended area service fees is now scheduled to be held in early to mid-2014, according to Clean Harbors, Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of Alabama, alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel surcharges and extended area service fees. Safety-Kleen disputes the basis of the claims on numerous grounds, including that Safety-Kleen has contracts with numerous customers authorizing the assessment of such fees and that in cases where no contract exists Safety-Kleen provides customers with a document at the time of service reflecting the assessment of the fee, followed by an invoice itemizing the fee. It is Safety-Kleen's position that it had the right to assess fuel surcharges, that the customers consented to the charges and that the surcharges were voluntarily paid by the customers when presented with an invoice. The lawsuit is still in its initial stages of discovery, with the focus being whether a class will be certified. The class certification- related fact discovery cutoff was September 4, 2013, and a hearing on class certification is now scheduled to be held in early to mid-2014. The 79 plaintiff has filed a motion to extend the discovery cutoff and trial date, but the court has not ruled on these requests. In late June 2012, a nearly identical lawsuit was filed by the same law firm on behalf of a California-based customer. That lawsuit contends, under various state law theories, that Safety-Kleen impermissibly assessed fuel surcharges and late payment fees and seeks certification of a class of California customers only. Safety-Kleen will assert the same defenses as in the Alabama litigation. In December 2012, a similar suit was filed by the same law firm on behalf of a Missouri-based customer which contends under various state law theories that Safety-Kleen impermissibly assessed fuel surcharges and seeks certification of a class of Missouri customers only. Safety-Kleen will assert the same defenses as in the Alabama and California cases. The Company is unable to ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of December 31, 2013, and no reserve has been recorded. SANDISK CORP: Ritz Camera Seeks to Amend Antitrust Claims Anew -------------------------------------------------------------- Ritz Camera & Image, LLC sought leave to file a fourth amended complaint in a suit alleging Sandisk Corporation violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize the market for flash memory products, according to Sandisk's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013. On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the portion of the District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's ruling on the Company's petition. On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the District Court. Discovery is now open in the District Court. On February 20, 2013, Ritz filed a motion requesting that Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, be substituted as the plaintiff in this case, which the District Court granted on July 5, 2013. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the Trustee's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs. On December 17, 2013, Ritz sought leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which would add a cause of action for attempted monopolization and add another named plaintiff. SANDISK CORP: Dismissal of "Oliver" Suit Over SD Cards Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the complaint Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, et al. filed on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards are appealing the dismissal of the case, according to Sandisk Corp.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013. On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C"), Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antitrust and unfair competition laws, and common law. The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct, dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs allege that the Company (along with the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD-3C LLC described above. On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed. Briefing on the appeal was completed on June 21, 2013. Oral argument took place on December 5, 2013. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Purported class action complaints were filed against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 (Corban v. Sarepta et al) and January 29, 2014 (Baradanian v. Sarepta et al), according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. The plaintiffs are alleged purchasers of Company common stock who seek to bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired securities of the Company between July 24, 2013 and November 12, 2013. The complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to eteplirsen, the Company's lead therapeutic candidate for DMD, and seek damages in an unspecified amount. Given the relatively early stages of the proceedings in the purported claims, at this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of these claims or whether the outcomes would have a material impact on the Company. SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Wunstell" Suit Proceeds as Part of MDL No. 2179 ----------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action originally filed as John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 is now part of the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, according to SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the "Wunstell Action"), in which they assert, among other theories, that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the provision of remediation, containment and response services by ORM, a subsidiary of the Company prior to the ORM Transaction, during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up in the U.S Gulf of Mexico. The action now is part of the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("MDL"). The complaint also seeks to establish a "class-wide court-supervised medical monitoring program" for all individuals "participating in BP's Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon Response Program" who allegedly experienced injuries similar to those of