/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140603.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 3, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 109 Headlines ADT CORP: Securities Action Seeks Class Status ADVANCED CLINICAL: Court Issues Discovery Order in "Minns" Suit AGV SPORTS: Accused of Failing to Pay Minimum Wages to Interns ALMA REALTY: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties AM CONVELLI: Faces "Pendarvis" Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages AMGEN INC: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification in Onyx Sale Suit AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs Granted Leave to Amend Securities Complaint APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over iMessage Service in iPhones and iPads APPLE INC: Tech Firms Settle No Poach Class Action for $324.5MM AST SPORTS: District Court Dismisses "Jones" Class Action ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY, GA: Accused of Not Honoring Contract AXA EQUITABLE: Sued by Variable Annuity Policyholder in New York BANCO SANTANDER: Still Waiting for STF Formal Ruling BANK OF AMERICA: "Ramirez" Suit Transferred to N.D. California BETTER WORLD: Fails to Pay Class Members' Minimum Wage, Suit Says BIOZOOM INC: Peiffer Rosca Files Investor Class Action in Ohio BOB EVANS: Fails to Pay Assistant Managers' OT Wages, Suit Says CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Motion for Rehearing Filed in Class Action CENCOSUD SA: Paid CH$17,974-Mil in CAT Fines as of Dec. 31 CLIFFS NATURAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Ohio CON-WAY INC: Challenges Class Cert. Bid in Pina & Quezada Cases CONNECTONE BANCORP: Defendant in Suits Over Center Bancorp Merger COOK COUNTY, IL: Interfered With Class's FMLA Rights, Suit Says CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES: "Pardee" Trial to Commence Sept. 9 CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES: Defendant in Two Consumer Suits CORELOGIC INC: Intends to Defend Against RESPA Class Action CZ COMMERCE: Faces "Balik" Suit Over Alleged FLSA Violations DREYFUSS FIRM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Tenn. Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay & Penalties EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Defendant in Mortgage Assignment Lawsuits FINAL & TOUCH: Tex. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages FLUSHMATE: August 25 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Removed "Soto" Class Suit to S.D. Florida GARDEN STATE CLE: Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Says GENERAL INFORMATION SERVICES: Sued in Ky. for Violating FCRA GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Markle" Suit Over Faulty Ignition Switches GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Holliday" Suit Over Defective Switches H J HEINZ: July 31 Case Mgmt. Conference in "Stez" Class Suit HANGTIME INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisements, Suit Claims HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sept. 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set HYATT HOTELS: Court Dismissed Antitrust Complaint IGNITE RESTAURANT: Defendant in Securities Act Violations IMH FINANCIAL: Completed Notes Issuance in April 18 INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Subsys' Off Label Marketing JAMES M. BARB CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages JF VEHICLE: Driver Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages JM SMUCKER: Class Action Over False "Natural" Claims Can Proceed K & L COURT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL KEYCORP: Court Denied Rehearing on Metyk Litigation Dismissal KFORCE INC: Labor Suit Plaintiff Appeals Summary Judgment Order KKR FINANCIAL: Discovery in Shareholder Litigation Stayed LATE JULY: Judge Stays Cane Juice False Ad Class Action LG DISPLAY: Appealing TFT-LCD Class Certification Decision LG DISPLAY: Waiting for Service of Israel Class Complaint LITTON LOAN: Faces "Perryman" Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in Ill. Credit Card Receipts Suit LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in "Kiken" Securities Litigation LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in 2 TCPA Violations Class Actions MERGE HEALTHCARE: Defendant in Shareholder Class Action Complaint ML ZAGER: Accused of Using False/Deceptive Method to Collect Debt MOUNT SINAI HOSPITALS: Fails to Billing Workers, Suit Says MULTIMEDIA GAMES: 11th Cir. Reversed Class Certification Ruling MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Certification Ruling in "Hardy" Suit NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in "Gregory" Class Suit NITHUN CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says NOKIA CORP: "Majad" Case over Investment Plan Now Closed NOKIA CORP: "Romero" ERISA Suit Now Closed O'REILLY AUTO: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Background Check OCWEN LOAN: Sued for Not Timely Presenting Proof to County Clerks ONEWEST BANK: Sued Over Force-Placed Insurance-Related Practices ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: June 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set PANHANDLE AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Pass-Through Fee Class Action PFIZER INC: Two Former Execs Can't Escape Celebrex Class Suit POOL CORP: Court Rules on Motions in Antitrust Actions PORTUGAL TELECOM: Oi Posted R$11.2-Mil for Customer Service Claims PORTUGAL TELECOM: Oi Awaits Decision in TNL's R$300-Mil Lawsuit ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND: Lloyds Banking to Join Class Action SAFEWAY INC: Faces 12 Class Action Albertsons Merger Complaints SM ENERGY: Sold Assets Subject to Chieftain Class Action Suit TELEXFREE INC: Faces "Cellucci" Adversary/Class Suit in Mass. TELEXFREE LLC: Facing "Griffith" Suit Over Sale of Securities TOMY GROUP: Fails to Pay Federally Mandated Wages, Suit Claims TWIN AMERICA: Settles Monopoly Class Action for $19 Million UNION CENTRAL: September 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set UNITED HEALTH: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act URBAN DECAY: Faces "Pena" Suit Over Deceptive Product Marketing WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action in New York Over Delivery Tips WPX ENERGY: No Conflict Between New Mex. and Col. Law, Court Says ZAPPOS.COM INC: Court Issues Ruling in Security Breach Litigation ********* ADT CORP: Securities Action Seeks Class Status ---------------------------------------------- The ADT Corporation is a defendant in a lawsuit seeking class action status and alleging Securities Act violations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2014. The Company states: "On April 28, 2014, we and certain of our current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks monetary damages, including interest, and class action status on behalf of all plaintiffs who purchased our common stock during the period between November 27, 2012 and January 29, 2014, inclusive. We intend to vigorously defend [] against the allegations in this action." The ADT Corporation (ADT) is a provider of electronic security, interactive home and business automation, and monitoring services for residences and small businesses in the United States and Canada. The Company's products and services include home and business solutions, and home health services. The Company's brands include ADT, ADT Pulse and Companion Service. As of September 31, 2013, the Company offers a variety of alternate and back-up alarm transmission methods including cellular, digital radio and broadband Internet. On August 2, 2013, the Company acquired Devcon Security Holdings, Inc. In November 2013, Kastle Systems International announced that it had acquired Mutual Central Alarm Services and Stat-Land Security Systems from ADT Corporation. ADVANCED CLINICAL: Court Issues Discovery Order in "Minns" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susan Illston issued an order on discovery in the case captioned MARIE MINNS and KEMBERLY BRIGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED CLINICAL EMPLOYMENT STAFFING LLC, Defendant, NO. C 13-03249 SI, (N.D. Cal.). The parties in the case have entered into a stipulated protective order to govern the "production of personal, private information, corporate trade secrets or other confidential information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be warranted." According to Judge Illston, the Defendant has not explained why the protective order does not address its privacy concerns, and the Court finds that the production of the names and contact information pursuant to the existing protective order adequately addresses class member privacy concerns. Accordingly, the Court directs the Defendant to produce the requested class member contact information. A copy of Judge Illston's May 9, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/apz9fWfrom Leagle.com. Marie Minns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Leo Gildor -- dan@chavezgertler.com -- Chavez & Gertler LLP, Jonathan E Gertler -- jon@chavezgertler.com -- Chavez & Gertler LLP & Lori Erin Andrus -- lori@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP. Kemberly Briggs, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP. Advanced Clinical Employment Staffing LLC, Defendant, represented by Harold R. Jones -- hrj@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, Joel Lawrence Halverson -- jlh@severson.com -- Severson and Werson & Rhonda Louise Nelson -- rln@severson.com -- Severson & Werson. Sutter Health Systems, Defendant, represented by Thomas E. Geidt -- tomgeidt@gbgllp.com -- Grube Brown & Geidt LLP, E. Jeffrey Grube, Esq. -- jeffgrube@gbgllp.com -- Grube Brown & Geidt LLP & Elizabeth Alexandra Brown -- lisabrown@gbgllp.com -- Grube Brown & Geidt LLP. East Bay Hospitals, doing business as Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, Defendant, represented by Thomas E. Geidt, Grube Brown & Geidt LLP, E. Jeffrey Grube, Esq., Grube Brown & Geidt LLP & Elizabeth Alexandra Brown, Grube Brown & Geidt LLP. Advanced Clinical Employment Staffing LLC, 3rd party plaintiff, represented by Harold R. Jones, Severson & Werson, Joel Lawrence Halverson, Severson and Werson & Rhonda Louise Nelson, Severson & Werson. AGV SPORTS: Accused of Failing to Pay Minimum Wages to Interns -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross M. Wolfe, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated Employees v. AGV Sports Group, Inc., and Michael Parrotte, Case No. 1:14-cv-01601-CCB (D. Md., May 15, 2014) alleges that the Company has a policy, whereby it classifies a significant majority of AGV's labor force as Unpaid Interns; hence, the Company failed to pay them at least minimum wages, as required by applicable employment laws. AGV is a motorcycle apparel company based in Frederick, Maryland. AGV designs, develops, and produces motorcycle safety clothing for road race and sportbike markets. Michael Parrotte is AGV's founder and president. The Plaintiff is represented by: E. David Hoskins, Esq. Max F. Brauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF E. DAVID HOSKINS LLC 16 East Lombard Street, Suite 400 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 662-6500 Facsimile: (410) 662-7800 E-mail: davidhoskins@hoskinslaw.com maxbrauer@hoskinslaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822-3700 Facsimile: (610) 822-3800 E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com rgray@cwg-law.com - and - Katharine M. Ryan, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RYAN & MANISKAS LLP 995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (484)588-5516 Facsimile: (484)450-2582 E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com ALMA REALTY: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Moreno, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. Alma Realty Corp., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv- 02906 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. sections 201 et seq. Alma Realty Corp., is a New York domestic business corporation located at 3110 37th Avenue, Long Island City, New York 11101. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com AM CONVELLI: Faces "Pendarvis" Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Brett Pendarvis, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. A.M. Convelli Company, Inc., d/b/a Panera Bread, a Florida for profit corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00757 (M.D. Fla., May 14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. A.M. Convelli Company, Inc., is a Florida corporation that operates and conducts business in Orange County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 425-8171 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com AMGEN INC: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification in Onyx Sale Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amgen Inc., disclosed that plaintiff Phil Rosen filed a motion seeking to certify a class in the consolidated class action matter in connection with the sale of Onyx to Amgen, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On March 21, 2014, plaintiff Phil Rosen filed a motion seeking to certify a class and to be designated class representative in this consolidated class action matter pending against the former members of the board of directors of Onyx in which the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Onyx director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Onyx shareholders in connection with the sale of Onyx to Amgen. Amgen Inc. is a global biotechnology pioneer that discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers human therapeutics. Its medicines help millions of patients in the fight against cancer, kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), bone disease, and other serious illnesses. On December 10, 2012, the Company acquired all of the outstanding stock of deCODE Genetics (deCODE). In July 5, 2012, the Company acquired KAI Pharmaceuticals, a privately held company based in South San Francisco. In September 2013, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum AB (publ) (Sobi) announced that they have acquired the full rights to develop and commercialize Kineret (anakinra) from Amgen Inc for all therapeutic indications. AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs Granted Leave to Amend Securities Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- A court on April 14, 2014, entered an order allowing plaintiffs leave to file a second consolidated amended securities class action complaint in this securities class action lawsuit against Amgen Inc., alleging that the Company made false statements that resulted in, among other things, deceiving the investing public regarding Amgen's prospects and business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On April 14, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered an order allowing plaintiffs leave to file a second consolidated amended class action complaint in this securities class action lawsuit. While the new complaint was filed under seal, like the first consolidated class action complaint the new complaint alleges that Amgen and certain of its officers and directors (the Federal Defendants) made false statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities and (iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices. In addition, like the first consolidated class action complaint, the new complaint makes off-label marketing allegations that, throughout the class period, the Federal Defendants improperly marketed Aranesp(R) (darbepoetin alfa) and EPOGEN(R) (epoetin alfa) for off-label uses while aware that there were alleged safety signals with these products. The named defendants have not changed and the alleged class period remains the same. Plaintiffs continue to seek compensatory damages, legal fees and other relief deemed proper. Amgen Inc. is a global biotechnology pioneer that discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers human therapeutics. Its medicines help millions of patients in the fight against cancer, kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), bone disease, and other serious illnesses. On December 10, 2012, the Company acquired all of the outstanding stock of deCODE Genetics (deCODE). In July 5, 2012, the Company acquired KAI Pharmaceuticals, a privately held company based in South San Francisco. In September 2013, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum AB (publ) (Sobi) announced that they have acquired the full rights to develop and commercialize Kineret (anakinra) from Amgen Inc for all therapeutic indications. APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over iMessage Service in iPhones and iPads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adrienne Moore, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-02269-LHK (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated persons within the United States, who obtained wireless cellular service on an Apple iPhone or iPad device that was equipped with Apple's iMessage service, and subsequently replaced that device (on which they were obtaining their wireless cellular service) with a non- Apple device instead. Ms. Moore contends that Apple failed to properly disclose to her and the putative class members, at the time that they owned their Apple iPhone or iPad devices (or anytime thereafter) that, should they switch away from an Apple device to a non-Apple device, Apple's iMessage and Messages service and application would act to prevent these persons from receiving all their text messages on the non-Apple device that these class members used to replace their Apple iPhone or iPad devices. Apple Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California. Apple is one of the world's largest and most popular makers of, inter alia, wireless devices, including various versions of the iPhone and iPad. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy A. Katriel, Esq. THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM 4225 Executive Square, Suite 600 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 242-5642 Facsimile: (858) 430-3719 E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com Interested party Adam Backhaut is represented by: Theodore H. Chase, Esq. AUDET AND PARTNERS, LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: tchase@audetlaw.com APPLE INC: Tech Firms Settle No Poach Class Action for $324.5MM --------------------------------------------------------------- John Ribeiro, writing for IDG News Service, reports that Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe Systems have agreed to pay US$324.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the companies of entering into secret agreements not to hire each others' workers, according to a filing seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. The filing late on May 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose division, by lawyers for class representatives Mark Fichtner, Siddharth Hariharan, and Daniel Stover states that the companies will deposit an initial sum of $1 million from the settlement amount into an escrow account within 10 days of the preliminary approval, to be used for notice and administration costs. The remaining $323.5 million will be paid into the account after the final approval of the settlement. Class members who do not opt out will be eligible to receive a share of the settlement fund, based on a formula set on the basic salary paid during the relevant period. Each of the named plaintiffs also gets "service award payments" of $80,000 for their services as class representatives. They worked in technical positions for the companies in the settlement, and "incurred the substantial risks and costs of taking on leadership roles in this visible litigation against seven of the most prominent technology firms in the world," according to the filing. The attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses are also to be paid from the settlement fund. The four companies and the employees had informed the court of a settlement in a filing in April but had not disclosed the sum and other terms of the settlement. One class representative Michael Devine has since objected to the settlement, stating that the amount was too small. In a letter to District Judge Lucy Koh, earlier last month, Mr. Devine wrote that he was not informed "that the most recent round of mediation that lead to the tentative settlement was even taking place until the day after Plaintiffs' and Defendants' counsel had already reached an agreement." Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar had previously settled for about $20 million. The complaint filed by five engineers alleged that Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, all high-tech companies with principal place of business in the San Francisco- Silicon Valley area of California, had engaged in an "overarching conspiracy" to fix and suppress employee compensation and to restrict employee mobility. The companies were said to have set up "Do Not Call" lists, putting each firm's employees off-limits to the other companies, with instructions to recruiters not to "cold call" these employees. The seven companies settled similar charges in 2010 with the U.S. Department of Justice while admitting no wrongdoing, but agreed not to ban cold calling and enter into any agreements that prevent competition for employees. The employees held that the DOJ put an end to the allegedly illegal agreements, but the government was unable to compensate the victims of the conspiracy, which was the reason why they were filing a suit. Top tech executives including former Apple CEO and cofounder Steve Jobs were said to have monitored and enforced the anti-poaching agreements. AST SPORTS: District Court Dismisses "Jones" Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Roger T. Benitez granted a motion to dismiss the case captioned COREY JONES Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AST SPORTS SCIENCE, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-2434 BEN (RBB), (S.D. Cal.). Defendant AST Sports Science, Inc. filed the Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. According to Judge Benitez's Order dated May 9, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/LpFzOEfrom Leagle.com, the Plaintiff has failed to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, as required for the Court to have jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. "As this issue is dispositive, the parties' remaining arguments will not be addressed. This action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction," he said. Corey Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Scott J. Ferrell -- sferrell@trialnewport.com -- Newport Trial Group & Victoria C. Knowles -- vknowles@trialnewport.com -- Newport Trial Group. AST Sports Science, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Scott Silverman -- dsilverman@venable.com -- VENABLE LLP and: R. Garth Ferrell, Esq. Mallgren & Ferrell, P.C. Denver Tech Center 8480 East Orchard Road, Suite 6500 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Telephone: 303-692-0700 Facsimile: 303-692-0701 ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY, GA: Accused of Not Honoring Contract ---------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, Nancy Cochran, Bobby Snipes and Wendell Faulkner, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated v. Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, Case No. 3:14-cv-00043-CDL (M.D. Ga., May 15, 2014) accuses the Defendant of breaching contract. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffery Spence Johnson, Esq. Dustin R. Marlowe, Esq. JOHNSON MARLOWE LLP 455 Epps Bridge Parkway, Suite 101 Athens, GA 30606 Telephone: (706) 425-8740 E-mail: spence@johnsonmarlowe.com dustin@johnsonmarlowe.com - and - James W. Cobb, Esq. CAPLAN COBB LLP 1447 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 880 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 596-5600 E-mail: jcobb@caplancobb.com - and - Michael A. Caplan, Esq. CAPLAN COBB LLP 1201 W Peachtree St., Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4174 Facsimile: (404) 881-4111 E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com AXA EQUITABLE: Sued by Variable Annuity Policyholder in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela C. Swallow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-03505-VSB (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2014) arises out of the Company's alleged improper application of an investment strategy designed to reduce its own risk and market exposure at the expense of its variable annuity policyholders. AXA Equitable, established in 1859, is a stock life insurance company organized under New York law with its principal place of business located in New York City. AXA Equitable offers a variety of insurance products and variable and fixed interest annuity products principally to individuals, small and medium-size businesses and professional and trade associations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara J. Hart, Esq. Thomas Michael Skelton, Esq. David Charles Harrison, Esq. Noelle-Kristen Frances Ruggiero, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. White Plains Plaza One North Broadway, Suite 509 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: bhart@lowey.com tskelton@lowey.com dharrison@lowey.com nruggiero@lowey.com BANCO SANTANDER: Still Waiting for STF Formal Ruling ---------------------------------------------------- Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A., is waiting for the STF formal ruling on class actions relating to the calculation of inflation, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "Like the rest of the banking system, Santander Brazil has been the subject of claims from customers, mostly depositors, and of class actions brought for a common reason, arising from a series of legislative changes relating to the calculation of inflation ("planos economicos"). The claimants considered that their vested rights had been impaired due to the immediate application of these adjustments. In April 2010, the High Court of Justice ("STJ") set the limitation period for these class actions at five years, as claimed by the banks, rather than twenty years, as sought by the claimants, which will probably significantly reduce the number of actions brought and the amounts claimed in this connection. As regards the substance of the matter, the decisions issued to date have been adverse for the banks, although some proceedings have been brought at the STJ and the Supreme Federal Court ("STF") with which the matter is expected to be definitively settled. In August 2010, STJ handed down a decision finding for the plaintiffs in terms of substance, but excluding one of the "planos" from the claim, thereby reducing the amount thereof, and once again confirming the five-year statute of limitations period. Shortly thereafter, the STF issued an injunctive relief order whereby the proceedings in progress in this connection were stayed until this court issues a final decision on the matter. In spite of the fact STF initiated judgment in November 2013, a formal ruling has not been handed down as of the date hereof we cannot predict as to when a formal ruling will be handed down by either the STJ or the STF." Banco Santander Brasil SA (the Bank) is a Brazil-based bank. The Bank operates as a multiple service bank through three business segments: Commercial Bank, Global Wholesale Bank and Asset Management and Insurance. The Commercial Banking segment encompasses the entire commercial banking business (except for the Corporate Banking business managed globally using the Global Relationship Model). The Asset Management and Insurance segment includes the contribution to the Bank arising from the design and management of the investment fund, pension and insurance businesses of the various units. The Global Wholesale Banking segment reflects the returns on the Global Corporate Banking business, those on Investment Banking and Markets around the world. On December 17, 2013, the Company sold a total number of shares of Santander Brasil Asset Management Distribuidora de Titulos e Valores Mobiliarios SA. BANK OF AMERICA: "Ramirez" Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Ramirez, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:11-cv-02008, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14- cv-02175-HRL to the proceeding. On August 31, 2011, Sandra Ramirez and Scott Fowler brought the class action for damages, injunctive relief, and other remedies, resulting from the Defendant's alleged illegal actions in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting them on their cellular telephones without their express prior consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Ankcorn, Esq. ANKCORN LAW FIRM 9845 Erma Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (619) 870-0600 Facsimile: (619) 684-3541 E-mail: mark@markankcorn.com - and - Beth Terrell, Esq. Kimberlee L. Gunning, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE, PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 350-3528 E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com kgunning@tmdwlaw.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Alexander H. Burke, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEITH J. KEOGH, LTD 227 W. Monroe, Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 E-mail: aburke@keoghlaw.com - and - Syed Ali Saeed, Esq. SAEED & LITTLE LLP 1512 N. Delaware St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (317) 614-5741 Facsimile: (888) 422-3151 E-mail: ali@sllawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Felicia Yu, Esq. Raymond Y. Kim, Esq. REED SMITH, LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 Facsimile: (213) 457-8080 E-mail: fyu@reedsmith.com rkim@reedsmith.com - and - Marc Lackner, Esq. David S. Reidy, Esq. REED SMITH, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 543-8700 Facsimile: (415) 391-8269 E-mail: mlackner@reedsmith.com dreidy@reedsmith.com BETTER WORLD: Fails to Pay Class Members' Minimum Wage, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Corrales and Harold Pequero, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Better World Transport, LLC, a Florida Profit Corporation, Dynamic Medical Services, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and Dennis C. Nobbe, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-21793-UU (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Constitution. Better World Transport, LLC and Dynamic Medical Services, Inc. were incorporated in Florida and are headquartered in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Dennis C. Nobbe is the registered agent, officer, director, manager, or owner of Better World. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Grissel Seijo, Esq. Jose A. Socorro, Esq. HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC 3211 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 102 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 444-6628 Facsimile: (305) 444-6627 E-mail: seijolawfirm@gmail.com gseijo@hudsoncalleja.com jsocorro@hudsoncalleja.com - and - Jose Alberto Socorro, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSE A. SOCORRO PA 500 S Dixie Highway, Suite 302 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (305) 503-2990 Facsimile: (305) 774-5908 E-mail: jose@socorrolaw.com BIOZOOM INC: Peiffer Rosca Files Investor Class Action in Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- Peiffer Rosca Abdullah Carr & Kane LLC on May 22 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Biozoom, Inc. from market maker KCG Americas, LLC between May 16, 2013 and June 25, 2013, inclusive. Please contact Peiffer Rosca Abdullah Carr & Kane LLC at 888-998- 0520 or by email at arosca@praclawfirm.com to discuss this matter. Biozoom was previously known as Entertainment Art, Inc. According to an ongoing action by the SEC, between January 2013 through June 2013, certain Argentinean nationals opened brokerage accounts at two U.S. brokerage firms and deposited millions of shares of unregistered Entertainment Arts stock into those accounts. On March 12, 2013, Entertainment Art announced a dramatic change in business operations from a company that developed fashionable leather bags to a company that was involved in the biomedical industry. On April 1, 2013, Entertainment Art changed its name to Biozoom and listed itself on the OTC Bulletin Board. Beginning on May 23, 2013, Biozoom began issuing a series of press releases claiming it created the world's first portable, handheld consumer device to instantly measure certain "biomarkers" such as anti-oxidant levels, vitamin absorption and stress levels. Those claims were also made by certain stock promoters. Following the press releases and stock promotion Biozoom's stock price and volume rose dramatically. Between May 16, 2013 and June 19, 2013, the Argentinean nationals allegedly sold millions of unregistered shares of Biozoom for large profits. On June 25, 2013, the SEC issued a ten day trading suspension in Biozoom stock. Thereafter, the price of Biozoom shares fell dramatically. Plaintiff and the Class purchased their shares of Biozoom on the OTCBB from defendant KCG Americas. They asserted claims under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 against the defendant in connection with the sales of the Biozoom shares. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit. If you wish to learn more about this action, or have any questions about this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to this matter, please contact Alan Rosca or Joe Peiffer at the Peiffer Rosca Law Firm, at 888-998-0520 or arosca@praclawfirm.com Case: Corso v. KCG Americas LLC, 14-cv-01087, U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ohio (May, 2014) About Peiffer Rosca Abdullah Carr & Kane LLC Peiffer Rosca Abdullah Carr & Kane LLC -- http://www.securitieslitigators.com-- prosecutes securities fraud and represents investors in securities litigation and FINRA arbitrations throughout the U.S. BOB EVANS: Fails to Pay Assistant Managers' OT Wages, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Mackin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00450 (S.D. Ohio, May 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay its Assistant Managers for all hours worked, failing to pay overtime on a timely basis, and failing to pay the legally required amount of overtime compensation in an amount required by law for all hours worked over forty in a workweek. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its corporate headquarters at 3776 South High Street, Columbus, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Landskroner, Esq. Drew T. Legando, Esq. LANDSKRONER-GRIECO-MERRIMAN, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com drew@lgmlegal.com - and - Scott E. Smith, Esq. SCOTT ELLIOT SMITH LPA 5003 Horizons Drive Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 846-1700 Facsimile: (614) 486-4987 E-mail: ses@sestriallaw.com CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Motion for Rehearing Filed in Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a motion for rehearing has been filed in the Supreme Court of Texas in a class action lawsuit against Carrington Mortgage Services. The court's May 16 decision approved restructurings of Texas home equity loans that add past-due property taxes and insurance but that do not independently satisfy the constitutional requirements for a home equity loan, according to a motion filed May 19 in the Supreme Court of Texas. Frankie Sims and Patsy Sims claim the court's decision does not specifically address whether a restructuring can add future-due property taxes and insurance without satisfying the requirements for a home equity loan. "That issue is present in some of the pending cases . . . and should therefore be resolved in this court before the Fifth Circuit takes up this case again," the motion states. "The Fifth Circuit's order certifying questions to this court does not explicitly break out the issue of past-due sums vs. future-due sums, but the Sims directly addressed the matter in their briefs and oral argument." According to court filings in the case, many of the pending loan restructuring cases alleged lenders paid future property taxes and insurance from dollars added to the principal of the note. The plaintiff-appellants claim the future-due problem "goes to the heart of what constitutes home equity lending." "If this court determines that property taxes and insurance due after a restructuring can be paid from the proceeds of the restructuring, then lenders and borrowers can finance future property taxes and insurance without limitation once a home equity loan has been originated and has once satisfied the 80% loan-to- value test," the motion states. If that is permissible, the restructuring transaction can finance those items for 20 or 30 years at the note's rate of interest and further collateralize the homestead each year, yet the practice would also "skirt the 80 percent loan-to-value requirement," according to the motion. "If borrowers can ask lenders to take more collateral every year in this way to pay coming bills for property taxes and insurance, the 80% loan-to-value ratio that was met at inception is really just a one-time test for the particular lender who originates the loan," the motion states. The Simses are asking the court to grant a rehearing to answer or clarify whether a home equity lender can add dollars to the principal of an existing home equity note in order to pay property taxes and insurance coming due after the transaction adding those dollars to the note. They are being represented by J. Patrick Sutton -- jpatricksutton@jpatricksuttonlaw.com -- of the Law Office of J. Patrick Sutton in Austin; Jeffrey W. Hurt of Hurt & Berry; and David M. Gottfried of the Law Office of David M. Gottfried in Dallas. Supreme Court of Texas case number: 13-0638 CENCOSUD SA: Paid CH$17,974-Mil in CAT Fines as of Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Cencosud S.A. has made payments in connection with a court's ruling on a class action lawsuit against its subsidiary, Cencosud Administradora de Tarjetas S.A., that amounted to Ch$17,974 million as of December 31, 2013, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "Our subsidiary, Cencosud Administradora de Tarjetas S.A. ("CAT"), was a defendant in a class action suit initiated by SERNAC. On April 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of Chile ruled for the plaintiff and at this junction no further appeals are available. In its ruling, the court determined that CAT included certain clauses in its 2006 contracts that were abusive to consumers. Said clauses allowed CAT to charge an incremental maintenance fee of Ch$530 per month to cardholders with a usage under Ch$50 thousand per month, without written consent from cardholders as required by the Ley de Proteccion al Consumidor. In the ruling the court ordered CAT to pay a fine of approximately Ch$2 million and to reimburse certain cardholders for the excess maintenance fees charged since 2006 plus adjustments for inflation and interests. We made payments in connection with this ruling that amounted to Ch$17,974 million as of December 31, 2013." Cencosud SA is a Chile-based holding company primarily engaged in the retail sector. The Company's activities include the management and operation of a network of supermarkets, home centers, department stores and shopping malls, which operate under such names as Jumbo, Paris, Santa Isabel, Easy, Paris and Aventura Center, among others. The Company's business also comprises the provision of consumer financial services and insurance brokerage, as well as it operates family entertainment centers. The Company has such subsidiaries as: Cencosud Retail SA, Easy SA, Banco Paris SA and Circulo Mas SA, among others. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company has operations established in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru. As of December 31, 2012, Inversiones Quinchamali Limitada was the Company's major shareholder with 23.2% of its interest. CLIFFS NATURAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on May 22 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and docketed under 1:14-cv-01106, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Cliffs securities between March 14, 2012 and March 26, 2013, both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Cliffs securities during the Class Period, you have until July 11, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Cliffs is an international mining and natural resources company that derives substantially all of its revenue from the production and sale of iron ore and coal. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants were aware of, but failed to disclose, systemic problems with its Bloom Lake's facilities that caused massive cost overruns and serious production issues. These problems made it impossible for Cliffs to produce ore from Bloom Lake at low costs or to maintain the Company's dividend. The true facts, which Defendants knew but misrepresented or concealed from investors, were that: (i) Bloom Lake's facilities had serious problems, including inadequate equipment and shipping facilities that were incapable of efficiently transporting iron ore products; (ii) the mining operation of Bloom Lake would be more expensive than disclosed, including that the production cost of iron ore per ton had increased and could not be decreased, as a result of the Company's reliance on contract labor and a failure to efficiently manage the operation; (iii) production volumes at Bloom Lake had decreased rather than increased; (iv) the Phase 2 and Phase 3 projects designed to increase production at Bloom Lake were not economically viable; (v) as a result of the systemic and persistent problems at Bloom Lake, the Company's dividend was not sustainable; and (vi) the Company was incapable of adequately testing the dividend. On November 19, 2012, the Company announced significant adjustments to its 2013 operating plan, effectively admitting that the Bloom Lake project was encountering serious problems. These adjustments included a suspension of key components of the Phase 2 expansion at Bloom Lake, and a delay of Cliffs' Phase 3 study. The Company, however, continued to conceal from investors the full extent of the issues at the mine as well as the fact that Defendants knew that Cliffs' dividend was not sustainable. The next day, Goldman Sachs cut its rating on Cliffs' stock, citing Bloom Lake's expansion delay, high production costs, as well as concerns regarding the Company's ability to continue paying its dividend. On this news, the price of Cliffs' stock dropped from $35.33 per share to $30.48 per share, or almost 14%, on November 19, 2012. On February 12, 2013, after the financial markets had closed, Cliffs announced that it would slash its dividend by 76% to $0.15 per share. Significantly, this announcement came less than one year after Cliffs more-than-doubled its dividend and after repeated assurances that the dividend had been tested and was sustainable. The next day, Cliffs stated during its fourth quarter 2012 earnings conference call that Bloom Lake's costs remained elevated at $86 per ton. On this news, the price of Cliffs' stock dropped approximately 20%, or $7.32 per share, from $36.61 per share on February 12, 2013 to $29.29 per share on February 13, 2013. On March 27, 2013, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse severely cut their price targets on Cliffs' stock, citing a weak balance sheet, the potential need to sell core assets, structural changes in its business and increased costs. On this news, the price of Cliffs' stock declined from $21.43 per share on March 26, 2013, to $18.46 per share on March 27, 2013 or almost 14%, on March 27, 2013. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. CON-WAY INC: Challenges Class Cert. Bid in Pina & Quezada Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Con-way Inc., continues to challenge the certification of the class in the Pina case and the Quezada case, and cannot estimate the amount of potential loss, if any, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. Con-way is a defendant in several class-action lawsuits alleging violations of the state of California's wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs allege that Con-way failed to pay certain drivers for all compensable time and that certain other drivers were not provided with required meal breaks and rest breaks. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. The two primary cases are Jorge R. Quezada v. Con-way Inc., dba Con-way Freight, (the "Quezada" case), and Jose Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v. Con-way Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina" case). The Quezada case was initially filed in February 2009 in San Mateo County Superior Court, and was removed to the U.S. District Court of California, Northern District. The Pina case was initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey County Superior Court and was removed to the U.S. District Court of California, Northern District. By agreement of the parties, in March 2010, the Pina case and the Quezada case were deemed related and transferred to the same judge. On April 12, 2012, the Court granted plaintiff's request for class certification in the Pina case as to a limited number of issues. On October 15, 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs' request for class certification in the Quezada case and granted summary judgment as to certain issues. The class certification rulings do not address whether Con-way will ultimately be held liable. Con-way continues to challenge the certification of the class in both cases, and further contends that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by federal law and not substantiated by the facts. Con- way has denied any liability with respect to these claims and intends to vigorously defend itself in these cases. There are multiple factors that prevent Con-way from being able to estimate the amount of potential loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that may result from this matter, including: (1) Con-way is vigorously defending itself and believes that it has a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) at this early stage in the cases, there are unresolved questions of fact that could be important to the resolution of these matters. Accordingly, Con-way cannot estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability. Con-way Inc., and its subsidiaries (Con-way) provides transportation, logistics and supply-chain management services for a range of manufacturing, industrial and retail customers. Con- way's business units operate in regional and transcontinental less-than-truckload and full-truckload freight transportation, contract logistics and supply-chain management, multimodal freight brokerage, and trailer manufacturing. Con-way operates in four segments: Freight, Logistics, Truckload and Other. The Freight segment consists of the operating results of the Con-way Freight business unit. During the year ended December 31, 2012, Con-way Freight's average weight per shipment was 1,326 pounds. The Logistics segment consists of the operating results of the Menlo Worldwide Logistics business unit. The Truckload segment consists of the operating results of the Con-way Truckload business unit. The Other reporting segment consists of the operating results of Road Systems, a trailer manufacturer. CONNECTONE BANCORP: Defendant in Suits Over Center Bancorp Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc., disclosed in its second amended Form 10-K filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that complaints were filed against the Company seeking class action status and asserting violations in connection with the proposed merger with Center Bancorp, Inc. On January 27, 2014, a complaint was filed against the Company and the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, seeking class action status and asserting that the Company and the members of its Board had violated their duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with the proposed merger with Center Bancorp, Inc. Subsequently, several additional complaints also seeking class action status and raising substantially the same allegations, were filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. The plaintiffs propose to consolidate these cases. The litigation is in its very early stages, and the Company's time to answer has not yet run. The Company believes these complaints are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend these complaints. ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. serves as a bank holding company for ConnectOne Bank (the Bank). The Bank is a community-based, full service commercial bank. The Bank offers a range of deposit and loan products and services to the general public and, in particular, to small and mid-sized businesses, local professionals and individuals residing, working and shopping in its trade area. The Bank offers a broad range of deposit and loan products. Products and services provided include personal and business checking accounts, retirement accounts, money market accounts, time and savings accounts, credit cards, wire transfers, access to automated teller services, Internet banking, Treasury Direct, ACH origination, lockbox services and mobile banking by phone. In addition, the Bank offers safe deposit boxes. COOK COUNTY, IL: Interfered With Class's FMLA Rights, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Lenard Brown, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated persons v. Office of the Transitional Administrator, Earl Dunlap, and the County of Cook, Case No. 1:14-cv-03581 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2014) is brought to seek redress for the Defendants' alleged unlawful interference with the rights of the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated persons in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. According to the complaint, the Office of the Transitional Administrator ("OTA") and Earl Dunlap recently instituted a "no overtime restrictions" policy wherein the Defendants allegedly coerce Cook County Juvenile Detention Center employees to rescind their OTA-designated FMLA leave or to change their medical certification, regardless of medical necessity. Mr. Brown alleges that JTDC employees, who do not give up their FMLA rights, are forced onto a different work shift, regardless of hardship. The Office of the Transitional Administrator is a public agency created pursuant to court orders in the case of Doe v. Cook County, Case No. 99 C 3945 (N.D. Ill.). OTA is in charge of the day-to-day operations of the JTDC. Earl Dunlap is and was the Transitional Administrator of the OTA at all times material to the complaint. County of Cook is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the state of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin Potter, Esq. Matthew I. Farmer, Esq. Alenna K. Bolin, Esq. Patrick Cowlin, Esq. ROBIN POTTER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 861-1800 E-mail: robin@potterlaw.org matt@potterlaw.org alenna@potterlaw.org patrick@potterlaw.org CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES: "Pardee" Trial to Commence Sept. 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc., reported that Jonathan Pardee's motion as to liability has been set for trial, to commence on September 9, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "We were for some time a defendant in a class action (the "Stanwich Case") brought in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. The original plaintiffs in that case were persons entitled to receive regular payments (the "Settlement Payments") pursuant to earlier settlements of claims, generally personal injury claims, against unrelated defendants. Stanwich Financial Services Corp. ("Stanwich"), an affiliate of the former chairman of our board of directors, is the entity that was obligated to pay the Settlement Payments. Stanwich defaulted on its payment obligations to the plaintiffs and in June 2001 filed for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code, in the federal bankruptcy court in Connecticut. By February 2005, we had settled all claims brought against us in the Stanwich Case. In November 2001, one of the defendants in the Stanwich Case, Jonathan Pardee, asserted claims for indemnity against us in a separate action, which is now pending in federal district court in Rhode Island. We have filed counterclaims in the Rhode Island federal court against Mr. Pardee, and have filed a separate action against Mr. Pardee's Rhode Island attorneys, in the same court. The litigation between Mr. Pardee and us was stayed for several years through September 2011, awaiting resolution of an adversary action brought against Mr. Pardee in the bankruptcy court, which is hearing the bankruptcy of Stanwich. Pursuant to an agreement with the representative of creditors in the Stanwich bankruptcy, that adversary action has been dismissed. Under that agreement, we paid the bankruptcy estate $800,000 and abandoned our claims against the estate, while the estate has abandoned its adversary action against Mr. Pardee. With the dismissal of the adversary action, all known claims asserted against Mr. Pardee have been resolved without his incurring any liability. Accordingly, we believe that this resolution of the adversary action will result in limitation of our exposure to Mr. Pardee to no more than some portion of his attorneys fees incurred. The stay in the action against us in Rhode Island has been lifted, and both we and Mr. Pardee filed motions for summary judgment. The court ruled on those motions in February 2013, denying our motion, and granting Mr. Pardee's motion as to liability. The matter has been set for trial, to commence September 9, 2014. The issues remaining for trial are the extent of our obligation to indemnify Mr. Pardee." Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. is a specialty finance company. The Company's business is to purchase and service retail automobile contracts originated primarily by franchised automobile dealers and, to a lesser extent, by select independent dealers in the United States in the sale of new and used automobiles, light trucks and passenger vans. Through its automobile contract purchases, it provides indirect financing to the customers of dealers who have limited credit histories, low incomes or past credit problems. It serves as an alternative source of financing for dealers, facilitating sales to customers who otherwise might not be able to obtain financing from traditional sources, such as commercial banks, credit unions and the captive finance companies affiliated with automobile manufacturers. CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES: Defendant in Two Consumer Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc., is currently defending two purported class actions filed by consumers violations of law applicable to collection of receivables, one of which has been settled by agreement with the plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are routinely involved in various legal proceedings resulting from our consumer finance activities and practices, both continuing and discontinued. Consumers can and do initiate lawsuits against us alleging violations of law applicable to collection of receivables, and such lawsuits sometimes allege that resolution as a class action is appropriate. We are currently defending two such purported class actions, one of which has been settled by agreement with the plaintiffs (such settlement remains subject to approval by the court). For the most part, we have legal and factual defenses to such claims, which we routinely contest or settle (for immaterial amounts) depending on the particular circumstances of each case. We have recorded a liability as of March 31, 2014 with respect to such matters, in the aggregate." Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. is a specialty finance company. The Company's business is to purchase and service retail automobile contracts originated primarily by franchised automobile dealers and, to a lesser extent, by select independent dealers in the United States in the sale of new and used automobiles, light trucks and passenger vans. Through its automobile contract purchases, it provides indirect financing to the customers of dealers who have limited credit histories, low incomes or past credit problems. It serves as an alternative source of financing for dealers, facilitating sales to customers who otherwise might not be able to obtain financing from traditional sources, such as commercial banks, credit unions and the captive finance companies affiliated with automobile manufacturers. CORELOGIC INC: Intends to Defend Against RESPA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- CoreLogic, Inc., in its Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, disclosed that CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC (CVS), as the successor to eAppraiseIT, intends to defend against a purported class action alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, among other things. On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9, 2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim. On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class certification order. CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC (CVS), as the successor to eAppraiseIT, intends to defend against this claim vigorously; however, it may not be successful. At this time the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any. CoreLogic, Inc. (CoreLogic), is a provider of property information, analytics and services provider in the United States of America and Australia. The Company provides detailed coverage of property, mortgages and other encumbrances, consumer credit, tenancy, location, hazard risk and related performance information. The Company offers its customers databases of public, contributory data covering real property and mortgages information, judgments and liens, parcel and geospatial data, criminal background records, national coverage eviction information, non-prime lending records, credit information, and tax information, among other data types. The Company operates in three segments: data and analytics, mortgage origination services and asset management and processing solutions. In March 2014, the Company completed the Marshall & Swift/Boeckh (MSB), and DataQuick Information Systems. Effective March 25, 2014, CoreLogic acquired a 30.105% interest in Symbility Solutions Inc. CZ COMMERCE: Faces "Balik" Suit Over Alleged FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Serkan Balik, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, v. CZ Commerce, LLC d/b/a OK Petroleum, et al, Case No. 1:14-cv- 02905 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014) is brought against the Defendants for violation of Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. sections 201 et seq. that the Plaintiffs are entitled of unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs. CZ Commerce, LLC, is a New York Corporation doing business as OK Petroleum is located at 151 Hempstead Avenue, West Hempstead, 11552. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com DREYFUSS FIRM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Dallas Glover and Tamara Glover, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The Dreyfuss Firm, a Professional Law Corporation, and Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv- 01228-CAB-WVG (S.D. Cal., May 15, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jessica R.K. Dorman, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: jessica@westcoastlitigation.com EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Tenn. Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay & Penalties ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dale Dawson on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated emplpoyees, v. Emergency Medical Care Facilities, P.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-01105 (W.D. Tenn., May 8, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 207, 216(b). Emergency Medical Care Facilities, P.C., is a domestic corporation located at 620 Skyline Drive, Jackson, Tennessee 38301. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Russell, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER PLC 5409 Maryland Avenue, Suite 150 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 Facsimile: (731) 664-1540 E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Defendant in Mortgage Assignment Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- EverBank Financial Corp., is a defendant in class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege improper mortgage assignment, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. Mortgage Electronic Registration Services Related Litigation MERS, EverHome Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and servicers that have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the following material and class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure to pay recording fees in violation of state recording statutes: (1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et al. filed in October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio, and later removed to federal court and subsequently remanded to state court; (2) State of Iowa, by and through Darren J. Raymond, Plymouth County Attorney v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al., filed in March 2012 in the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, later removed to federal court and now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; (3) Boyd County, ex. rel. Phillip Hedrick, County Attorney of Boyd County, Kentucky, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al. filed in April 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky; (4) St. Clair County, Illinois v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP, Inc. et al., filed in May 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois; (5) County of Multnomah v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in December 2012 in an Oregon state court, later removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and subsequently remanded back to the state court; (6) Delaware County, PA, Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in November 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and later removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; (7) County of Ramsey and County of Hennepin, Minnesota v. MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., et al. filed in February 2013 in the Second Judicial District Court, subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota and now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and (8) Jackson County, Missouri v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc., et al., filed in April 2012 in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri and later removed to federal court where the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and now stayed due to the bankruptcy filing of defendant GMAC. In these material and class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in each case generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the defendants to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs. We believe the plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to contest all such claims vigorously." EverBank Financial Corp (EverBank), incorporated in 2004, is an unitary savings and loan holding company. The Company provides a range of financial products and services directly to customers through multiple business channels. Its operating subsidiary is EverBank. EverBank provides services to customers through Websites, over the phone, through the mail and at 14 Florida-based Financial Centers. The Company operates in two operating business segments: Banking and Wealth Management, and Mortgage Banking. Its Banking and Wealth Management segment includes earnings generated by and activities related to deposit and investment products and services and portfolio lending and leasing activities. Its Mortgage Banking segment consists of activities related to the origination and servicing of residential mortgage loans. In March 2014, the Company announced that it has completed the sale of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and private investor mortgage servicing rights (MSR) to Green Tree Servicing LLC. FINAL & TOUCH: Tex. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Carrera-Hernandez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B), v. Final & Touch Cleaning Service, et al, Case No. 3:14-cv-01715 (N.D. Tex., May 8, 2014) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. sections 201-216 specifically to recover unpaid wages, damages and attornry fees. Final & Touch Cleaning Service is a company that regularly transacts business within Dallas County. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq. J H ZIDELL PC 6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com FLUSHMATE: August 25 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit about the Series 503 Flushmate III Pressure Assist Flushing System. You may be eligible for cash payments from a proposed $18 million Settlement. The money compensation is in addition to the Flushmate System recall remedy you may have received and may request from Flushmate as part of its recall program. Who's Included? The Settlement includes anyone who owns or owned a toilet with a Flushmate System manufactured from October 14, 1997 through June 30, 2009. Flushmate Systems were installed in various toilet brands sold at Home Depot and Lowe's stores and through distributors and plumbing contractors. Installed in: American Standard, Crane, Ecotech, Eljer, Gerber, Kohler, Mancesa, Mansfield, Orion, St. Thomas, Universal Rundle, Vitra, Vitromex and Western Pottery toilets. What does the Settlement provide? Subject to Court approval, and to the extent not previously reimbursed, Class Members can receive a distribution from the Settlement Fund for having installed: (1) a Flushmate Repair Kit, (2) a replacement pressure vessel, or (3) a replacement toilet. Depending on the number of qualified claims, it is possible that Class Members will receive less than the full amount of their out- of-pocket expenses. To the extent not previously reimbursed, Class Members can also receive reimbursement for any direct property damage caused by a Flushmate System that leaked or burst. Any money left in the Settlement Fund after two years will be divided among Class Members who file valid claims or will be donated to a charitable organization. How can I get a payment? File a claim online at www.FlushmateClaims.com or call 1-877-412- 5277. (For questions related to the Flushmate Recall, please visit www.flushmate.com or www.flushmate.com/recall.) What are my rights? Even if you do nothing you will be bound by the Court's decisions. If you want to keep your right to sue the Defendants yourself, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by July 25, 2014. If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the Settlement by July 30, 2014. The Court will hold a hearing on August 25, 2014 to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of attorneys' costs and expenses. You or your own lawyer may appear at the hearing at your own expense. For more information or a Claim Form: 1-877-412-5277 or www.FlushmateClaims.com FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Removed "Soto" Class Suit to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Soto v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, et al., Case No. 14-02432CA01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-21789-JEM to the proceeding. The case asserts real property-related issues. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Hasan Ruiz, Esq. Karen Jill Barnet-Backer, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LA LEY CON JOHN H. RUIZ 4182 SW 74th Court Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 Facsimile: (866) 582-0907 E-mail: fmartinez@lawofficeslaley.com kbacker@lawofficeslaley.com - and - Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq. JOHN H. RUIZ PA 5040 NW 7th Street, Suite PH1 Miami, FL 33126 E-mail: rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com - and - Rosy Anette Aponte, Esq. R. APONTE & ASSOCIATES 8180 NW 36th Street, Suite 100j Doral, FL 33166 Telephone: (786) 360-3263 Facsimile: (786) 360-3266 E-mail: a2aponte@aol.com Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation is represented by: Randy Richard Dow, Esq. MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD 1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 356-2501 Facsimile: (954) 252-3806 E-mail: rdow@mcglinchey.com Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., are represented by: Robert Mark Brochin, Esq. Brian Michael Ercole, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 200 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 5300 Wachovia Financial Center Miami, FL 33131-2339 Telephone: (305) 415-3456 Facsimile: (305) 415-3001 E-mail: rbrochin@morganlewis.com bercole@morganlewis.com Defendant Country Walk Master Association, Inc., is represented by: Joyce Goodman-Guenther, Esq. GOODMAN-GUENTHER JOYCE PA 10723 SW 104th Street Miami, FL 33176 Telephone: (305) 274-5668 Facsimile: (305) 273-0339 E-mail: jgg@jgguentherlaw.com GARDEN STATE CLE: Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------- George Vietengruber, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Garden State CLE, New Jersey Continuing Legal Education Services, LLC and John Doe, Case No. 3:14-cv-03056 (D.N.J., May 14, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendant's actions of sending unsolicited fax advertisements to the unwilling fax recipients which violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Garden State CLE is a New Jersey corporation located at 21 Winthrop Road, Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue,Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com GENERAL INFORMATION SERVICES: Sued in Ky. for Violating FCRA ------------------------------------------------------------ Betty Lacy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. General Information Services, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00051-JHM- HBB (W.D. Ky., May 15, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Searles, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. Land Title Building, 19th Floor 100 S. Broad St. Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Ronald L. Burdge, Esq. BURDGE LAW OFFICE 2299 Miamisburg Centerville Road Dayton, OH 45459 Telephone: (937) 432-9500 Facsimile: (937) 432-9503 E-mail: elizabeth@burdgelaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Markle" Suit Over Faulty Ignition Switches ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peyton Markle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Delphi Automotive PLC, and Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-21788-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2014) arises from GM's recent string of recalls, the culmination of GM and Delphi's alleged scheme to defraud GM consumers through their unconscionable failure to disclose and active concealment of a defect in certain GM vehicles that renders them unsafe to drive and has killed at least 13 innocent victims and possibly hundreds more. The defect involves the vehicles' ignition switch system, which is dangerously susceptible to failure during normal and foreseeable driving conditions. Delphi manufactured and supplied the defective ignition switches. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Harley S. Tropin, Esq. Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq. Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. Robert Neary, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com hst@kttlaw.com tr@kttlaw.com tjl@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com - and - Archie Cleveland Lamb, Jr., Esq. ARCHIE LAMB & ASSOCIATES, LLC P.O. Box 2088 Birmingham, AL 35201 Telephone: (205) 612-6789 E-mail: alamb@archielamb.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Holliday" Suit Over Defective Switches ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Holliday and Elvira Calvillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors, LLC, General Motors Holding, LLC, Delphi Automotive PLC, And Dph-Das, LLC F/K/A Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No.1:14-cv-00271 (E.D. Tex., May 14, 2014), bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by the Defendants with defective ignition switches. General Motors Corporation was a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The Corporation through its various entities designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold Pontiac, Saturn, Chevrolet and other brand automobiles in Texas and multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell A Toups, Esq. WELLER GREEN TOUPS & TERRELL LLP 2615 Calder, Suite 400 Beaumont, TX 77704 Telephone: (409) 838-0101 Facsimile: (409) 832-8577 E-mail: matoups@wgttlaw.com H J HEINZ: July 31 Case Mgmt. Conference in "Stez" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued an order setting a case management conference in MICHAEL STEZ, Plaintiff(s), v. H.J. HEINZ COMPANY, Defendant(s), NO. C 14-1871 PJH, (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the May 9, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/UstM1dfrom Leagle.com. Judge Hamilton ordered, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and Civil L. R. 16-10, that a Case Management Conference be held in this case on July 31, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, in Oakland, California. Lead counsel are ordered to meet and confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) prior to the Case Management Conference with respect to those subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c). Not less than seven days before the conference, counsel must file a joint case management statement. Michael Stez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Eldridge Bower -- dbower@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP & Barbara Ann Rohr -- brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP. HANGTIME INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisements, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Kozlow, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Hangtime, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-02249-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2014) is brought to stop the Company's alleged practice of sending unsolicited advertisements to consumers via text message, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Hangtime is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Dylan Hughes, Esq. Jennifer L. McIntosh, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com dsh@girardgibbs.com jlm@girardgibbs.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Richard J. Doherty, Esq. James M. Smith, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com rich@bockhatchllc.com james@bockhatchllc.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sept. 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Labaton Sucharow LLP and Motley Rice LLC regarding the In re Hewlett-Packard Company Securities Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. SACV 11-1404 AG (RNBx) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SHARES OF HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK IN THE OPEN MARKET DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 22, 2010 TO AND THROUGH AUGUST 18, 2011, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that a settlement with Hewlett-Packard Company, Leo Apotheker, and R. Todd Bradley in the amount of $57,000,000 has been proposed by the Settling Parties. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Judge, on September 15, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10D of the United States Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California 92701 for the purpose of determining, among other things, (i) whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; (ii) whether, thereafter, this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of March 31, 2014; (iii) whether the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable and should be approved; and (iv) the reasonableness of the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses, with interest, incurred in connection with this Action. The Court has reserved the right to reschedule the hearing without further notice. If you are a member of the Settlement Class described above, your rights may be affected by this Action and the proposed Settlement thereof. If you have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim form, you may obtain them by contacting the Claims Administrator: HEWLETT-PACKARD SECURITIES LITIGATION c/o GCG P.O. Box 10056 Dublin, OH 43017-6656 (877) 782-8059 Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel: LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Jonathan Gardner, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 1-888-219-6877 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com MOTLEY RICE LLC Gregg S. Levin, Esq. 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 1-843-216-9000 www.motleyrice.com HPsettlementquestions@motleyrice.com If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked or received no later than September 16, 2014 establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later than August 25, 2014. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, such that they are received no later than August 25, 2014. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS NOTICE. DATED: May 28, 2014 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HYATT HOTELS: Court Dismissed Antitrust Complaint ------------------------------------------------- Hyatt Hotels Corp., reported that the Court dismissed for failure to state a claim, a putative class action filed against the Company alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. In September 2012, a putative class action was filed against the Company, several other hotel companies and several online travel companies in federal district court in Connecticut seeking an unspecified amount of damages and equitable relief for an alleged violation of the federal antitrust laws. The online travel companies and the other hotel companies were also named in other actions, and these cases and the case naming the Company were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas. The federal court in the Northern District of Texas dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint, but that amended complaint does not include the Company nor any of the other hotel companies as defendants. Accordingly, this case is no longer pending against the Company. Hyatt Hotels Corporation (Hyatt) is a global hospitality company. The Company manages, franchises, owns and develops Hyatt-branded hotels, resorts and residential and vacation ownership properties globally. As of December 31, 2011, the Company's portfolio consisted of 483 properties (132,727 rooms and units). During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company acquired three Woodfin Suites properties and 20 hotels. In May 2013, Chesapeake Lodging Trust acquired the Hyatt Fisherman's Wharf from the Company. In September 2013, Inland American Lodging Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. and Hyatt Hotels Corporation announced the respective purchase and sale of the 14-story, 501-room Hyatt Regency Santa Clara in Santa Clara, Calif. IGNITE RESTAURANT: Defendant in Securities Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., is a defendant in a putative class action complaint alleging Securities Act violations relating to the Company's financial restatements, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "On July 18, 2012, we announced our intention to restate our financial statements for the years ended December 28, 2009, January 3, 2011 and January 2, 2012 and the related interim periods. On July 20, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us, certain of our current directors and officers and the underwriters in the initial public offering ("IPO"). The plaintiffs allege that all the defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and certain of our directors and officers have control person liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act, based on allegations that in light of the July 18, 2012 restatement announcement, our IPO registration statement and prospectus contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading, and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. "We have begun the discovery process, however, we continue to believe this lawsuit is without merit, and are vigorously defending the lawsuit. However, we are unable to predict the outcome of this case and any future related cases." Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. operates two restaurant brands, Joe's Crab Shack (Joe's) and Brick House Tavern + Tap (Brick House). The Company's Joe's Crab Shack and Brick House Tavern + Tap operate in a diverse set of markets across the United States. Joe's Crab Shack is a national chain of casual seafood restaurants serving a variety of seafood items, with an emphasis on crab. Brick House Tavern + Tap is a casual restaurant brand that provides guests a gastro pub experience by offering a blend of menu items. As of December 31, 2012, the Company owned and operated 144 restaurants in 33 states. In September 2013, Ignite Restaurant Group Inc announced the opening of its newest Joe's Crab Shack restaurant, located in Newark, New Jersey. IMH FINANCIAL: Completed Notes Issuance in April 18 --------------------------------------------------- IMH Financial Corp. completed the issuance of notes under an Exchange Offering and Rights Offering on April 28, 2014, relating to the final approval of a Class Action Settlement, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 28, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2014. The Company states: "on or about November 25, 2013, IMH Financial Corporation ("IMH" or the "Company") received Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement (the "Settlement") when the Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the last remaining appeal. Under the terms of the Settlement, we offered to Class members: 1) up to $20.0 million of 4% five-year subordinated unsecured notes to members of the Class in exchange for up to approximately 2.5 million shares of our common stock at an exchange rate of one share per $8.02 in subordinated notes ("Exchange Offering"); and 2) up to $10.0 million of convertible notes to Class members that are accredited investors, with the same financial terms as the convertible notes previously issued to NW Capital ("Rights Offering"). We commenced the Exchange Offering and the Rights Offering on February 12, 2014, which remained open for 25 business days and were closed for subscription on March 20, 2014. Following the review of certain documentation submitted by participating shareholders that required additional administrative attention, as well as the coordination and execution of final documents, we completed the issuance of notes under the Exchange Offering and the Rights Offering on April 28, 2014. The final amount of settlement loss resulting from these transactions is not expected to vary materially from the amount previously reported in Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013." IMH Financial deals in real estate lending and investment mainly in the southwestern US. Although its family of companies historically has focused on acquiring and originating short-term bridge loans to enable commercial real estate development and construction, market conditions -- mainly lack of mortgage capital availability -- are prompting the company to change course. Its focus now is to make investments across a more diverse set of target assets, including interim loans used to pay off construction or property loans and whole commercial real estate mortgage loans. Its primary markets include Arizona, California, and Texas. IMH filed to go public in 2010 but withdrew the next year. INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Subsys' Off Label Marketing --------------------------------------------------------- Derick Larson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Michael Babich, and Darryl S. Baker, Case No. 2:14-cv-01043-GMS (D. Ariz., May 15, 2014) alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements concerning, and failed to disclose, among other things that the Company engaged in illegal and unethical off label marketing of Subsys. In March 2012, Insys launched Subsys, the proprietary sublingual fentanyl spray for breakthrough cancer pain in opioid-tolerant patients, through a purported "cost-efficient commercial organization of approximately 50 sales professionals." Insys Therapeutics, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chandler, Arizona. Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes innovative supportive care products, primarily intended to assist cancer patients cope with the symptoms of their disease and treatment or therapy. The Company has two marketed products, Subsys and Dronabinol SG Capsule, which utilize Insys' sublingual spray drug delivery technology and dronabinol formulation and manufacturing capabilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer L. Kroll, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 1850 N. Central Ave., Suite 2010 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com fmcconville@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com JAMES M. BARB CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Holdfer, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. James M. Barb Construction, Inc., a foreign profit corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00261 (M.D. Fla., May 14, 2014), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. James M. Barb Construction, Inc., is a foreign profit corporation and was engaged in business in the state of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, PA Suite 300, 1003 Del Prado Blvd Cape Coral, FL 33990 Telephone: (239) 549-6689 Facsimile: (239) 549-3331 E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com JF VEHICLE: Driver Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Ramos, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. JF Vehicle Transporters, Inc., a Florida corporation, Juan M. Ferret, individually, and Avis Budget Group, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61150-WJZ (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of the Defendants' drivers to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants provide car detailing and parking services to Avis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, 14th Floor P.P. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3341 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com JM SMUCKER: Class Action Over False "Natural" Claims Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah J. Abramson, Esq. -- sjabramson@Venable.com -- and Angel A. Garganta, Esq. -- aagarganta@Venable.com -- at Venable LLP, report that another consumer class action over allegedly false and misleading "natural" claims survived a motion to dismiss in the Southern District of New York on May 15, 2014. At issue in Ault v. J.M. Smucker Co. is whether "All Natural" claims made on labels of Smucker's Crisco branded vegetable oils are false and misleading. The plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the claim is misleading for two reasons: 1) the oils are derived from genetically modified vegetables which are not natural, and 2) the oils are so heavily processed that they bear no chemical resemblance to the ingredients from which they are derived. In response to the complaint, Smucker's filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that FDA policies and regulations preempt the plaintiffs' state false advertising claims, and argued that the Court should decline to enter that "All Natural" debate and defer to the FDA as it has primary jurisdiction. On May 15, 2014, Judge Crotty of the Southern District of New York denied the motion to dismiss. This result is not surprising given that the FDA has consistently refused to offer a definition of "natural" that settles common issues of contention like genetically modified organisms, even when faced with industry groups and judges clamoring for guidance on this issue. The May 15, 2014 order stressed the FDA's silence on this issue and cited heavily to the agency's January 6, 2004 letter to three district court judges of the Northern District of California and the District of New Jersey, which directly rejected the courts' request for the FDA to weigh in on whether products containing genetically modified ingredients may or may not be labeled "natural." Judge Crotty expressed concern that finding preemption or primary jurisdiction in the face of this regulatory hole would leave deceived consumers with no recourse under either state or federal law. This outcome serves as an illustration of another emerging trend in food labeling consumer class actions: class certification is an easier target for defendants than agency preemption, especially in cases where the agency has not directly spoken on an issue through notice and comment rulemaking. For more information about this trend see Gregory Sater's post on the Chipotle "Naturally Raised" case and a recent article by Dan Silverman, Gregory Sater, and Bety Javidzad on the POM Wonderful decertification decision. K & L COURT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mee Wooi Chan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. K & L Court Food, Inc. d/b/a Chance Asian Bistro & Bar, ABC Corp. d/b/a Yamato Modern Asian Cuisine, Ken Hua Li a/k/a Ken Li, John Doe, and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-03075-ILG-RLM (E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2014) is brought on behalf of current and former employees of the Defendants seeking unpaid wages guaranteed to them under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. K & L Court Food, Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. K & L, doing business as Chance Asian Bistro & Bar, was in the business of preparing and serving Asian food via patronage of and take-out delivery from its restaurant. ABC Corp. is the fictitious name of the unknown corporation or entity operating as Yamato Modern Asian Cuisine located in Brooklyn, New York. Yamato Restaurant prepares and serves Asian cuisine via dine-in and take-out delivery. The Individual Defendants are owners, shareholders, or managers of the Defendant Corporations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin B. Xue, Esq. Thomas Hsien Chih Kung, Esq. XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 401 Broadway, Suite 1009 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 219-2275 Facsimile: (212) 219-2276 E-mail: thomaskung@xuelaw.com KEYCORP: Court Denied Rehearing on Metyk Litigation Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------- KeyCorp reported that on April 28, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc relating to the order granting KeyCorp's motion to dismiss in the Thomas Metyk class action lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On January 29, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ("Northern District") entered an order granting KeyCorp's motion to dismiss in a consolidated class action lawsuit styled Thomas Metyk, et al. v. KeyCorp, et al. ("Metyk"). Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Northern District's dismissal of the lawsuit and its denial of plaintiffs' motion to set aside final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ("Sixth Circuit"). On March 26, 2014, the Sixth Circuit filed its opinion affirming the judgment of the Northern District for both issues on appeal. On April 9, 2014, the appellants filed with the Sixth Circuit a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc seeking a review of the opinion. On April 28, 2014, the Sixth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. KeyCorp, is a bank holding company. It is a bank-based financial services company. KeyCorp is the parent holding company for KeyBank National Association (KeyBank), its principal subsidiary, through which most of its banking services are provided. Through KeyBank and certain other subsidiaries, the Company provides a range of retail and commercial banking, commercial leasing, investment management, consumer finance and investment banking products and services to individual, corporate and institutional clients through two major business segments: Key Community Bank and Key Corporate Bank. In August 2013, KeyCorp closed on its agreement to sell Victory Capital Management and its broker dealer affiliate Victory Capital Advisers. KFORCE INC: Labor Suit Plaintiff Appeals Summary Judgment Order --------------------------------------------------------------- Kforce Inc., disclosed that on February 20, 2014, the plaintiff in the class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, unpaid compensation, has filed an appeal of the district court's summary judgment decision, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On June 18, 2013, Kforce, along with other staffing firms, was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the Orange County Superior Court of the State of California. The plaintiff alleges that a class of current and former Kforce employees working in California was denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing with current and potential clients of Kforce, over a period covering four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff seeks recovery in an unspecified amount for this alleged unpaid compensation, the alleged failure of Kforce to provide them with accurate wage statements, the alleged improper use of debit cards as an employee payment mechanism in certain circumstances, alleged unfair competition, and statutory penalties, attorney's fees and other damages. On August 30, 2013, Kforce moved the matter to the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California, Case No. 8:13cv1356. On January 30, 2014, the U.S. District Court of Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Kforce except for the plaintiff's claim for waiting time penalties, which is an individual claim and not part of the class action. On February 20, 2014, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the district court's summary judgment decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kforce Inc. (Kforce) is a provider of professional and technical specialty staffing services and solutions. It operates in five segments: Technology (Tech), Finance and Accounting (FA), Clinical Research (KCR), Health Information Management (HIM) and Government Solutions (GS). Kforce organizes and manages its Tech and FA segments on a regional basis: Atlantic, North and West. Its Tech segment includes Kforce Global Solutions, Inc. (Global), a wholly owned subsidiary, which has two offices in the Philippines. Its KCR, HIM and GS segments are organized and managed by specialty. As of December 31, 2011, it operated 62 field offices, which are located throughout the United States, and an office in Manila, Philippines. In April 2012, it sold all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of Kforce Clinical Research, Inc. KKR FINANCIAL: Discovery in Shareholder Litigation Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- Master LeGrow on March 12, 2014, orally issued a final report recommending that the Court grant a stay of discovery in In re KKR Financial Holdings LLC Shareholder Litigation, CIVIL ACTION NO. 9210-CB pending a decision on defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs took exception to the recommendation in the final report. Briefing on that issue was completed on May 7, 2014. On May 19, 2014, the Court of Chancery of Delaware issued a ruling a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ZNX2QPfrom Leagle.com, stating that it agrees with the Master's conclusion based on its de novo review and will grant the motion to stay discovery. This action involves a challenge to a stock-for-stock merger between KKR Financial Holdings LLC ("KFN") and KKR & Co. L.P. ("KKR"). Plaintiffs did not seek to enjoin the transaction, which closed on April 30, 2014. The Verified Consolidated Class Action Complaint seeks compensatory damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting. The lawyers are: Stuart M. Grant, Esq. Michael J. Barry, Esq. Mary S. Thomas, Esq. Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 - and - Gregory P. Williams, Esq. Blake Rohrbacher, Esq. Susan M. Hannigan, Esq. Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 - and - Christine S. Azar, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1225 Wilmington, DE 19801 - and - Blake A. Bennett, Esq. Cooch & Taylor P.A. 1000 West Street 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 - and - Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esq. Garrett B. Moritz, Esq. Seitz Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP 100 South West Street, Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19899 - and - Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. O'Kelly Ernst & Bielli, LLC 901 North Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 LATE JULY: Judge Stays Cane Juice False Ad Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal judge on May 22 said he would stay a proposed class action accusing Late July Snacks LLC of disguising sugar in its products under the label "evaporated cane juice," saying he'd like to see whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration adopts new guidance on such labeling soon. Late July urged U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen to dismiss the case in a February motion, arguing that the FDA has jurisdiction over labeling issues such as the ones raised in the lawsuit. In March, the agency invited new public comment on the use of the term "evaporated cane juice" on food labeling, suggesting it may update the draft guidance it issued in 2009, Late July said in March. "I'm inclined to find that the primary jurisdiction doctrine applies here," Judge Chen said after oral arguments on the motion on May 22. "But I'm also inclined to stay the case. This is a matter that could benefit from some input and guidance from the FDA." Ben Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued on May 22 that the case should survive Late July's motion because it's based on settled regulations, not on the FDA's 2009 draft guidelines for evaporated cane juice labeling. Even if it were based on that draft, the court isn't bound by that document, Gore argued. "We think the defendant falsely labels sugar. It's sugar, not juice, and the FDA never approved calling sugar 'juice,'" Mr. Gore said. Judge Chen conceded that whatever the FDA adopts may not be binding, but said the agency's take on evaporated cane juice labeling "might still be entitled to Chevron-level deference," he said, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the 1984 case Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Although Late July's attorney, Rocky Tsai -- Rocky.Tsai@ropesgray.com -- of Ropes & Gray LLP, said on May 22 that he's happy with Judge Chen's motion to stay, he pointed out that there's no way to know how soon the FDA will act. The judge asked both sides to return in late October to discuss what progress the agency has made and to consider whether to reopen the case. In a number of recent California labeling-related class actions against companies such as Lifeway Foods, Attune Foods Inc., Redwood Hill Farm and Creamery, Inc. and Yucatan Foods LP, U.S. District Court judges have found that courts should defer to the FDA, Late July noted in court filings. Some of the cases involve the same named plaintiffs who sued Late July, Mary Swearingen and Robert Figy, court records show. Ms. Swearingen and Mr. Figy sued Late July in September, alleging that they purchased a variety of the company's crackers, sandwich crackers and chips, and that on each product evaporated cane juice was listed as an ingredient. They claim the term is banned from use on food labels under California and federal law. Ms. Swearingen and Mr. Figy said Late July uses the term "evaporated cane juice" to make its products appear healthier than a product that lists sugar as an ingredient. The plaintiffs are represented by Ben. F. Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates and by David Shelton of David Shelton PLLC. Late July is represented by Joshua L. Solomon -- jsolomon@psdfirm.com -- of Pollack Solomon Duffy LLP and by Rocky C. Tsai of Ropes & Gray. The case is Mary Swearingen, et al. v. Late July Snacks LLC, number 3:13-cv-04324 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. LG DISPLAY: Appealing TFT-LCD Class Certification Decision ---------------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd., is pursuing an appeal of the class certification decision on the class action complaints filed by the direct and indirect purchasers in May 2011, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. In 2007, class action complaints alleging violations of Canada competition laws were filed against LG Display and other TFT-LCD manufacturers in Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class action complaints filed by the direct and indirect purchasers in May 2011. The Company is pursuing an appeal of the class certification decision. The actions in Quebec and British Columbia have been stayed. LG Display Co., Ltd. is a Korea-based company engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of display and related accessories. The Company mainly provides thin-film transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used in televisions (TVs), laptops, desktop monitors and other applications such as mobile phones, industrial devices, online stock trades, automobile navigation systems, aircraft instrumentation, medical devices and others. It also involves in the production of organic light-emitting diode (OLEDs) and monitors. Its products are under the brand name of LG Display. The Company distributes its products within domestic market and to overseas markets, including America, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, China and Singapore. LG DISPLAY: Waiting for Service of Israel Class Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd., still has to receive service of a class action complaint filed in the Central District in Israel, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company states: "In December 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the Central District in Israel. As of April 29, 2014, we have yet to receive the service of complaint from the class. We plan to vigorously defend against any claims asserted by the class." LG Display Co., Ltd. is a Korea-based company engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of display and related accessories. The Company mainly provides thin-film transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used in televisions (TVs), laptops, desktop monitors and other applications such as mobile phones, industrial devices, online stock trades, automobile navigation systems, aircraft instrumentation, medical devices and others. It also involves in the production of organic light-emitting diode (OLEDs) and monitors. Its products are under the brand name of LG Display. The Company distributes its products within domestic market and to overseas markets, including America, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, China and Singapore. LITTON LOAN: Faces "Perryman" Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance -------------------------------------------------------------- Margo Perryman on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP; Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC; Southwest Business Corporation; American Security Insurance Company; and Does 1-100, Case No. 3:14-cv-02261-JCS (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2014) seeks damages and other relief against the Defendants for their alleged wrongful and collusive business practices related to force-placed insurance. Litton Loan Servicing LP is a Delaware Limited Partnership, headquartered in Houston, Texas. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC is a Delaware company with a principal place of business located in West Palm Beach, Florida. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corporation. Litton and Ocwen are in the business of mortgage servicing. Southwest Business Corporation is a privately held financial services company based in San Antonio, Texas. American Security Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Assurant, Inc. ASIC writes force-placed insurance policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sheri L. Kelly, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SHERI L. KELLY 31 E. Julian St. San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 287-7712 Facsimile: (408) 583-4249 E-mail: slk@sherikellylaw.com - and - Barry Himmelstein, Esq. HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK 2000 Powell St., Suite 1605 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (510) 450-0782 Facsimile: (510) 924-0403 E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com - and - Steven A. Owings, Esq. Alexander P. Owings, Esq. OWINGS LAW FIRM 1400 Brookwood Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 661-9999 Facsimile: (501) 661-8393 E-mail: sowings@owingslawfirm.com apowings@owingslawfirm.com - and - Brent Walker, Esq. WALKER LAW PLLC 502 Dogwood Meadows Austin, AR 72007 Telephone: (501) 605-8595 Facsimile: (888) 571-0319 E-mail: bwalker@walkerlawplc.com - and - Jack Wagoner, Esq. Angela Mann, Esq. WAGONER LAW FIRM, P.A. 1320 Brookwood, Suite E Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 663-5225 Facsimile: (501) 660-4030 E-mail: jack@wagonerlawfirm.com angela@wagonerlawfirm.com Defendant American Security Insurance Company is represented by: Frank G. Burt, Esq. William Glenn Merten, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A. 1025 Thomas Jefferson St. NW Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 965-8100 Facsimile: (202) 965-8104 E-mail: fburt@cfjblaw.com gmerten@cfjblaw.com - and - Dawn B. Williams, Esq. JORDEN BURT LLP 1025 Thomas Jefferson St NW, Suite 400 East Lobby Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 965-8100 Facsimile: (202) 965-8104 E-mail: dbw@jordenusa.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in Ill. Credit Card Receipts Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit alleging that violations in connection with electronically printed credit card receipts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "On August 30, 2012, Jaroslaw Prusak, a purported customer ("Prusak"), filed a putative class action lawsuit, which was subsequently amended, against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Prusak alleges that we willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with electronically printed credit card receipts provided to certain of our customers. Prusak, for himself and the putative class, seeks statutory damages of no less than $100 and no more than $1,000 per violation, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief. Prusak has filed a motion seeking certification of the putative class and the parties have each filed motions seeking summary judgment with regard to matters at issue in the case. Those motions are currently pending before the Court. Although we believe we have defenses to the claims asserted and have opposed the motion to certify the class, our estimate of the reasonably possible loss that may result from this action is a range between zero and $2.3 million, with no amount within that range a better estimate than any other amount." Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. (Lumber Liquidators) is retailer of hardwood flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories. The Company offers an assortment of wood flooring, which includes prefinished domestic and exotic hardwoods, engineered hardwoods, unfinished hardwoods, bamboo, cork and laminates, as well as resilient flooring. Its flooring enhancements and accessories include moldings, noise-reducing underlay and adhesives. Lumber Liquidators and Bellawood are it brands. Its hardwood flooring products are available in various widths and lengths. It offers approximately 350 different flooring product stock-keeping units. In September 2011, it acquired certain assets of Sequoia Floorings Inc. (Sequoia) relating to Sequoia's quality control and assurance, product development and logistics operations in China. In June 2013, Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc announced that the Company has opened its 300th store, located in Las Vegas, Nevada. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in "Kiken" Securities Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., is a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the Company made material misstatements on the chemical content of its wood products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken ("Kiken") filed a securities class action lawsuit, which was subsequently amended, in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against us, our Founder, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants"). In the complaint, Kiken alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations and prospects. In particular, Kiken alleges that the Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to our compliance with the federal Lacey Act and the chemical content of our wood products. In addition to attorney's fees and costs, Kiken seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. We dispute Kiken's claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, insurance coverage issues and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action." Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. (Lumber Liquidators) is retailer of hardwood flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories. The Company offers an assortment of wood flooring, which includes prefinished domestic and exotic hardwoods, engineered hardwoods, unfinished hardwoods, bamboo, cork and laminates, as well as resilient flooring. Its flooring enhancements and accessories include moldings, noise-reducing underlay and adhesives. Lumber Liquidators and Bellawood are it brands. Its hardwood flooring products are available in various widths and lengths. It offers approximately 350 different flooring product stock-keeping units. In September 2011, it acquired certain assets of Sequoia Floorings Inc. (Sequoia) relating to Sequoia's quality control and assurance, product development and logistics operations in China. In June 2013, Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc announced that the Company has opened its 300th store, located in Las Vegas, Nevada. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in 2 TCPA Violations Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., is a defendant in two class action cases alleging that the Company unlawfully sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "Two putative class action cases have recently been filed against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that we unlawfully sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements. On or about March 5, 2014, Richard Wade Architects, P.C. ("RWA") filed a lawsuit, which was subsequently amended, alleging that we violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law by sending an unsolicited facsimile advertisement to RWA. RWA seeks recourse on its own behalf as well as other similarly situated parties that received unsolicited facsimile advertisements from us. Similarly, on or about April 29, 2014, Stonecrafters, Inc. ("Stonecrafters") filed suit on its own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated parties alleging that we violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Stonecrafters and others. The TCPA provides for recovery of actual damages or $500 for each violation, whichever is greater. If it is determined that a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA, the amount of the award may be increased by up to three times the amount provided above. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action." Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. (Lumber Liquidators) is retailer of hardwood flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories. The Company offers an assortment of wood flooring, which includes prefinished domestic and exotic hardwoods, engineered hardwoods, unfinished hardwoods, bamboo, cork and laminates, as well as resilient flooring. Its flooring enhancements and accessories include moldings, noise-reducing underlay and adhesives. Lumber Liquidators and Bellawood are it brands. Its hardwood flooring products are available in various widths and lengths. It offers approximately 350 different flooring product stock-keeping units. In September 2011, it acquired certain assets of Sequoia Floorings Inc. (Sequoia) relating to Sequoia's quality control and assurance, product development and logistics operations in China. In June 2013, Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc announced that the Company has opened its 300th store, located in Las Vegas, Nevada. MERGE HEALTHCARE: Defendant in Shareholder Class Action Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- Merge Healthcare Incorporated is a defendant in a purported shareholder class action complaint filed on January 16, 2014, alleging violations of federal securities laws, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "On January 16, 2014, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Fernando Rossy, who claims to be a Merge Healthcare stockholder, against Merge Healthcare and certain current and former directors and officers claiming violations of federal securities laws and asserting that a class of our stockholders suffered damages due to the alleged dissemination or approval of false and misleading statements by Merge Healthcare from August 1, 2012 through January 7, 2014 related to falsified subscription backlog figures and a reluctance amongst large health systems to make enterprise purchases, as well as a lack of effective controls. Several other putative shareholder class action complaints alleging materially the same causes of action were subsequently filed. A hearing was held on March 26, 2014 before the Court of the Northern District Illinois, at which time the Court granted the motion of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System ("ATRS") to consolidate the class action cases and to appoint ATRS as lead plaintiff. We expect ATRS to file an amended complaint by the end of May 2014. We intend to file a motion to dismiss following ATRS's filing of its amended complaint. The next status hearing before the Court is set for September 17, 2014. On February 14, 2014, William B. Federman, who claims to be a Merge Healthcare stockholder, filed a derivative complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against certain of our current and former directors and officers, asserting breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of materially the same conduct alleged in the securities fraud class action complaints. Subsequently, other similar derivative complaints have been filed. Counsel for Federman has agreed to stay any further proceedings until after the Federal Court rules on the motion to dismiss in the class action. We are seeking a stay in the other derivative actions. The plaintiffs in the class action and derivative cases have not claimed a specific amount of damages. Merge Healthcare and the other named defendants are actively considering all possible responses to these complaints. While we intend to defend the claims vigorously and carry directors and officers insurance, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a loss in this matter. At this stage of the proceedings, however, it is not possible for management to reasonably estimate either the likelihood of such a loss or its magnitude." Merge Healthcare Incorporated (Merge) develops software solutions that facilitate the sharing of images to create an electronic healthcare experience for patients and physicians. Its solutions are designed to help solve some of the challenges in health information exchange, such as the incorporation of medical images and diagnostic information into broader health information technology (IT) applications and the interoperability of software solutions. It provides enterprise imaging solutions for radiology, cardiology, orthopaedics and eye care; a suite of products for clinical trials; software for financial and pre-surgical management, and applications that fuel some of the modality vendors worldwide. It provides enterprise imaging solutions for radiology, cardiology, orthopaedics and eye care; a suite of products for clinical trials; software for financial and pre- surgical management, and applications. On August 4, 2011, it acquired Ophthalmic Imaging Systems (OIS). ML ZAGER: Accused of Using False/Deceptive Method to Collect Debt ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Cohen, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. M.L. Zager, P.C., a New Jersey Professional Corporation; Michael L. Zager, individually and in his official capacity on behalf of M.L. Zager, P.C.; and John and Jane Does Numbers 1 through 25, Case No. 2:14-cv-03143-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., May 15, 2014) accuses the Defendants of using false, deceptive, and misleading practices in connection with their attempt to collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiff and others. M.L. Zager, P.C. is a New Jersey Professional Corporation, whose principal place of business is located in Monticello, Sullivan County, New York. Michael L. Zager is a principal, owner, director, shareholder or managing partner of Zager Law. Zager Law collects, and attempts to collect, debts on behalf of creditors. