/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140805.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 5, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 154 Headlines A FRESH CUT: Faces "Reyes" Suit Seeking to Recover Unpaid Wages AARP INC: Sued for Sharing Members' Information With 3rd Parties ABA RETIREMENT PLAN: Ex-Basketball Players File Suit in W.D. Tex. AFFYMAX INC: Cal. Court Approves Settlement; Hearing in Sept. ALI BABA HOTEL: Faces "Mateo" Suit Over Alleges FLSA Violations ALI BABA HOTEL: Faces "Mero" Suit Over Violation of FLSA ALI BABA HOTEL: Faces "Ovalle" Suit Over Violation of FLSA APPLE INC: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, "Ma" Suit Claims ATHENAHEALTH INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit v. Epocrates AUTOLIV INC: Fairness Hearing in U.S. OSS Antitrust Suit Expected AUTOLIV LIV: No Cert. Timeline for Canadian Lawsuit Over OSS AUTOLIV INC: Inks MoU to Settle Suit by CLPT for $22.5 Million BACK PORCH: "Holmes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BASS PRO: Urged by Court to Push Argument in Hiring Bias Suit BLUE BUFFALO: Accused of Misrepresenting Ingredients of Dog Food BOSTON MARKET: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Over Inaccessible Facilities CAL-MAINE FOODS: Direct Purchaser Case Stayed Pending Settlement CAL-MAINE FOODS: Feb. 2015 Hearing in Indirect Purchaser Action CAL-MAINE FOODS: Has Deal in Principle With Winn-Dixie et al. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Has Confidential Deal in Assoc. Wholesale Case CLOROX COMPANY: Court Refused to Certify Class in Fresh Step Suit COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Customers May Be Paid in 2011 Blizzard Suit DRISCOLL STRAWBERRY: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Suit Claims EBAY INC: N.C. Appeals Court Ruling in Ticket Resale Suit Final EBAY INC: PayPal Sued in Cal. for Limiting Users' Accounts EBAY INC: Faces Suit in U.S. for "Monopoly" of Online Auctions EBAY INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Alleged TCPA Violations ELI LILLY: Seeks Indemnification From Takeda ELI LILLY: Still Faces Actos(R) Product Liability Suit in Canada ELI LILLY: Still Faces 360 Byetta Product Liability Lawsuits ELI LILLY: Faces 10 Prozac(R) Product Liability Lawsuits EPIRUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suits Over Merger in Del., Mass. FAB UNIVERSAL: Faces Securities Litigations in New York Court FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Faces "JonWall" Suit Over Propane Reduction FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Alleged Propane Price Fixing FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: RC Gasoline Sues Over Propane Price Fixing FLAGLER COUNTY: Faces "Rudell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FLUIDMASTER INC: Falsely Marketed Steel Line Products, Suit Says FUJI JAPANESE: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Waitress Claims GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Accused of Using Promoters to Raise Price GANNETT SATELLITE: Accused of Illegal Disclosure of Users' Info GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls About 718,000 Vehicles on Safety Issues GYRODYNE CO: N.Y. Court Signs Order to Show Cause in Merger Suit HERBALIFE LTD: Faces "Awad" Securities Suit in C.D. California HERBALIFE LTD: Trial on "Bostick" Claims to Begin in April 2015 HOUSTON AMERICAN: Dismissal of Securities Litigation Reversed KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Still Faces "Gross" Securities Suit in Mo. KIMBALL INT'L: Receives $3.5MM From Two Antitrust Class Actions KINDER MORGAN: Faces "Slotoroff" Case in Delaware Chancery Court KINDER MORGAN: Faces "Burns and Zehrer" Case KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Case Stayed Pending "Slotoroff" Action LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued Over Failure to Handle Diminution Claims MAGNUM HUNTER: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in New York Court MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Faces Federal RESPA "Violations" Lawsuits MITSUBISHI UFJ: Faces Lawsuit in U.S. Over Benchmark Submissions NIELSEN CO: Faces Class Suit Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime NORTHERN TRUST: Records $19MM Pre-Tax Charge From Settlement NOVEX BIOTECH: Sued Over False Claims Related to Growth Factor-9 PAYLOCITY CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime PRECISION SOLIDS: "Perry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime PRETIUM RESOURCES: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in Canada PRETIUM RESOURCES: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending PURE BEAUTY: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: Defrauds Small Businesses, Owners Claim in Ill. QUAKER OATS: Received Final OK of $1.4-Mil. Deal in Labeling Suit QUALITY SYSTEMS: Wants Police Pension Fund Case Dismissed QUALITY SYSTEMS: Parties Agree to Stay "Foss" Case REMI GROUP: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Rovai" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report SEMILEDS CORP: New York Court Dismisses Securities Litigation ST. JOSEPH HEALTH: Sued for Breaching Privacy of 33,000 Patients T & R MARKET: Faces Suit in New Mexico Alleging Abuse of Navajos TRIPLE LI: Faces "Zalloum" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims * Most Recalled Products Still in Use Despite Warnings ********* A FRESH CUT: Faces "Reyes" Suit Seeking to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Bulmaro Reyes, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. A Fresh Cut Lawn Maintenance and Landscape Design Corp., and Dave Frawley, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv- 05792 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2014) seeks judgment for all unpaid wages and compensation due to the Plaintiff as provided by the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Fresh Cut is an "enterprise" as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, owned and operated in Illinois. Dave Frawley is the owner of Fresh Cut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Narvaez, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1302 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com AARP INC: Sued for Sharing Members' Information With 3rd Parties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that AARP and its profit-seeking subsidiary AARP Services share members' confidential information with commercial third parties, a class action claims in Washington Federal Court. ABA RETIREMENT PLAN: Ex-Basketball Players File Suit in W.D. Tex. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mack Calvin, William Melchionni, and Claude Terry, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. San Antonio Spurs, LLC, Pacers Basketball, LLC, The Denver Nuggets Limited Partnership, Brooklyn Nets, LLC, Heather Staples, and the American Basketball Association Players' Retirement Plan, Case No. 5:14-cv-00667 (W.D. Tex., July 24, 2014), is a class action suit to redress breaches of fiduciary duty related to the maintenance and operation of the American Basketball Association Players' Retirement. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan Horne, Esq. Peter J. Strelitz, Esq. Steven Hart, Esq. SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD. 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 800 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 476-7834 Facsimile: (512) 476-7832 E-mail: nhorne@smsm.com pstrelitz@smsm.com shart@smsm.com - and - Michael Kreppein, Esq. HUELAT MACK & KREPPEIN 450 St. John Road, Suite 204 Michigan City, IN Telephone: (291) 879-3253 E-mail: mkreppein@hmkattorneys.com - and - Matthew T. Hefner, Esq. SUSMAN HEFFNER & HURST 30 North La Salle Street, Suite 1210 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-3466 E-mail: mhener@shhllp.com AFFYMAX INC: Cal. Court Approves Settlement; Hearing in Sept. ------------------------------------------------------------- The California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara granted preliminary approval of the settlement of the consolidated derivative action against Affymax, Inc., according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 11, 2014, the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara granted preliminary approval of the settlement of the consolidated derivative action against certain current and former directors and officers of Affymax, Inc. ("Affymax" or the "Company"), and against Affymax as a nominal defendant, and the Court set a further hearing, currently scheduled for September 19, 2014, to consider final approval of the settlement. ALI BABA HOTEL: Faces "Mateo" Suit Over Alleges FLSA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Mateo, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ali Baba Hotel Corp., Ameritania 54th Associates, LLC, Moderne F&B LLC, and Sharon Olson, Case No. 1:14- cv-05654 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2014), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees as a result of Defendants' willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Wage and Hour laws. The Defendants own and operate hotels in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Gian Fanelli, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (210) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com gmf@jbtlawgroup.com ALI BABA HOTEL: Faces "Mero" Suit Over Violation of FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- Mariana Mero, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Amsterdam Hospitality, LLC, Amsterdam Hospitality Group, LLC, Ali Baba Hotel Corp., and Sharon Olson, Case No. 1:14- cv-05655 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2014), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees as a result of Defendants' willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Wage and Hour laws. The Defendants are engaged in hotel business and maintain their principal places of business at 888 7th Ave, New York, NY, 10019 and 226 W. 54th Street., New York, NY 10019. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Gian Fanelli, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (210) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com gmf@jbtlawgroup.com ALI BABA HOTEL: Faces "Ovalle" Suit Over Violation of FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- Liza Ovalle, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Amsterdam Hospitality, LLC, Amsterdam Hospitality Group, LLC, Ali Baba Hotel Corp., and Sharon Olson, Case No. 1:14- cv-05651 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2014), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees as a result of Defendants' willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Wage and Hour laws. The Defendants are engaged in hotel business and maintain their principal places of business at 888 7th Ave, New York, NY, 10019 and 226 W. 54th Street., New York, NY 10019. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Gian Fanelli, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (210) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com gmf@jbtlawgroup.com APPLE INC: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, "Ma" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Chen Ma, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Apple Inc., a California corporation; Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-03344 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2014), is brought for the damages arising out of Apple's blunt violation of iPhone users privacy. In or around September 2012, Apple released iPhone 4 which contains an iOS operating system software that enables iPhone 4 to track its users' whereabouts down to every minute, record the duration that users stay at any given geographical point, and periodically transmit these data stored on the users' devices to Apple's data base for future references. This function is referred to as "Location Service." Apple Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino California, it manufactures iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5C and iPhone 5S. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Wang, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ADAM WANG P.O. Box 10881 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Telephone: (408) 421-3403 Facsimile: (408) 416-0248 E-mail: adamqwang@gmail.com ATHENAHEALTH INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit v. Epocrates -------------------------------------------------------------- athenahealth, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in the suit, Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13cv0945, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. In March 1, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13cv0945, against Epocrates and certain of its former officers and directors. On October 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Epocrates and two of its former officers, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all Epocrates stockholders that purchased shares between February 2, 2011 and August 9, 2011. The amended complaint alleges that Epocrates made false or misleading statements regarding the timing of its pharmaceutical clients' regulatory approvals of interactive messages while awaiting guidance from the Food and Drug Administration on the use of advertising and social media, which, among other things, caused the clients to delay spending on marketing, negatively impacted Epocrates' sales and revenue growth, and resulted in purported GAAP violations in Epocrates' financial statements. The amended complaint sought certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and the motion was granted by the Court on June 4, 2014, with leave for the plaintiff to amend the complaint. On June 25, 2014, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, alleging essentially the same claims against the same defendants as the prior amended complaint. On July 14, 2014, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. AUTOLIV INC: Fairness Hearing in U.S. OSS Antitrust Suit Expected ----------------------------------------------------------------- It is currently anticipated that the fairness hearing for the direct purchaser class settlement in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, of which Autoliv, Inc. is a defendant, will occur in late 2014, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Specifically, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors are defendants in a total of eighteen purported antitrust class action lawsuits filed between July 2012 and October 2013. Fourteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and have been consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi- District Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On May 30, 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives of each of the three classes of plaintiffs in the MDL. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay $40 million to the direct purchaser settlement class, $6 million to the auto dealer settlement class, and $19 million to the end-payor settlement class, for a total of $65 million. This amount was expensed during the quarter. In exchange, the plaintiffs agreed that the plaintiffs and the settlement classes would release Autoliv from all claims and demands that were or could have been asserted in the MDL. The direct purchaser settlement is subject to potential downward adjustments to a floor of $24 million based on the volume of Autoliv's sales represented by direct purchasers who may elect to opt out from the direct purchaser settlement class. Each settlement can be voided if opt-outs exceed certain thresholds. On July 1, 2014, the settlements received preliminary court approval. Each settlement remains subject to final approval by the MDL Court following notice to the settlement class, an opportunity for settlement class members to object or opt out, and a fairness hearing. It is currently anticipated that the fairness hearing for the direct purchaser class settlement will occur in late 2014, and that notices to the settlement classes and the fairness hearings for the other two class settlements will be deferred by the plaintiffs and the MDL Court for processing with additional, future settlements due to the cost of giving notice to large settlement classes. These settlements, if approved, will not resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt out of the settlements or the claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities. AUTOLIV LIV: No Cert. Timeline for Canadian Lawsuit Over OSS ------------------------------------------------------------ There is currently no timeline for class certification or discovery in the Canadian cases filed against Autoliv, Inc. on behalf of putative classes of both direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Four lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 18, 2013; M. Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et al., filed in the Queen's Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina in the province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The Canadian cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of both direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems. The Company denies the overly broad allegations of these lawsuits and intends to defend itself in these cases. While it is probable that the Company will incur losses as a result of these Canadian antitrust cases, the duration or ultimate outcome of these cases currently cannot be predicted or estimated and no provision for a loss has been recorded as of June 30, 2014. There is currently no timeline for class certification or discovery in the Canadian cases. AUTOLIV INC: Inks MoU to Settle Suit by CLPT for $22.5 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Autoliv, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis, reflecting an agreement in principle to settle a securities lawsuit and the claims of the alleged class for a payment of $22.5 million, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On April 17, 2013, the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis ("CLPT") filed a purported class action securities lawsuit against Autoliv and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action File No. 13-CIV-2546) (the "Lawsuit"), and later added as a third individual defendant an employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The amended complaint alleged, among other claims, misrepresentations or failures to