Mr. Wunstell. SEACOR HOLDINGS: ORM, NRC Await Ruling in Motions Related to MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- A decision is still pending on motions of O'Brien's Response Management Inc. and National Response Corporation for summary judgment re-asserting their derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments in one of several consolidated "master complaints" that have been filed in the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179, according to SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On December 15, 2010, ORM and NRC, subsidiaries of the Company prior to the ORM Transaction and SES Business Transaction, respectively, were named as defendants in one of the several consolidated "master complaints" that have been filed in the overall MDL. The master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts various claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally, and the use of dispersants specifically. By court order, the Wunstell Action has been stayed as a result of the filing of the referenced master complaint. The Company believes that the claims asserted against ORM and NRC in the master complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011, ORM and NRC moved to dismiss all claims against them in the master complaint on legal grounds. On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss that ORM and NRC had filed (an amended decision was issued on October 4, 2011 that corrected several grammatical errors and non-substantive oversights in the original order). Although the Court refused to dismiss the referenced master complaint in its entirety at that time, the Court did recognize the validity of the "derivative immunity" and "implied preemption" arguments that ORM and NRC advanced and directed ORM and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery to develop evidence to support those arguments and (ii) then re-assert the arguments. The Court did, however, dismiss all state-law claims and certain other claims that had been asserted in the referenced master complaint, and dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs that have failed to allege a legally-sufficient injury. A schedule for limited discovery and motion practice was established by the Court and, in accordance with that schedule, ORM and NRC filed for summary judgment re-asserting their derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on May 18, 2012. Those motions were argued on July 13, 2012 and are still pending decision. In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM, pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection with these claims in the MDL. SEACOR HOLDINGS: Exposure to E&P, Medical Settlements Reduced ------------------------------------------------------------- SEACOR Holdings Inc. believes the Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement and the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement have reduced the Company and O'Brien's Response Management Inc.'s potential exposure to these suits, according to SEACOR's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On March 2, 2012, the Court announced that BP Exploration and BP America Production Company ("BP America") (collectively "BP") and the plaintiffs had reached an agreement on the terms of two proposed class action settlements that will resolve, among other things, plaintiffs' economic loss claims and clean-up related claims against BP. The parties filed their proposed settlement agreements on April 18, 2012 along with motions seeking preliminary approval of the settlements. The Court held a hearing on April 25, 2012 to consider those motions and preliminarily approved both settlements on May 2, 2012. A final fairness hearing took place on November 8, 2012. The Court granted final approval to the Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement ("E&P Settlement") on December 21, 2012, and granted final approval to the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement ("Medical Settlement") on January 11, 2013. Both class action settlements were appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Following briefing and remand to the MDL court concerning a specific issue, the Medical Settlement appellants moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeals, which the Fifth Circuit granted on December 4, 2013. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the MDL Court's decision concerning the E&P Settlement on January 10, 2014. Although neither the Company, ORM, or NRC are parties to the settlement agreements, the Company, ORM, and NRC are listed as released parties on the releases accompanying both settlement agreements. Consequently, barring any further appeal, class members who did not file timely requests for exclusion will be barred from pursuing economic loss, property damage, personal injury, medical monitoring, and/or other released claims against the Company, ORM, and NRC. The Company believes these settlements have reduced the Company and ORM's potential exposure, if any, from some of the pending actions, and continues to evaluate the settlements' impacts on these cases. SEACOR HOLDINGS: Provides Updates on "DPH FLSA Actions" v. ORM -------------------------------------------------------------- In its March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, SEACOR Holdings Inc. provided updates on three collective action lawsuits filed against O'Brien's Response Management Inc. over alleged failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who provided service on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response ORM is defending against three collective action lawsuits, each asserting failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who provided service on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response (the "DPH FLSA Actions") under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). These cases -- Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the "Prejean Action"); Baylor Singleton et. al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et. al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01716) (the "Singleton Action"); and Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01533) (the "Himmerite