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are yet unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. THOMASSON LAW, LLC 101 Hudson Street, 21st Floor Jersey City, NJ 07302-3929 Telephone: (201) 479-9969 Facsimile: (855) 479-9969 E-mail: andrew@thomassonllc.com MOUNT SINAI HOSPITALS: Fails to Billing Workers, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Regina Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mount Sinai Hospitals Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 03489 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2014), is a case about a teaching hospital with annual revenues of well over $1 billion that fails to pay many of its administrative employees, specifically those who handle billing and insurance matters, the wages to which they are entitled by law. Mt. Sinai Hospitals Group, Inc. is a domestic not-for-profit New York corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ariel Yigal Graff, Esq. Robert Walter Ottinger , Jr, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 20 West 55th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 571-2000 Facsimile: (212) 571-0505 E-mail: ari@ottingerlaw.com robert@ottingerlaw.com MULTIMEDIA GAMES: 11th Cir. Reversed Class Certification Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., reported that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order on April 2, 2014, reversing the district court's ruling on class certification on the action alleging violations to the Alabama state law, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et al., a civil action, was filed on March 8, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern Division, against the Company and others. The plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of VictoryLand, allege that the Company participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state law by supplying to VictoryLand purportedly unlawful electronic bingo machines played by the plaintiffs and seek recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the complaint under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(A). The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the action as a class action. On March 16, 2012, Walter Bussey and two other named plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed. On March 29, 2013, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 12, 2013, the defendants jointly filed a petition with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the court's ruling on class certification. On June 18, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order granting the petition to appeal. Following briefing and oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order on April 2, 2014, reversing the district court's ruling on class certification and remanding the case to the district court. We continue to vigorously defend this matter. Given the inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, we are unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome. A finding in this case that electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama during the pertinent time frame could have adverse regulatory consequences for us in other jurisdictions." Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. (Multimedia Games) is engaged in designing, manufacturing and supplying gaming machines and systems to commercial and Native American casino operators in North America, as well as, domestic and selected international lottery operators, and commercial bingo gaming facility operators. The Company's revenues are generated from the operation of gaming machines in revenue-sharing arrangements and from the sale of gaming machines and systems that features licensed game themes. Multimedia Games places its revenue-sharing machines and sells its gaming machines and systems in Class II, Class III, video lottery terminal (VLT) and electronic bingo settings. The Company derives the majority of its gaming revenues from participation arrangements or development and placement fee agreements. It participates in the Class III and Class II gaming machine markets, as well as the central determinant system market in North America. MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Certification Ruling in "Hardy" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., awaits a ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the Ozetta Hardy civil action, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al., a civil action, was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC (an entity that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Alabama. On June 3, 2010, the Company and other manufacturers were added. The plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of White Hall, allege that the Company participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state law by supplying to White Hall purportedly unlawful electronic bingo machines played by the plaintiffs and seek recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the complaint based on Ala. Code, Sec 8-1- 150(A). The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the action as a class action. On July 2, 2010, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. We await a ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which has been fully briefed and is pending before the court. We continue to vigorously defend this matter. Given the inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, we are unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome. A finding in this case that electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama during the pertinent time frame could have adverse regulatory consequences for us in other jurisdictions." Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. (Multimedia Games) is engaged in designing, manufacturing and supplying gaming machines and systems to commercial and Native American casino operators in North America, as well as, domestic and selected international lottery operators, and commercial bingo gaming facility operators. The Company's revenues are generated from the operation of gaming machines in revenue-sharing arrangements and from the sale of gaming machines and systems that features licensed game themes. Multimedia Games places its revenue-sharing machines and sells its gaming machines and systems in Class II, Class III, video lottery terminal (VLT) and electronic bingo settings. The Company derives the majority of its gaming revenues from participation arrangements or development and placement fee agreements. It participates in the Class III and Class II gaming machine markets, as well as the central determinant system market in North America. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in "Gregory" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William J. Martini issued an opinion in the lawsuit captioned ALBERT GREGORY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC d/b/a CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, CIV. NO. 2:13-6952 (WJM), (D. N.J.). In this putative class action, Plaintiff Albert Gregory alleges that Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Champion Mortgage Company ("Champion"), a debt collector, failed to provide disclosures required by the Fair Debt Practices Collection Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Complaint contains two counts. In Count I, Gregory argues that Champion violated the FDCPA when it failed to include various disclosures with its November 15, 2012, May 14, 2013, and September 25, 2013 Letters. In Count II, Gregory argues that Champion violated RESPA when it failed to provide certain disclosures in its November 15, 2012 Letter. Champion moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Count I in part, and it moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Count II in its entirety. Judge Martini granted the motion to dismiss and held that Count I is dismissed with prejudice to the extent it is based on the November 15, 2012 and May 14, 2013 Letters. Count I survives to the degree it is based on the September 25, 2013 Letter. Count II is dismissed without prejudice. The Court said it will grant Gregory 30 days leave to file a Second Amended Complaint addressing only those deficiencies identified in the opinion. A copy of the District Court's May 9, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/71BY1oat Leagle.com. ALBERT GREGORY, Plaintiff, represented by: JOSEPH K. JONES, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC, 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, represented by MARK I. SCHLESINGER -- mark.schlesinger@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP. NITHUN CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Luis Tacuri, et al, v. Nithun Construction Company, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02908 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 201 et seq. Nithun Construction Company is based at 475 McDonald Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com NOKIA CORP: "Majad" Case over Investment Plan Now Closed -------------------------------------------------------- Nokia Corporation reported that the Majad v. Nokia case is closed, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. On April 19, 2010 and April 21, 2010, two individuals filed separate putative class action lawsuits against Nokia Inc. and the directors and officers of Nokia Inc., and certain other employees and representatives of the company, claiming to represent all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan (the "Plan") who participated in the Plan between January 1, 2008 and the present and whose accounts included investments in Nokia stock. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to comply with their statutory and fiduciary duties when they failed to remove Nokia stock as a plan investment option. The cases were consolidated into Majad v. Nokia and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on September 15, 2010. The amended complaint alleges that the named individuals knew of the matters alleged in the securities case, that the matters significantly increased the risk of Nokia stock ownership, and as a result of that knowledge, the named defendants should have removed Nokia stock as a Plan investment option. The plaintiff's claims were dismissed in their entirety on September 5, 2011. On September 13, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint a second time and entered judgment in favor of Nokia. On October 23, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's order granting judgment in favor of Nokia. On June 21, 2013, the Second Circuit upheld the earlier decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York from September 13, 2012, to dismiss all claims made in the ERISA claim filed against defendants including Nokia Inc. and the Nokia Inc. Retirement Plan by Javad Majad and Ryan Sharif. The Plaintiff had until September 23, 2013, to appeal the Second Circuit decision by filing a cert petition to the US Supreme Court. The Plaintiff did not appeal and the case is closed. Nokia Corporation (Nokia) has three operating segments: Devices & Services; NAVTEQ, and Nokia Siemens Networks. Devices & Services is responsible for developing and managing the Company's portfolio of mobile products, as well as designing and developing services, including applications and content. NAVTEQ is a provider of digital map information and related location-based content and services for mobile navigation devices, automotive navigation systems, Internet-based mapping applications, and government and business solutions. Nokia Siemens Networks provides mobile and fixed network infrastructure, communications and networks service platforms, as well as professional services and business solutions, to operators and service providers. In August 2012, the Company sold a portfolio consisting of over 500 patents and patent applications worldwide to Vringo Inc. NOKIA CORP: "Romero" ERISA Suit Now Closed ------------------------------------------ Nokia Corporation reported that the Romero v. Nokia case is closed, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. On September 19, 2012, a class action based on the US Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") entitled Romero v. Nokia was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint named Nokia Corporation, certain Nokia Corporation Board members, Fidelity Management Trust Co., The Nokia Retirement Savings & Investment Plan Committee and Linda Fonteneaux, as well as certain individuals from the Nokia Retirement Savings & Investment Plan Committee whose identity is not known to the plaintiffs as defendants. The complaint claimed to represent all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan (the "Plan") who participated in the Plan between January 19, 2012 and the present and whose accounts invested in the Nokia Stock Fund ("the Fund"). The complaint alleged that the named individuals breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, permitting the plan to offer the Fund as an investment option, permitting the plan to invest in the Fund and permitting the Fund to invest in and remain invested in American Depository Receipts of Nokia Corporation when the defendants allegedly knew the Fund and Nokia's shares were extremely risky investments. Plaintiff was provided plan documents and informed that it had incorrectly identified the proper defendants in its complaint. On December 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against all defendants, without prejudice and indicated it would refile in California where the Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan is currently administered. Romero filed a new complaint on December 10, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants Nokia Inc., the Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan Committee, and several individuals alleged to be plan fiduciaries, claiming to represent all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan (the "Plan") who participated in the Plan between January 19, 2012, and the present and whose accounts invested in the Nokia Stock Fund (the "Fund"). The complaint alleges that named individuals breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, permitting the plan to offer the Fund as an investment option, permitting the plan to invest in the Fund and permitting the Fund to invest in and remain invested in American Depository Receipts of Nokia Corporation when the defendants allegedly knew the Fund and Nokia's shares were extremely risky investments. On May 15, 2013, Nokia and the Named Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims against the defendants and are awaiting the Court's decision. On October 15, 2013, the court granted Nokia and the Named Defendants motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff did not appeal and this matter is closed. Nokia Corporation (Nokia) has three operating segments: Devices & Services; NAVTEQ, and Nokia Siemens Networks. Devices & Services is responsible for developing and managing the Company's portfolio of mobile products, as well as designing and developing services, including applications and content. NAVTEQ is a provider of digital map information and related location-based content and services for mobile navigation devices, automotive navigation systems, Internet-based mapping applications, and government and business solutions. Nokia Siemens Networks provides mobile and fixed network infrastructure, communications and networks service platforms, as well as professional services and business solutions, to operators and service providers. In August 2012, the Company sold a portfolio consisting of over 500 patents and patent applications worldwide to Vringo Inc. O'REILLY AUTO: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Background Check --------------------------------------------------------------- Class Actions News reports that plaintiff Raphael Saye of California has brought a class action complaint against O'Reilly Auto Parts alleging the company obtained and used information from background reports in its hiring processes without obeying state and federal mandates. To follow state and federal mandates during the job hiring process, several disclosures must be presented to potential hires. A pre-authorization disclosure must be presented as a stand-alone document to inform the applicant a report may be obtained for employment purposes. An adverse action disclosure must be used to provide the consumer report to any prospective or current employee who will be fired or not hired. O'Reilly Auto Parts failed to provide proper pre-authorization disclosures and adverse action disclosures. The class action alleges that as a result, Plaintiff Raphael Saye and others have had their privacy and statutory rights violated. The Class Action Complaint states that O'Reilly Auto Parts violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, violated the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and violated the California Business and Professions Code. On July 19, 2013, plaintiff Raphael Saye applied for a job at O'Reilly Auto Parts by completing an online employment application. The online application consisted of various sections and topics for an applicant to click through and fill out. Under the "Terms and Conditions" subsection of the "Criminal" section, was checkbox to stating "I accept the Background Terms and Conditions." Mr. Saye clicked on the hyperlink in "Terms and Conditions" that explained a background report may be obtained in connection to their employment. He clicked the checkbox that he accepted the terms and another checkbox requesting a copy of any criminal background report procured. Mr. Saye was offered a position with O'Reilly Auto Parts. On August 9, 2013, the District Manager approved the employment offer. On September 10, 2013, Mr. Saye was terminated after O'Reilly Auto Parts obtained his background report. The lawsuit argues O'Reilly Auto Parts terminated Mr. Saye based in part on information contained in his background report. They never provided Mr. Saye with a copy of the report or a summary of his rights even though he asked for them in his online application. Further, O'Reilly Auto Parts never sent Mr. Saye a post-adverse action notice to inform him of the consumer reporting agency that conducted his background check. The class action alleges that O'Reilly Auto Parts' disclosures were not presented in a clear stand-alone document, but rather as a hyperlink on a webpage full of additional content. O'Reilly also failed to provide the proper documentation to Saye detailing his termination based off of his background report. Because of these violations, Mr. Saye, and others not only had their privacy rights violated, but also incurred financial expenses including attorney's fees. OCWEN LOAN: Sued for Not Timely Presenting Proof to County Clerks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jill Dempsey, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02824-RBS (E.D. Pa., May 15, 2014) seeks to redress the Defendant's alleged systematic failure to timely present to the county clerks proof that mortgages have been satisfied. Headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, a subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corporation, is a mortgage bank and home mortgage loan servicer, servicing mortgages on behalf of lenders and investors, including pooled mortgage-backed securities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Collins, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4613 E-mail: tcollins@bm.net elechtzin@bm.net - and - Ann Miller, Esq. ANN MILLER, LLC 261 Old York Road, Suite 524 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 238-0468 Facsimile: (215) 405-2653 E-mail: am@attorneyannmiller.com ONEWEST BANK: Sued Over Force-Placed Insurance-Related Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Melodie Meyer on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OneWest Bank, FSB; American Security Insurance Company; and Does 1-100, Case No. 3:14-cv-02259-VC (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2014) seeks damages and other relief against the Defendants for their alleged wrongful and collusive business practices relating to force-placed insurance. OneWest Bank, FSB, is a national federal savings bank with its principal place of business located in Pasadena, California. OneWest originates and services loans throughout California and in the Northern District of California. OneWest Bank is the successor-in-interest to Independent National Mortgage Corporation, which it or its holding company purchased from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 2009. American Security Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal address in Atlanta, Georgia, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Assurant, Inc. ASIC writes force-placed insurance policies in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sheri L. Kelly, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SHERI L. KELLY 31 E. Julian St. San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 287-7712 Facsimile: (408) 583-4249 E-mail: slk@sherikellylaw.com - and - Barry Himmelstein, Esq. HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK 2000 Powell St., Suite 1605 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (510) 450-0782 Facsimile: (510) 924-0403 E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com - and - Steven A. Owings, Esq. Alexander P. Owings, Esq. OWINGS LAW FIRM 1400 Brookwood Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 661-9999 Facsimile: (501) 661-8393 E-mail: sowings@owingslawfirm.com apowings@owingslawfirm.com - and - Brent Walker, Esq. WALKER LAW PLLC 502 Dogwood Meadows Austin, AR 72007 Telephone: (501) 605-8595 Facsimile: (888) 571-0319 E-mail: bwalker@walkerlawplc.com - and - Jack Wagoner, Esq. Angela Mann, Esq. WAGONER LAW FIRM, P.A. 1320 Brookwood, Suite E Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 663-5225 Facsimile: (501) 660-4030 E-mail: jack@wagonerlawfirm.com angela@wagonerlawfirm.com Defendant American Security Insurance Company is represented by: Frank G. Burt, Esq. William Glenn Merten, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A. 1025 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 965-8100 Facsimile: (202) 965-8104 E-mail: fburt@cfjblaw.com gmerten@cfjblaw.com - and - Dawn B. Williams, Esq. JORDEN BURT LLP 1025 Thomas Jefferson St NW, Suite 400 East Lobby Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 965-8100 Facsimile: (202) 965-8104 E-mail: dbw@jordenusa.com ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: June 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ If You Were a Stockholder of The Orchard Enterprises, Inc. Between March 15, 2010 and July 29, 2010, You could get a payment from a class action settlement. A court authorized this notice. This is only a summary. More information is available at www.orchardstockholderlitigation.com or by calling 1-877-797-5688 A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit about the price stockholders received when Dimensional Associates LLC purchased The Orchard Enterprises, Inc. on July 29, 2010. The settlement provides for $10.725 million to be paid to stockholders who held shares at the time of the Cash-Out Merger. If you held Eligible Shares you may qualify for a cash payment by sending in a claim form. "Eligible Shares" means shares of The Orchard Enterprises, Inc. common stock held as of July 29, 2010. You can also comment on the settlement. Who is in the Class? You are a Class Member if You held Orchard stock between March 15, 2010 and July 29, 2010. Defendants, or an affiliate or relative of Defendants, and senior executives of Orchard while it considered the Cash-Out Merger are not Class Members. What is this About? The Court in charge of the case is the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and the case is called In re Orchard Enterprises, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.7840-VCL. The lawsuit claimed the former Board of Directors of Orchard and Dimensional breached their duties to Orchard stockholders in connection with the Cash-Out Merger. The lawsuit claimed that Dimensional, Orchard's controlling stockholder, and Orchard's Board of Directors, engaged in an unfair process in approving and recommending the Cash-Out Merger, and effectuated the Cash-Out Merger at an unfairly low price. The alleged unfair dealing included several alleged inaccurate disclosures, including as to whether Dimensional was entitled to a $25 million liquidation preference in the Cash-Out Merger unless Orchard's Certificate of Designations was amended to permit the Cash-Out Merger to occur. The lawsuit also alleged that Dimensional got a credit that it was not entitled to in connection with the Cash-Out Merger and therefore that the cash payment of $2.05 per share provided to stockholders in the Cash-Out Merger was not adequate. Defendants vigorously deny each of these allegations and all liability and damages. What does the Settlement Provide? In consideration for the full and final settlement, and the release by the Class Members of any and all Released Claims, Defendants have agreed to create a $10.725 million fund to be divided among all Class Members who owned Eligible Shares and who send in a valid claim form. How do I ask for a Payment? A detailed notice and claim form contains the information you will need to request a payment. To qualify for a payment you must submit a claim form. Claim Forms must be filed by August 12, 2014. To get a detailed notice and claim form visit the website or call the number below. What are my Other Options? You can comment or object to the settlement if you choose. Or you can hire your own lawyer, at your own cost, to comment on the settlement for you. If the settlement is approved you will not be able to sue the Defendants about the Cash-Out Merger ever again. You are not required to hire your own attorney. The Court appointed lawyers to represent you. These lawyers will seek approval for a payment of fees and expenses from the Settlement Fund. You will not be responsible for paying these lawyers. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 2:00 PM on June 30, 2014, at the New Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. The Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections, the Court will consider them. The Court will also decide how much to pay to Class Counsel. For more information visit: www.orchardstockholderlitigation.com or call 1-877-797-5688 PANHANDLE AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Pass-Through Fee Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Chris Olwell, writing for The News Herald, reports that a Panama City car sales company will mail checks to more than 4,000 customers after settling a class action lawsuit alleging it engaged in "deceptive" practices by imposing a pass-through fee that wasn't properly explained in the sales paperwork. Circuit Court Judge Timothy McFarland recently approved a final settlement in the lawsuit filed in 2011 against Panhandle Automotive Inc., the corporation doing business as Bay Lincoln Hyundai Mitsubishi, which is owned by Bay County Commissioner George Gainer. Jesse Page, a Franklin County resident who represented the class, brought the suit against the dealership in 2011 after purchasing two vehicles there, according to court records. Each time Page was charged an electronic filing fee of $49 and a delivery fee of $489. Panhandle paid $12 of the electronic filing fee to a third-party that performed the electronic filing and kept the rest, according to court records. The electronic filing fee later increased to $147. The delivery fee was pure profit to the dealership, records show. Bill Bielecky, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said the fees are common among Florida car dealerships but he called them "bogus" because he said they provide little or no additional value to consumers. But the purchase agreements Page signed contained what Mr. Gainer called an error. Language that explained the dealer would profit from the delivery fee and the electronic filing fee was inadvertently dropped from the documents used between roughly August 2010 and May 2012, and without that language, the plaintiffs contended, the fees were not allowed under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act. Panhandle Automotive admitted to no wrongdoing as part of the settlement, and Mr. Gainer said the suit was settled to avoid costly litigation in the future. In approving the settlement, the judge wrote that both sides had an argument to make. "Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of settlement because it is unclear which party will prevail at trial," the judge wrote. Every member of the class who paid the $49 electronic filing fee will get a check in the mail for $20, and those who paid the $147 fee will receive a check for $60. Everyone who paid the delivery fee will receive a check for $40 and 13 separate vouchers worth $25 each that "they can use for an oil change to a new car and anything in between," at one of Panhandle Automotive's dealerships, Mr. Bielecky said. The vouchers will be valid for two years. The settlement requires Panhandle Automotive to pay the plaintiff's attorneys $395,000, and it also awards a $12,000 incentive award to Page "for his contribution to the litigation." A woman who answered Page's phone said he would have no comment on the settlement. The purchase agreement documents have been amended, Mr. Gainer said, so the fees are lawful. Letters informing class members have already been sent, and the checks will be sent in June, Mr. Gainer said. PFIZER INC: Two Former Execs Can't Escape Celebrex Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Ivers, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal judge on May 22 declined to free two former Pfizer Inc. executives from a long-running securities class action accusing the pharmaceutical giant of concealing serious health risks associated with blockbuster painkillers Celebrex and Bextra. U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain said that former CEO Hank McKinnell and ex-vice chairman and President of Human Health Karen Katen were "belated" in posing arguments that the plaintiffs had failed to establish enough grounds to hold them liable in the case. "Defendants have proffered no good cause for their belated third attack on the Section 20A claims. The arguments could have been raised in the timely summary judgment motion practice, and the case is now proceeding toward a scheduled trial," the order said. Mr. McKinnell and Ms. Katen had contended that the claims in which they could have been held personally liable for violating securities regulations had recently been dismissed. But Judge Swain said to weigh those matters now could threaten to delay an upcoming trial, and they could be taken up once plaintiffs' attorneys had outlined their arguments in court. Pfizer has been attempting to fend off the lawsuit since 2006, when investors accused the pharmaceutical giant of violating securities law by making public statements that concealed information in three medical studies that suggested an increased cardiovascular risk. It alleged that Pfizer officials were aware of the results of several studies conducted between 1998 and 2004 that indicated the two medications were associated with increased cardiovascular risks, but went on to make dozens of statements touting the safety of the drugs. In 2005, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered Pfizer to pull Bextra from the market and instructed the company to put a warning label on Celebrex's packaging. Pfizer has contended certain risks were truthfully disclosed and others were not known until 2004, according to court documents. In a statement, the company noted that the court had struck the plaintiffs a blow on May 21 when it opted to exclude plaintiffs' loss causation and damages. "As a result, plaintiffs have no proof of essential elements of their case. Pfizer looks forward to the opportunity extended by the court on May 22 to move for summary judgment dismissing this case in its entirety on this basis," it said. The case is scheduled for a final pretrial conference July 12 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman, according to court records, unless the parties are able to work out a settlement beforehand. The plaintiffs are represented by Jay W. Eisenhofer, Richard S. Schiffrin -- rschiffrin@gelaw.com -- James J. Sabella -- jsabella@gelaw.com -- Mary S. Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- Charles T. Caliendo -- ccaliendo@gelaw.com -- and Brenda F. Szydlo -- bszydlo@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer PA; Andrew L. Zivitz -- azivitz@ktmc.com -- and Michelle M. Newcomer -- mnewcomer@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP; and Christopher A. Seeger -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- and David R. Buchanan -- dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss LLP. Mr. McKinnell and Ms. Katen are represented by Michael D. Hynes -- michael.hynes@dlapiper.com -- Rachel Stevens -- rachel.stevens@dlapiper.com -- Cara Dyonne Edwards and Loren H. Brown -- loren.brown@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper; George S. Wang and Lynn Katherine Neuner -- lneuner@stblaw.com -- of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; and Jason Michael Halper -- jason.halper@cwt.com -- of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP. Mr. McKinell is also represented by Michele Antoinette Roberts -- michele.roberts@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP. Ms. Katen is also represented by Michael Calhoon -- michael.calhoon@bakerbotts.com -- of Baker Botts LLP. The case is In re: Pfizer Inc. Securities Litigation, case number 1:04-cv-09866, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. POOL CORP: Court Rules on Motions in Antitrust Actions ------------------------------------------------------ Pool Corporation stated that on December 18, 2013, a court granted in part and denied in part motions in the anti-trust class action suits filed by indirect purchaser plaintiffs and direct purchaser plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "a number of purported anti-trust class action suits were filed against us in various United States District Courts in 2012. The cases were transferred and consolidated before the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2328, and are presently pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs include indirect purchaser plaintiffs, purporting to represent indirect purchasers of swimming pool products in Arizona, California, Florida and Missouri, and direct purchaser plaintiffs, who are current or former customers. On April 11, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' antitrust claim. On May 24, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers' antitrust claims. Both direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs amended their complaints, and defendants moved to dismiss certain of the direct purchasers' claims. On December 18, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part those motions." Pool Corporation is a wholesale distributor of swimming pool supplies, equipment and related leisure products. The Company is a distributor of irrigation and landscape products in the United States. As of December 31, 2013, it operated 321 sales centers in North America, Europe and South America through its three distribution networks: SCP Distributors LLC, Superior Pool Products, and Horizon Distributors, Inc. It has over 400 product lines and over 50 product categories. The Company primarily serves five types of customers swimming pool remodelers and builders; specialty retailers that sell swimming pool supplies; swimming pool repair and service businesses; landscape construction and maintenance contractors, and government, golf courses and like commercial customers. The Company serves approximately 80,000 customers. PORTUGAL TELECOM: Oi Posted R$11.2-Mil for Customer Service Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Oi S.A., recorded provisions in the amount of R$11.2 million as of December 31, 2013, for claims relating to 65 civil class actions demanding the re-opening of customer service centers, according to Portugal Telecom, SGPS, S.A.'s Form 20-F filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. Oi S.A., is a defendant in 65 civil class actions filed by the Attorney General of the National Treasury jointly with certain consumer agencies demanding the re-opening of customer service centers. The lower courts have rendered decisions in all of these proceedings, some of which have been unfavorable to the Company. All of these proceedings are currently under appeal. As of December 31, 2013, Oi had recorded provisions in the amount of R$11.2 million for those claims in respect of which it deemed the risk of loss as probable. Portugal Telecom SGPS SA (Portugal Telecom) is a Portugal-based holding company primarily engaged in the telecommunications sector. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides a range of telecommunications and multimedia services, such as fixed line and mobile telecommunication, pay television (TV) distribution, Internet Service Provider (ISP) services and data transmission. Additionally, it is active in the operation of call centers, telemarketing services, as well as provision of information technology (IT) systems and services. Together with its subsidiaries, the Company is active in Portugal, Brazil and several other countries in Africa and Asia. The Company operates through a numerous subsidiaries, including Africatel Holdings BV, Portugal Telecom Brasil SA, PT CENTRO CORPORATIVO SA, Portugal Telecom International Finance BV and Portugal Telecom Europa SPRL, among others. PORTUGAL TELECOM: Oi Awaits Decision in TNL's R$300-Mil Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Oi S.A., is awaiting the court's initial decision in TNL's R$300 million civil class action lawsuit, according to Portugal Telecom, SGPS, S.A.'s Form 20-F filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. Oi S.A., is a defendant in a civil class action lawsuit filed by the Federal Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Publico Federal) seeking recovery for alleged collective moral damages caused by TNL's alleged non-compliance with the Customer Service (Servico de Atendimento ao Consumidor - SAC) regulations established by the Ministry of Justice (Ministerio da Justica). TNL presented its defense and asked for a change of venue to federal court in Rio de Janeiro, where Oi is headquartered. Other defendants have been named and await service of process. The amount involved in this action is R$300 million. As a result of the corporate reorganization of Oi, Oi has succeeded to TNL's position as a defendant in this action. As of December 31, 2013, Oi deemed the risk of loss as possible with respect to these lawsuits and had not made any provisions with respect to this action because it was awaiting the court's initial decision. Portugal Telecom SGPS SA (Portugal Telecom) is a Portugal-based holding company primarily engaged in the telecommunications sector. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides a range of telecommunications and multimedia services, such as fixed line and mobile telecommunication, pay television (TV) distribution, Internet Service Provider (ISP) services and data transmission. Additionally, it is active in the operation of call centers, telemarketing services, as well as provision of information technology (IT) systems and services. Together with its subsidiaries, the Company is active in Portugal, Brazil and several other countries in Africa and Asia. The Company operates through a numerous subsidiaries, including Africatel Holdings BV, Portugal Telecom Brasil SA, PT CENTRO CORPORATIVO SA, Portugal Telecom International Finance BV and Portugal Telecom Europa SPRL, among others. ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND: Lloyds Banking to Join Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Reuters, citing the Herald Scotland newspaper, reports that Lloyds Banking Group is joining a class-action lawsuit against government-owned Royal Bank of Scotland, seeking GBP420 million (Dh2.6 billion, $709 million) over the bank's handling of its GBP12-billion rights issue. The Scottish daily said on May 21 that Lloyds is suing RBS through nine of its pensions and investment management subsidiaries along with 40,000 individual and institutional investors already seeking redress from RBS. Hundreds of investors had previously joined an unprecedented group legal action against RBS, alleging they were misled during an emergency cash call in 2008, and claiming damages of about GBP4 billion ($6.7 billion). RBoS Action Group, which represents the largest group of shareholders, filed claims and said it would lodge more. "The management in the relevant insurance businesses gave careful consideration as to whether it was in the interests of policyholders to join the legal proceedings and decided it was in their best interests," the Herald Scotland cited a spokesman for Lloyds insurance arm, Scottish Widows, as saying. Anniversary The newspaper counted Lloyds entities that filed papers to sue RBS as Scottish Widows Plc, Scottish Widows Unit Fund Ltd., Pensions Management Ltd., Scottish Widows Unit Trust Managers Ltd., Clerical Medical Investments Group, Halifax Life, Clerical Medical Management Fund Ltd., HBOS Investment Fund Managers Ltd and St Andrews Life Assurance. May 15 marked the six-year anniversary of when the shares RBS sold in its emergency rights issue began trading and could be the cut- off point under British law after which damage claims can no longer be accepted. RBS rejects allegations that its former directors misled investors or acted illegally. "These things will be set out in court rather than in an early settlement, we have a good defense on this," RBS Chief Executive Ross McEwan said in April. SAFEWAY INC: Faces 12 Class Action Albertsons Merger Complaints --------------------------------------------------------------- Safeway Inc., is a defendant in 12 purported class action complaints relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger with Albertsons, according to the Company's in Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 22, 2014. On March 6, 2014, Safeway entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), with AB Acquisition LLC ("AB Acquisition"), Albertson's Holdings LLC ("Albertsons Holdings"), a subsidiary of AB Acquisition, Albertson's LLC ("Albertson's LLC"), a subsidiary of Albertsons Holdings, and Saturn Acquisition Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub" and together with AB Acquisition, Albertsons Holdings and Albertson's LLC, "Albertsons"), a subsidiary of Albertsons Holdings, pursuant to which the parties agreed that, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Albertsons Holdings will acquire Safeway. Since the announcement of the Merger, 12 purported class action complaints were filed by alleged stockholders of the Company against the Company, the individual directors of the Company, and against Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., AB Acquisition, Albertsons Holdings, Albertson's LLC and/or Merger Sub. Seven lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Barnhard v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9445-VCL (March 13, 2014); Morales v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9455-VCL (March 18, 2014); Ogurkiewicz v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9454-VCL (March 18, 2014); Pipefitters Local 636 Defined Benefit Fund and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9461-VCL (March 20, 2014); Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension and Health & Welfare Funds v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9466-VCL (March 24, 2014); KBC Asset Management NV, Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H., Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, and Bristol County Retirement System v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9492-VCL (March 31, 2014); and The City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9495-VCL (April 1, 2014), which have been consolidated by order of the Court as In Re Safeway Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. 