disclose material facts that artificially inflated the Company's stock price in violation of the federal securities laws, in particular Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. CLPT purports to bring the Lawsuit on behalf of a class of purchasers of common stock of the Company between October 26, 2010 and July 21, 2011. CLPT seeks to recover damages in an unspecified amount. On June 27, 2014, the Company announced that it entered into a memorandum of understanding with CLPT reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the Lawsuit and the claims of the alleged class for a payment of $22.5 million. The proposed agreement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by the Company or any of the individuals named in the complaint. The defendants are settling to eliminate the uncertainties, risk, distraction and expense associated with protracted litigation. The proposed agreement is subject to negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement among the parties and final approval by the court following notice to the settlement class and a fairness hearing. If approved, the settlement will resolve the claims asserted in the Lawsuit against the Company and the individuals named in the complaint, including the claims of the settlement class members who do not opt out of the settlement. Autoliv has recorded a net expense of approximately $4.5 million in its second quarter results. The balance of the settlement amount will be paid by Autoliv's insurance carrier. BACK PORCH: "Holmes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Holmes, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Back Porch Oyster Bar, Inc., Patricia Creef and Lee Creef, individually and as the owners of the corporate Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-02388 (N.D. Ga., July 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable expenses of litigation, and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Back Porch Oyster Bar, Inc., is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Georgia which provides food and alcohol in the State of Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry Allen Pankey, Esq. PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC Suite 500, 4360 Chamblee Dunwoody Road Atlanta, GA 30331 Telephone: (770) 670-6250 Facsimile: (770) 670-6249 E-mail: lpankey@pankeyhorlock.com BASS PRO: Urged by Court to Push Argument in Hiring Bias Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Bass Pro Shops failed to refute charges it discriminates against minority job applicants, but a federal judge urged the company to press its argument that it cannot be sued on behalf of unidentified victims, reports Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's case against Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC, parent company of Bass Pro Shops, dates back to 2007 when it issued a commissioner's charge based on allegations that the retailer discriminated against black applicants. The agency amended the charge in 2008 to include allegations that Bass Pro also rebuffed female, Hispanic and Asian applicants. Title VII of The Civil Rights Act requires the EEOC to first "endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion." But after years of unproductive settlement talks the agency sued Bass Pro in September 2011, accusing the Missouri-based company of a "pattern or practice of unlawfully failing to hire black and Hispanic applicants." To prove its case the EEOC analyzed hiring data supplied by Bass Pro and found the company had a shortfall of 1,000 black and Hispanic hires compared to its competitors. The agency claimed the odds of such a shortage of black and Hispanic hires were less than one in a million. U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison refused to dismiss the case in March and ordered a stay for settlement talks on the EEOC's claims that Bass Pro had violated Section 706 of the Civil Rights Act by failing to hire minorities. But the negotiations went nowhere and Bass Pro filed a reprisal of its dismissal motion, arguing that the EEOC had shown bad faith during the stay, and failed to adequately investigate its claims before filing lawsuit. The EEOC, meanwhile, urged Ellison to reconsider a previous ruling in the case that it could not use Supreme Court precedent from International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States to prove its section 706 claims. In the International Brotherhood case the high court found that once the named plaintiff in a pattern-or-practice discrimination case proves the employer discriminated, all affected class members are entitled to relief. Ellison backtracked on July 30, 2014, and wrote that his "earlier ruling was in error and that . . . the commission can employ the Teamsters framework to prove its Section 706 claims." Bass Pro contended that using the Teamsters precedent "would render Section 707 superfluous" and go against a longstanding principle that "terms in a statute should not be considered so as to render any provision of that statute meaningless or superfluous." Section 706 of the Civil Rights Act pertains to the EEOC's "power . . . to prevent unlawful employment practices," while Section 707 specifically states when a company "is engaged in a pattern or practice" of employment discrimination the EEOC can sue it. Ellison agreed with the EEOC's citation of 6th Circuit precedent in Serrano v. Cintas Corp., where the appellate court decided "relevant Supreme Court precedent suggests that the exclusion of pattern-or-practice language from Section 706 does not mean that the EEOC may utilize a pattern-or-practice theory only when bringing suit under Section 707. Instead, it suggests that the inclusion of the language in Section 707 simply means that the scope of the EEOC's authority to bring suit is more limited when it acts pursuant to Section 707." In its dismissal motion, Bass Pro also questioned whether the EEOC can sue on behalf of unidentified people. While admitting that it is a "very close question" Ellison determined that he is "not fully persuaded that the commission is barred from bringing Section 706 claims on behalf of unidentified victims." He did, however, urge Bass Pro