Action") -- were each brought on behalf of certain individuals who worked on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and who were classified as independent contractors. The Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton Actions were each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and then subsequently consolidated with the overall MDL, in which the Himmerite and Singleton Actions were stayed pursuant to procedures of the MDL. However, all three cases were severed from the MDL on September 19, 2013, and referred to a Magistrate Judge for pretrial case management, including issuing a scheduling order, overseeing discovery, and any other preliminary matters. On October 31, 2013, ORM filed an answer in both the Himmerite and Singleton Actions. In the Himmerite and Singleton Actions, pursuant to an earlier tolling order entered by the Court, the limitations periods for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to those actions have been tolled pending further action by the Court. In the Prejean Action, ORM has answered the complaint and a scheduling order has been issued. On November 6, 2013, the Court conditionally certified a collective class in the Prejean Action. On December 9, 2013 the Court approved a jointly- submitted form notice and authorized the issuance of notice to all members of the conditionally certified class in the Prejean Action. On December 20, 2013, ORM served plaintiffs' counsel with a list containing information for approximately 330 potential class members in the Prejean Action. Pursuant to the schedule entered by the Court, potential class members have until February 28, 2014 to opt into the class by submitting consent forms to their attorneys. Plaintiffs' counsel has until March 10, 2014 to file all executed consent forms with the Court. Although the Court has conditionally certified the Prejean class, the Court has not made a final ruling on whether a class exists. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position that a class should not be certified, and intends on filing a motion to decertify the Prejean class. The Court has also not yet ruled on any of the merits of Plaintiffs' claims. On February 11, 2014, the parties in the Singleton Action reached a full and final settlement agreement with respect to all of the Plaintiff's individual claims, which is pending final execution by certain parties. Once executed, the settlement agreement will be filed with the Court for approval. SERVICE CORP: "Moulton" Suit Stayed Pending Amended Claim Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans granted a joint motion by all parties in the suit filed by Karen Moulton against Stewart Enterprises, Inc. to extend all deadlines and stay all action in the lawsuit until the filing by plaintiffs of a Second Amended Petition within 14 days after publicizing the closing of the merger between Service Corporation International (the Company) and Rio Acquisition Corp., according to Service's March 3, 2014, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 13, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans by Karen Moulton, an alleged shareholder of the Company (Karen Moulton, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc. et al., Case No. 2013-5636). A subsequent similar suit and interventions have been consolidated with the Moulton case. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, (i) the Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by conducting a conflicted process to sell the Company, by agreeing to inadequate consideration, and by agreeing to terms in the merger agreement that impose deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making a successful competing offer, (ii) the Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information concerning the proposed transaction, and (iii) that Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and Rio Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the merger, and award the plaintiffs costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees. The Company and director defendants believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously. On August 9, 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the special meeting of shareholders on August 13, 2013. On September 20, 2013, the court maintained an Exception of No Cause of Action filed by Service Corporation International and Rio Acquisition Corp., dismissing the claims against them for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's directors, but allowing plaintiffs leave to amend their petition. On October 14, 2013, the court granted a joint motion by all parties extending all deadlines and staying all action in the lawsuit until the filing by plaintiffs of a Second Amended Petition within 14 days after the filing of a notice on Securities and Exchange Commission Form 8-K (or similar filing) publicizing the closing of the merger between the Company and Rio Acquisition Corp. The court's order also provides a schedule for certain procedural matters in the event of the filing of a Second Amended Petition after the closing of the merger. TAISHAN GYPSUM: Chinese Drywall Poses Ongoing Risk to Families -------------------------------------------------------------- The Virginian-Pilot reports that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed what families who lived in homes made with Chinese drywall have known for years: They're at risk for respiratory problems, headaches, nosebleeds, fatigue and other health problems because of the toxic material in their walls. Researchers from the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry tested 30 Chinese drywall samples and used the results to estimate levels of sulfur compounds -- including hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide -- found indoors. It's the first report that details the health issues stemming from the defective drywall that was shipped to the United States, American Samoa and Puerto Rico from China during the building boom of the early 2000s. Sadly, it's not clear that the report will help the thousands of victims who have tried unsuccessfully to recover damages from the drywall manufacturer. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., the China-based company responsible for the toxic wallboard used in Virginia, has refused to acknowledge that American courts have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. As The Pilot's Sarah Kleiner Varble reported, attorneys for the homeowners believe the CDC's report will make it easier to set aside money for medical expenses -- "if Taishan agrees to settle or courts order the seizure and sale of the company's assets." The defective wallboard, imported after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and during the housing boom in 2006, damaged 300 to 400 homes in Virginia and between 10,000 and 12,000 total. The drywall smelled like rotten eggs and emitted noxious gases that corroded metals and caused major appliances to fail. Until now, lawsuits filed in an attempt to recover damages and hold the company accountable focused on property losses. A few of the companies involved in importation and installation have settled with some of the homeowners, but the money is only a fraction of what they lost. Forbes magazine, estimating that the cost of repairing homes could reach $5.4 billion, has called it one of the largest product-safety cases in history. It prompted a new federal law last year requiring all drywall used in the United States to bear a label with the name of the manufacturer so defective products can be traced, and limiting the amount of sulfur. The law also urged Chinese manufacturers -- some of which are state-owned -- to make restitution to the thousands of Americans whose houses were contaminated, but it has resulted in no settlement. As trade agreements evolve between China and the United States, it's worth a reminder -- and a legal requirement: If Chinese companies are going to do business here, they must meet basic environmental and health standards and be held accountable when they don't. TIER REIT: Texas Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit filed against TIER REIT, Inc., according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On each of September 17 and November 28, 2012, lawsuits seeking class action status were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division). On January 4, 2013, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the Court. The plaintiffs purported to file the suit individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, referred to herein as "Plaintiffs." Plaintiffs named the company, Behringer Harvard Holdings, LLC, the company's previous sponsor, as well as the directors at the time of the allegations: Robert M. Behringer, Robert S. Aisner, Ronald Witten, Charles G. Dannis and Steven W. Partridge (individually a "Director" and collectively the "Directors") and Scott W. Fordham, the Company's President and Chief Financial Officer, and James E. Sharp, the Company's Chief Accounting Officer (collectively, the "Officers"), as defendants. In the amended complaint filed on February 1, 2013, the Officers were dismissed from the consolidated suit. Plaintiffs alleged that (1) the Directors each individually breached various fiduciary duties purportedly owed to Plaintiffs, (2) the Directors violated Sections 14(a) and (e) and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) of and under federal securities law and (3) the defendants were unjustly enriched by the purported failures to provide complete and accurate disclosure regarding, among other things, the value of the company's common stock and the source of funds used to pay distributions. On March 27, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice from which no appeal was taken. TRIPLE LEAF: Accused of Deceiving Slimming Herbal Tea Consumers --------------------------------------------------------------- Eunice Johnson, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Triple Leaf Tea Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01570-MMC (N.D. Cal., April 4, 2014) arises from the Company's alleged claims about its Dieter's products. Triple Leaf is a California corporation headquartered in San Francisco. Triple Leaf advertised, marketed, distributed, and sold mixtures of botanicals, in tea bags, for the preparation of herbal teas. In particular, the Defendant advertised, marketed and distributed three products, each comprised of senna leaf and Chinese mallow, which the Defendant calls "Dieter's Green Herbal Tea," "Ultra Slim Herbal Tea," and "Super Slimming Herbal Tea." The Product's packaging claimed, inter alia, that the Product was effective for weight-loss, Ms. Johnson says. However, she contends, because the Senna Diet Products contain no weight loss ingredients or fat burners, it is are not an effective treatment for weight loss or appetite suppression and does not, in fact, work as advertised. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Beatrice Skye Resendes, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 546-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com skye@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com USS-POSCO INDUSTRIES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal judge gave his blessing April 28 to a $3.5 million settlement in a class action brought against USS-Posco Industries by a former steel plant worker who accused the company of failing to provide required meal and rest breaks and to pay workers for preshift activities. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar's order approving the deal and wrapping up the case also awarded class counsel from Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP and Brown Poore LLP $1.1 million in fees and costs and handed enhancement payments of $8,000 and $1,500 to named plaintiff Carl Cordy and subclass representative Donald Jones, respectively. "The court held a final fairness hearing on April 24, 2014, and no one appeared at the hearing to object to the settlement. Therefore, the court reaffirms its conclusions that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and that the class is certifiable . . . and therefore issues its final approval of the parties' settlement agreement," Judge Tigar said. Approval of the settlement comes after Judge Tigar refused to sign off on a deal between Mr. Cordy and UPI in July, and Mr. Cordy followed up with a revamped bid for approval in October aimed at addressing the