9445-VCL. Safeway Inc. (Safeway) is a food and drug retailer in North America. In support of its retail operations, the Company has a network of distribution, manufacturing and food-processing facilities. Safeway owns and operates GroceryWorks.com Operating Company, LLC (GroceryWorks), an online grocery channel doing business under the names Safeway.com and Vons.com (collectively Safeway.com). Safeway also has a 49% interest in Casa Ley, S.A. de C.V. (Casa Ley), which operates 195 food and general merchandise stores in Western Mexico. Blackhawk Network, Inc. (Blackhawk), a subsidiary of Safeway, provides gift cards, prepaid products and payment services to consumers through a network of retail store locations and various online channels. In February 2014, Whole Foods Market Inc acquired leases from Safeway Inc for seven locations formerly operated as Dominick's stores. In April 2014, Safeway Inc completed the sale of its Class B Common shares in Blackhawk Network Holdings Inc. SM ENERGY: Sold Assets Subject to Chieftain Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- SM Energy Co., sold on December 30, 2013, a substantial portion of the assets that are subject to the Chieftain Royalty Company class action petition and the buyer assumed any such liabilities related to such properties, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On January 27, 2011, Chieftain filed a Class Action Petition against the Company in the District Court of Beaver County, Oklahoma, claiming damages related to royalty valuation on all of the Company's Oklahoma wells. These claims include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious breach of contract, conspiracy, and conversion, based generally on asserted improper deduction of post-production costs. The Company removed this lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on February 22, 2011. The Company responded to the petition and denied the allegations. The district court did not rule on Chieftain's motion to certify the putative class, and stayed all proceedings until the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued its rulings on class certification in two similar royalty class action lawsuits. On July 9, 2013, the Tenth Circuit issued its opinions, reversing the trial courts' grant of class certification and remanding the matters to the trial courts for those cases. The district court presiding over the Company's case subsequently lifted its stay, and the Company expects Chieftain to file a new motion for class certification in the first half of 2015. This case involves complex legal issues and uncertainties; a potentially large class of plaintiffs, and a large number of related producing properties, lease agreements and wells; and an alleged class period commencing in 1988 and spanning the entire producing life of the wells. Because the proceedings are in the early stages, with discovery yet to be completed, the Company is unable to estimate what impact, if any, the action will have on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company is still evaluating the claims, but believes that it has properly paid royalties under Oklahoma law and has and will continue to vigorously defend this case. On December 30, 2013, the Company sold a substantial portion of the assets that are subject to this matter and the buyer assumed any such liabilities related to such properties. SM Energy Company (SM Energy) is an independent energy company. The Company is engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development, and production of crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (referred to as oil, gas, and NGLs) in onshore North America. The Company's operations are focused on five operating areas in the onshore United States. In December 2011, the Company closed on its acquisition and development agreement with Mitsui E&P Texas LP (Mitsui), an indirect subsidiary of Mitsui & Co. Ltd., which transferred 12.5% of its working interest in certain non-operated oil and gas assets in South Texas. In December 2013, SM Energy Co announced that it had closed its previously announced Anadarko Basin divestiture package. TELEXFREE INC: Faces "Cellucci" Adversary/Class Suit in Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Cellucci, Jamilly Lake, and Gerivaldo Pacheco -- Putative Class Representatives and Those Similarly Situated v. Telexfree, Inc., f/k/a Common Cents Communications, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:14-ap-04057 (Bankr. D. Mass., May 15, 2014) is brought over violations of securities laws. The lawsuit is filed as an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy case of Telexfree, LLC, Case No. 14-40987, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Plaintiffs seek compensation for economic loss sustained as a result of the Defendants' alleged conduct in carrying out an unlawful Ponzi pyramid scheme that included the Defendants' fraudulent unregistered offer and sale of securities in the form of unregistered investment contracts constituting securities. The Defendants are Telexfree, Inc., f/k/a Common Cents Communications, Inc.; Telexfree, LLC; Telexfree Financial, Inc.; Telexelectric, LLLP; Telex Mobile Holdings, Inc.; James M. Merrill; Carlos N. Wanzeler; Steven M. Labriola; Joseph H. Craft, a/k/a Joe H. Craft; Craft Financial Solutions, LLC; Carlos Costa; Sanderley Rodrigues de Vasconcelos; WWW Global Business, Inc.; Santiago de la Rosa; Randy N. Crosby; Faith R. Sloan; Gerald P. Nehra, individually and doing business as Law Offices of Nerha and Waak; Gerald P. Nehra Attorney at Law, PLLC; Richard W. Waak, individually and doing business as Law Offices of Nerha and Waak; Richard W. Waak, Attorney at Law, PLLC; Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, NA; TD Bank, NA; Citizens Financial Group, Inc.; Citizens Bank of Massachusetts; Fidelity Co-operative Bank, doing business as Fidelity Bank; Middlesex Savings Bank; Wells Fargo & Company; Wells Fargo Bank, NA; FMR, LLC, also known as Fidelity Investments; Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc.; Waddell & Reed, Inc.; Global Payroll Gateway Inc.; International Payout Systems, Inc.; Propay, Inc., doing business as Propay.com; Base Commerce, LLC, doing business as Phoenix Payments; Vantage Payments, LLC; Doe Insider Promoters; Doe Professional Services Providers; Doe Banks; Doe Investment Services Providers; Doe Payment Processors; and Paralegal Doe. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Martin B. Dropkin, Esq. DROPKIN & LEAVITT, PA 424 Broadway Somerville, MA 02145 Telephone: (617) 623-4600 Facsimile: (617) 625-7315 E-mail: mdropkin@dropkinmatza.com TELEXFREE LLC: Facing "Griffith" Suit Over Sale of Securities ------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel E. Griffith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. James M. Merril, et al, Case No. 1:14-cv- 12058 (D. Mass., May 8, 2014), arises from the alleged unregistered securities, called "memberships", marketed and sold by the Defendants that falsely promised returns in excess of 200% per year. James M. Merrill is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He is the co-owner of TelexFree, Inc. and TelexFree, LLC. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Leviton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 1303 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jason@blockesq.com TOMY GROUP: Fails to Pay Federally Mandated Wages, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Norma Robinson and Normanz Robinson, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Tomy Group Atlanta LLC and Tamer Nabil, Case No. 1:14-cv-01467-AT (N.D. Ga., May 15, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failure to pay federally mandated wages to the Plaintiffs, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Tomy Group Atlanta LLC is a Georgia corporation. The Company operates the Fairview Inn hotel in Atlanta, Georgia. Tamer Nabil is the chief executive officer of Tomy Group. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul J. Sharman, Esq. THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC 11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 242-5297 Facsimile: (678) 802-2129 E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com TWIN AMERICA: Settles Monopoly Class Action for $19 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Curtis Skinner, writing for Reuters, reports that riders of two New York City tour bus companies have proposed a $19 million settlement to end a class-action lawsuit that claimed the businesses joined forces to run an illegal monopoly, court documents showed. Twin America LLC -- a joint venture of former rivals Coach USA Inc and CitySights LLC, formed in March 2009 -- was accused by riders of overcharging its passengers, according to the proposed settlement filed in Manhattan federal court late on May 20. The suit said the company was able to fix prices as much as 17 percent above the prior market rate after partnering, overcharging passengers by $5 or more. The U.S. Department of Justice and the New York State Attorney General have also filed lawsuits against the companies. "Since entering the agreement and ceasing to compete nearly four years ago, defendants have successfully fixed the price of 'hop-on, hop-off' bus tours in New York City," the complaint said. A spokesman for Twin America confirmed the company had reached the settlement and that it had not admitted any wrongdoing, but declined further comment. Coach USA and City Sights both run open-topped, double-decker buses that take tourists to more than 40 stops, including Times Square, the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center site. The proposed settlement estimated that the class included roughly 3.9 million people, a number it said could grow. The New York State Attorney General estimated that the market for hop-on, hop- off bus tours was worth $100 million in the city, with some 2 million visitors riding the buses each year. UNION CENTRAL: September 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- If you are a fiduciary of a 401(k) or 401(a) ERISA plan that has contracted with The Union Central Life Insurance Co. and/or Ameritas Life Insurance Corp., you should be aware of a class action settlement. This is a summary. Please read the full class notice for more details. What is this about? In a lawsuit in federal court in Ohio, the plaintiffs, Butler National Corp., C3 Capital, LLC and Rifkind Law Group, have alleged that The Union Central Life Insurance Co. and Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. violated ERISA by receiving payments from mutual fund companies whose funds are offered as investment options to 401(k) and 401(a) retirement plans. The Court has not made any rulings about whether Union Central and Ameritas did anything wrong, and Union Central and Ameritas deny all claims in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs have agreed to settle the case because they believe that the settlement provides substantial and meaningful relief to the members of the settlement classes that relates directly to the allegations in Plaintiffs' case, and in light of the potential risks of further litigation. Union Central and Ameritas have agreed to settle to avoid the expense and distraction of further litigation. What does the settlement provide? Retirement plans that have contracts with Union Central or Ameritas or have contracted with Union Central and/or Ameritas since March 1, 2006 can receive a payment from a settlement fund of $2,250,000. Union Central and Ameritas have also agreed to make a number of changes in their business practices for the next five years. Who represents me? The Court has appointed lawyers to represent two classes of retirement plans at no cost to class members. These attorneys will ask the Court to award up to one-third of the Settlement Fund for their fees, and expenses up to $100,000, and the Court will determine the reasonable fees and expenses to be paid. You may hire your own attorney if you wish, but at your own cost. What are my rights? To receive money, your plan must submit a completed Instruction Form by September 25, 2014. If you do nothing, you will remain in the class but your plan will receive no money. You do not need to do anything for your plan to receive the benefit of the new business practices. You may exclude yourself from the class that can receive money by sending a letter to the addresses listed in the full class notice and it must be received no later than July 25, 2014. Your plan will not receive any money if you do so. You cannot exclude yourself from the structural changes class that includes in-force contracts and contracts that are purchased in the future. You may object to the settlement by filing an objection with the Court, Class Counsel and Counsel for the Defendants no later than July 25, 2014 as detailed in the full class notice. If the settlement is approved by the Court, class members who do not opt out will give up any claims covered by the settlement and will be bound by the Court's orders in the case. The Court will hold a hearing on September 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 117 to consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. To request a copy of the full class notice or an Instruction Form, or for further information: Call: 1 866-274-4004 Visit: www.revenuesharingsettlement.com Write: Settlement Administrator Strategic Claims Services Attn: Butler v. Union Central Settlement 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3 Media, PA 19063 UNITED HEALTH: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Lily Narvaez and Aldean Isaac, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. United Health Group Inc., and United Healthcare Services, Inc., and Angelo Zuffante, in his professional and individual capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-03025 (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2014), brings this action for damages and other legal and equitable relief against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. United Health Group Inc., is a Minnesota corporation located at 9900 Bren Road East, Minnetonka, Minnesota, 55343. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Bradley Lee Wilson, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES PLLC 1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11201 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com blw@employmentlawyernewyork.com URBAN DECAY: Faces "Pena" Suit Over Deceptive Product Marketing --------------------------------------------------------------- Raisbel Pena, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. Urban Decay Cosmetics, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03353 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendants' deceptive practices in marketing, advertising and promotion of Urban Decay Lush Lash System. Urban Decay Cosmetics, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability corporation located at 833 W. 16th Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action in New York Over Delivery Tips -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Westney and Aaron Vehling, writing for Law360, report that Whole Foods Market Group Inc. was slapped with a proposed class action in New York state court on May 21 alleging the company deprived its delivery staff of tips in violation of state labor law. Alberto Rivera claims the grocery store chain led customers to believe that a "delivery charge" it automatically tacked on when dropping off food was going to its delivery people, when all such charges actually went to the company. Whole Foods customers tipped infrequently "because they reasonably believed the delivery personnel were receiving the mandatory delivery charges as gratuity," the complaint states. Mr. Rivera, who worked as a delivery man for the Whole Foods store located in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan from February through July 2011, claims that due to the customer confusion, the company took tips that are guaranteed to its delivery people under the New York Labor Law. Whole Foods didn't explain to customers what the delivery charge was for or that it was keeping any of it, the complaint says. Whole Foods customers who want delivery service fill out a slip that includes their name, address, phone number and other information but doesn't allow the customer to write down a tip for the delivery person, according to the complaint. When delivery customers pay by credit card, they also can't add a tip, the complaint alleges. Whole Foods doesn't pay tips to delivery personnel in its 12 stores in the state of New York as a matter of uniform policy, the complaint says. The proposed class comprises all delivery personnel for Whole Foods in New York since May 21, 2008, who were non-exempt employees and whose tips and gratuities were unlawfully retained by Whole Foods, the complaint states. Whole Foods employs about 40 people to deliver groceries at any given time in its New York stores, the complaint says. Mr. Rivera seeks an award of the gratuities allegedly retained by Whole Foods and an injunction against the company. A Whole Foods representative told Law360 on May 22 that the company hasn't received the complaint and is unable to comment. Douglas Lipsky, an attorney for the plaintiff, told Law360 on May 22 that Whole Foods' alleged failure to properly explain the purpose of the delivery charge meant delivery people who were "financially sensitive were not receiving the tips they would have ordinarily received." The Whole Foods delivery employees were not allowed to ask for tips when making deliveries, Mr. Lipsky said. In March, four former drivers for Fresh Direct LLC filed a class action in New York federal court accusing the grocery delivery company of withholding more than $23 million in overtime wages and tips per year from drivers. The ex-drivers claimed the company's delivery charge is a gratuity under New York labor law and drivers are entitled to it. The plaintiff is represented by Douglas Lipsky of Bronson Lipsky LLP and Jeffrey M. Gottlieb and Dana L. Gottlieb -- dl@bronsonlipsky.com -- of Gottlieb & Associates. The case is Alberto Rivera v. Whole Foods Market Group Inc., case number 651559/2014, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. WPX ENERGY: No Conflict Between New Mex. and Col. Law, Court Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN J. ABRAHAM, and H LIMITED PARTNERSHIP on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.WPX Energy Production, LLC f/k/a WILLIAMS PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC, WILLIAMS FOUR CORNERS, LLC and WILLIAMS ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, Defendants, NO. CIV 12-0917 JB/ACT, (D. N.M.) is before the Court on Williams Four Corners, LLC's and Williams Energy Resources LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Claim for Relief, filed October 30, 2012. The Court held a hearing on May 1, 2013. The primary issues are: (i) whether, following New Mexico's "actual conflict" doctrine, there is a conflict between New Mexico and Colorado law, as applied in this case; and (ii) whether, under New Mexico and Colorado law, when a plaintiff has asserted a breach-of-contract claim against one defendant, that plaintiff may also assert an unjust enrichment claim for the same subject matter against a third party with whom the plaintiff does not have a contract. District Judge James O. Browning, in a memorandum opinion dated May 9, 2014, a copy of which is is available at http://is.gd/0S8nyYfrom Leagle.com, concluded that although the parties did not raise the choice-of-law issues, but discussed only New Mexico law, there is no actual conflict between New Mexico and Colorado law, because the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims fail under both New Mexico and Colorado law. Thus, the Court will apply New Mexico law as the forum law and dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims against WFC/WER, because the Plaintiffs have not alleged that their contract claim against WPX Energy is not viable, ruled Judge Brown. Williams Four Corners, LLC's and Williams Energy Resources LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Claim for Relief, filed October 30, 2012, is granted. Jake Eugene Gallegos, Michael J. Condon, Gallegos Law Firm, P.C., Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Sarah Gillett, Dustin L. Perry, Hall Estill Hardwick, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Christopher A. Chrisman, Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, Colorado, and Mark F. Sheridan, Bradford C. Berge, Robert J. Sutphin, Elisa C. Dimas, John C. Anderson, Holland & Hart LLP, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants. ZAPPOS.COM INC: Court Issues Ruling in Security Breach Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke issued an order on May 9, 2014, in IN RE ZAPPOS SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, CASE NO. 3:12-CV-0325- RCJ, (D. Nev.). At the April 21, 2014, case management conference, the court directed plaintiffs and defendant Zappos.com, Inc. to submit a proposed letter to be sent to customers who previously complained about the January 2012, cyber-attack that Zappos suffered. The parties jointly submitted a supplemental case management report in response, and this order followed. Judge Cooke's order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/mQlturfrom Leagle.com, directed that the third and final communication to the limited group of Zappos' customers be sent by regular mail, and ordered the parties to revise Exhibit 2 to the supplemental case management report. Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, In Re, represented by Brian C. Frontino, Julia B Strickland, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Raleigh C. Thompson, Morris Law Group, Robert R. McCoy, Morris Law Group & Stephen J. Newman, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. Robert Ree, Plaintiff, represented by Brent A Carson, Winner and Carson. Robert Ree, Plaintiff, represented by David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. Robert Ree, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. Robert Ree, D.Nev Case 3:12-cv-00072, Plaintiff, represented by Jon A Tostrud, Tostrud Law Group, P.C. Robert Ree, Plaintiff, represented by Kara M Wolke, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Marc L. Godino, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & William M. O'Mara, The O'Mara Law Firm, PC. Stephanie Priera, Plaintiff, represented by Brent A Carson, Winner and Carson. Stephanie Priera, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. Stephanie Priera, Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Godino, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Peter Mougey, Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A, Robert A Winner, Winner & Carson, P.C. & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. Shari Simon, Plaintiff, represented by Brent A Carson, Winner and Carson, Douglas G Blankinship, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C., Marc L. Godino, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Peter Mougey, Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A, Robert A Winner, Winner & Carson, P.C. & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. Kathryn Vorhoff, Plaintiff, represented by Brent A Carson, Winner and Carson, Douglas G Blankinship, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C., Marc L. Godino, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Peter Mougey, Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A, Robert A Winner, Winner & Carson, P.C. & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. Ms. Dahlia Habashy, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah Frei- Pearson, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C., Brent A Carson, Winner and Carson, Douglas G Blankinship, Marc L. Godino, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Shin Young Hahn, Meiselman, Packman, Nealon, Scialabba & Baker P.C. & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. Theresa D. Stevens, Plaintiff, represented by Edward K Wood, Wood Law Firm, LLC, Lance A Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Erich Schork, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Mark Gray, Gray & White & Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm. Stacy Penson, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. Stacy Penson, Kentucky Western; 3:12-cv-00036, Plaintiff, represented by Charles T. Lester, Jr.. Stacy Penson, Plaintiff, represented by Howard M Bushman, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Lance A Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP & Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm. Tara J. Elliott, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Edward K Wood, Wood Law Firm, LLC, Lawrence Lee Jones, II, Jones Ward PLC & Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm. Brooke C. Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Edward K Wood, Wood Law Firm, LLC, Lawrence Lee Jones, II, Jones Ward PLC & Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm. Christa Seal, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Edward K Wood, Wood Law Firm, LLC, Lawrence Lee Jones, II, Jones Ward PLC & Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm. Zetha Nobles, Plaintiff, represented by Brent A Carson, Winner and Carson, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C., Marc L. Godino, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Reginald V. Terrell, The Terrell Law Group & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. Patti Hasner, Plaintiff, represented by Brent A Carson, Winner and Carson, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C., Marc L. Godino, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Peter Mougey, Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A, Robert A Winner, Winner & Carson, P.C. & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. Denise Relethford, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. Emily E. Braxton, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. Amazon.com, Inc., dba Zappos.com, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Frontino, Christine R Fitzgerald, Belcher, Starr & Fitzgerald, LLP, Jeffrey B Bell, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Julia B Strickland, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Raleigh C. Thompson, Morris Law Group, Robert R. McCoy, Morris Law Group & Stephen J. Newman, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. ********* 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 * * *