court's concerns. The deal garnered the court's preliminary approval in January. Mr. Cordy filed the case in Feb. 2012 against UPI, U.S. Steel Corp., Posco-California Corp. and Pitcal Inc. under California law. UPI is a general partnership of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania- based U.S. Steel and South Korea-based Pohang Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. that has steelmaking facilities in California, which was where Mr. Cordy worked, according to the complaint. Mr. Cordy claimed UPI made workers clock in six minutes before their shifts to don gear and get other tasks out of the way, but didn't pay for that time. He also said employees were denied meal and rest breaks and that UPI didn't provide itemized wage statements and failed to make timely payment of wages upon termination or resignation. Subclasses were certified for each of those four claims, all of which covered nonexempt production and maintenance workers at UPI's steelmaking plant and facilities in Pittsburg, California. Under the deal, a net settlement amount of more than $2.1 million was available for distribution to members of the four subclasses, with the itemized wage statement class in line for the biggest share: more than $1.1 million. Plaintiffs' counsel had asked for slightly more in fees than the court ultimately awarded, seeking $1,155,000, or 33 percent of the gross settlement. Judge Tigar started with a presumption that 25 percent of the settlement amount was an appropriate award, but he said special circumstances like the "vigorousness of the litigation" and the fact that no class members objected to the requested award warranted an upward adjustment. The judge concluded that $1,050,000, or 30 percent of the gross settlement, was the right number. Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP's Carolyn Cottrell said in an email Wednesday that the deal not only afforded the workers a monetary recovery, but included injunctive relief that would help ensure UPI complies with the law. "Our clients are extremely pleased with the Court's approval of this settlement, the results of which will benefit the hardworking steelworkers at UPI's Pittsburg, California, facility," Cottrell said. The classes are represented by Scott Brown of Brown Poore LLP and Todd Schneider and Carolyn Cottrell -- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP. UPI is represented by Francis Ortman, Cassandra Carroll and Emily Barker of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. The case is Cordy v. USS-Posco Industries et al., case number 3:12-cv-00553, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed by the San Francisco labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik against Veolia Transportation Services. The complaint, filed on April 23, 2014 , alleges that Veolia misclassified their employees employed in the position of a Safety & Training Manager as exempt from overtime pay and as a result, allegedly failed to pay overtime wages and provide meal and rest breaks. The proposed class action lawsuit entitled, Rivers, et al. v. Veolia Transportation Services, Inc., Case No. SW 255350 is currently pending in the Sonoma County Superior Court for the State of California. The class action Complaint alleges that the Safety & Training Managers mostly engaged in non-exempt tasks throughout their workday, including logging incidents and accidents into tracking reports, following the company's training manual to teach people how to drive buses, and entering into spreadsheets daily safety messages received from dispatchers. The Complaint asserts that as a result of the job tasks that the Safety & Training Managers were required to engage in, these employees should have allegedly been paid overtime wages for any hours worked in excess of eight in a workday and more than forty in a workweek. The San Francisco employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik dedicate their practice to helping people who have been wrongfully classified as salaried employees exempt from receiving overtime pay and other claims including violation of California labor laws. VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Face Securities Litigations --------------------------------------------------------------- Vocera Communications, Inc. continues to face two purported securities class actions, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In August 2013, Vocera and other related parties were named as defendants in two purported securities class actions, alleging claims for allegedly misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results. As the cases progress, the company may encounter more significant legal costs for the company's defense. The company's projections of net income/ (loss), and non-GAAP earnings/loss per diluted share for the full year and second quarter 2014 do not give effect to any such future legal expenses because the company does not regard them as reflective of the costs the company incurred to operate the company's business. VONAGE HOLDINGS: Mediation Considered in Calif. Commercial Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held a Mediation Assessment Conference in the commercial litigation filed by Merkin & Smith, et al. against Vonage America, Inc., according to Vonage Holdings Corp.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 30, 2013 the case was assigned to a United States District Judge and a Magistrate Judge. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the Complaint. On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. On February 4, 2014, the Court denied Vonage's Motion to Compel Arbitration. On March 5, 2014, Vonage filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the decision denying Vonage's Motion to Compel Arbitration. On March 6, 2014, Vonage moved to stay the district court proceedings pending its appeal; the Court granted Vonage's stay motion on March 26, 2014. On April 30, 2014, the Ninth Circuit held a Mediation Assessment Conference. WAL-MART: Fails to Pay Sick Time Wages, Claims Associate Asserts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nadine Miranda, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC542040 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 8, 2014) alleges breach of contract and failure to pay sick time wages, in violation of the Labor Code. Ms. Miranda is working as a claims associate/accounting associate for the Defendants. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is a Delaware corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664 Telephone: (323) 549-9100 Facsimile: (323) 549-0101 E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com WELLS FARGO: Wins Prelim. OK of Force-Placed Insurance Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has issued an order granting preliminary approval of an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit initiated by Mercedes Guerrero. According to the complaint, because Ms. Guerrero's home was located in a flood-hazard area, she was required to maintain adequate flood insurance; otherwise, Wells Fargo was authorized to (and did) force-place flood insurance on her property. In doing so, however, Wells Fargo allegedly entered into exclusive purchasing agreements with two insurers -- American Security Insurance Company and QBE Insurance Corporation -- so that ASIC and QBE would pay "kickbacks" in unearned commissions to a Wells Fargo affiliate. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angela Mann, Esq. Jack Wagoner, III, Esq. WAGONER LAW FIRM, P.A. 1320 Brookwood, Suite D Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 663-5225 Facsimile: (501) 660-4030 E-mail: angela@wagonerlawfirm.com jack@wagonerlawfirm.com - and - Sheri L. Kelly, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SHERI L. KELLY 31 E. Julian Street San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 287-7712 Facsimile: (408) 583-4249 E-mail: slk@sherikellylaw.com - and - T. Brent Walker, Esq. WALKER LAW PLC 502 Dogwood Meadows Austin, AR 72007 Telephone: (501) 605-8595 E-mail: bwalker@walkerlawplc.com - and - Alexander Phillip Owings, Esq. Steven A. Owings, Esq. OWINGS LAW FIRM 1400 Brookwood Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 661-9999 Facsimile: (501) 661-8393 E-mail: apowings@owingslawfirm.com sowings@owingslawfirm.com - and - Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com - and - Sean R. Matt, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas Eric Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 8th Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: sean@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jonah Sampson VanZandt, Esq. Laura R. Jacobsen, Esq. Michael Jan Steiner, Esq. SEVERSON AND WERSON One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-3344 Facsimile: (415) 956-0439 E-mail: jvz@severson.com lrj@severson.com mjs@severson.com The case is Lane, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 3:12- cv-04026-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Petitions for Writ in Natural Gas Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court after a Circuit Court remanded cases filed by purchasers of natural gas to the district court to permit the plaintiffs to pursue their state antitrust claims, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. 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: Battles Flint Hills Over Indemnification ------------------------------------------------------------ The Williams Companies, Inc. and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC are both seeking summary judgment for contractual indemnification claims they filed against each other in relation to the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. 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 the company's 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 the company's exposure to exceed that amount. WRIGHT MEDICAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit v. BioMimetic Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the securities suit Paula Kuyat, et al. versus BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. et al., according to Wright Medical Group, Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On July 6, 2011, a purported federal securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, alleging BioMimetic was unduly positive in its public statements about the prospects for FDA approval of Augment Bone Graft. The company acquired BioMimetic in March 2013. In January 2013, the Court granted BioMimetic's, and the other named defendants', motion to dismiss the lawsuit, known as Paula Kuyat, et al. versus BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. et al., without leave to amend the complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Alter Judgment or Amend Order and Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice, seeking reconsideration of the Court's dismissal decision. This motion was denied. Subsequently, the plaintiffs appealed the Court's dismissal of the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on December 4, 2013. During the quarter ended March 31, 2014, the dismissal of the BioMimetic securities class action was upheld by the Sixth Circuit. XEROX CORP: Summary Judgment Order in Stock Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' appeal process against the grant of summary judgment to defendants in In re Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation is ongoing, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. A consolidated securities law action (consisting of 17 cases) is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Defendants are the Company, Barry Romeril, Paul Allaire and G. Richard Thoman. The consolidated action is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Xerox Corporation common stock during the period October 22, 1998 through October 7, 1999 inclusive (Class Period) and who suffered a loss as a result of misrepresentations or omissions by Defendants as alleged by Plaintiffs (the "Class"). The Class alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (1934 Act), and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on the Company's operations and revenues. The complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding the economic capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock; (ii) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held common stock of the Company while in possession of materially adverse, non-public information; and (iii) caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class to purchase common stock of the Company at inflated prices. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees. In 2001, the Court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of the complaint. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied by the Court in 2006, without prejudice to refiling. In February 2007, the Court granted the motion of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No. 164, Robert W. Roten, Robert Agius (Agius) and Georgia Stanley to appoint them as additional lead plaintiffs. In July 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification, without prejudice to renewal after the Court holds a pre-filing conference to identify factual disputes the Court will be required to resolve in ruling on the motion. After that conference and Agius's withdrawal as lead plaintiff and proposed class representative, in February 2008 plaintiffs filed a second renewed motion for class certification. In April 2008, defendants filed their response and motion to disqualify Milberg LLP as a lead counsel. On September 30, 2008, the Court entered an order certifying the class and denying the appointment of Milberg LLP as class counsel. Subsequently, on April 9, 2009, the Court denied defendants' motion to disqualify Milberg LLP. On November 6, 2008, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 29, 2013, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety. On April 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal process is ongoing. ZYGO CORP: Faces Stockholder Suit Over Acquisition by Ametek ------------------------------------------------------------ Natalie Gordon, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Zygo Corporation, Michael A. Kaufman, Stephen D. Fantone, Samuel H. Fuller, Seymour E. Liebman, Carol P. Wallace, Gary K. Willis, Robert B. Taylor, Ametek, Inc., and Ametek Matterhorn, Inc., Case No. 9561-VCN (Del. Ch. Ct., April 21, 2014) is a stockholder class action brought on behalf of public stockholders of Zygo in connection with Ametek's proposed acquisition of all the outstanding stock of Zygo. Based in Middlefield, Connecticut, Zygo provides optical- metrology instruments, high-precision optical components, and electro-optical systems design and manufacturing services for the medical, scientific and industrial fields. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Ametek is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in Berwyn, Pennsylvania. Ametek is a leading global manufacturer of electronic instruments and electromechanical devices. Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ametek, and was created for the purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Banko, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 Facsimile: (302) 482-3612 E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com mschreiner@faruqilaw.com - and - James Banko, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 20 Montchanin Rd., Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com * Class Action Among Reasons for Hike in Bank Customer Complaints ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gareth Vaughan, writing for interest.co.nz, reports anti-money laundering legislation, bank fees class action, and the Reserve Bank's restrictions on banks' high loan-to-value ratio (LVR) home loans are the reasons behind a decent chunk of the increasing number of bank customers turning to the Banking Ombudsman. Banking Ombudsman Deborah Battell says with her office's third quarter statistics now available, they've completed nearly 300 more cases in the 2013-14 year to-date (July 1, 2013 - March 31, 2014) at 2,442 than at the same stage of the previous year. "The increase can largely be accounted for in the enquiries area which has had a 23% increase in cases, from 1,390 in 2012/13 to 1,719 in the current financial year. The increase does not appear to relate to any one issue or bank. Disputes completed so far this year have dropped by 22%, from 222 last year to 173. The number of complaints dealt with remains almost exactly the same as last year, at 550," Ms. Battell says. Complaints are issues raised with the Banking Ombudsman that are referred onto banks. Enquiries are where the Banking Ombudsman's office gives the enquirer some information, or asks for more information, before referring the complainant to their bank. Disputes are complaints that have been through a bank's internal complaints process and been unable to be resolved. They go to the Banking Ombudsman for investigation or resolution. Pushed for further information on what's behind the increase in enquiries, a spokeswoman for the Banking Ombudsman's office told interest.co.nz there had been an overall increase across a range of areas. "Anti-money laundering legislative changes, bank fees class action, and LVR restrictions account for 20% of the increase," she said. All three of these factors have come into play over the past year or so. The anti-money laundering regime took effect from June 30 last year, the Fair Play on Fees group declared its intention to take representative legal action against the big five banks over so-called exception fees in March last year and has since filed cases against ANZ and Kiwibank, and the Reserve Bank enforced LVR restrictions took effect on banks' home lending from October 1 last year. Meanwhile, Ms. Battell says there were 59 complaints about KiwiSaver in the nine months to 31 March, up 51% from 39 in the same period of the previous financial year. She has therefore issued a new guide on KiwiSaver covering who to complain to, the main areas of complaint, and how the Banking Ombudsman Scheme approaches compensation. "The majority of complaints are about the inability to withdraw funds, especially on hardship grounds. The quick guide sets out the circumstances in which funds can be accessed -- financial hardship, purchasing a first home, serious illness, or permanent move overseas," says Ms. Battell. "The guide also deals with how we compensate customers where we consider inadequate information about KiwiSaver has been provided." ********* 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 * * *