to file a motion for an interlocutory appeal to revisit the matter. Though Ellison sided with the EEOC in the 47-page ruling he conceded that guidance from the appellate courts would be much appreciated. "The disputes presented by these two motions reflect a fundamental disagreement as to the role that the commission is to play in the vindication of rights guaranteed by Title VII and the scope of its authority to represent those who may have been aggrieved by unlawful employment practices . . . Indeed, this is an area of law ripe for further illumination from the appellate courts. All of this is to say that, while the Court ultimately sides with the EEOC on both motions, it is fully sensitive to the strength of the antithesis," the judge wrote. Bass Pro is represented by: Michael W. Johnston, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-3581 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: mjohnston@kslaw.com The case is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, and Tracker Marine, LLC, Case No. 4:11-CV- 3425, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. BLUE BUFFALO: Accused of Misrepresenting Ingredients of Dog Food ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that The Blue Buffalo Co. misrepresents the ingredients of its dog food, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court. BOSTON MARKET: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Over Inaccessible Facilities --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boston Market Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00997 (W.D. Pa., July 24, 2014), seeks a declaration that the Defendant's facilities violate federal law as described and an injunction requiring the Defendant to remove the identified access barriers so that Defendant's facilities are fully accessible to, and independently usable by individuals with mobility disabilities, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Boston Market Corporation owns and operates a fast food chains headquartered at 14103 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Stephanie Goldin, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Direct Purchaser Case Stayed Pending Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014, that the direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 28, 2014, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the Company's settlement of these cases, conditionally certifying the class for settlement purposes and approving the Notice Plan submitted by the parties. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on the settlement on September 18, 2014. All proceedings against the Company in the direct purchaser putative class action are stayed pending the Court's final approval of the Company's settlement. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Although both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000 and running "through the present," the Court's ruling on the statute of limitations alters the period for which damages are available. In the direct purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred prior to September 24, 2004. In the indirect purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred outside the state-specific statute of limitations period applicable to most causes of action asserted, with the precise damages period determined on a state-by-state and claim-by-claim basis. The direct purchaser putative class actions allege two separate sub-classes -- one for direct purchasers of shell eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products. The direct purchaser putative class actions seek relief under the Sherman Act. The indirect purchaser putative class actions seek injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under the statutes and common-law of various states and the District of Columbia. Five non-class cases remain pending against the Company (not counting the case in which the Company is finalizing formal settlement papers). In four of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling. The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases). The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. While management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements , there is still a reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of these cases. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is the largest producer and marketer of shell eggs in the United States. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Feb. 2015 Hearing in Indirect Purchaser Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014, that the indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted with prejudice the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss damages claims arising outside the limitations period applicable to most causes of action. On February 10 to 12, 2015, the Court will hold a hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Although both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000 and running "through the present," the Court's ruling on the statute of limitations alters the period for which damages are available. In the direct purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred prior to September 24, 2004. In the indirect purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred outside the state-specific statute of limitations period applicable to most causes of action asserted, with the precise damages period determined on a state-by-state and claim-by-claim basis. The direct purchaser putative class actions allege two separate sub-classes -- one for direct purchasers of shell eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products. The direct purchaser putative class actions seek relief under the Sherman Act. The indirect purchaser putative class actions seek injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under the statutes and common-law of various states and the District of Columbia. Five non-class cases remain pending against the Company (not counting the case in which the Company is finalizing formal settlement papers). In four of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling. The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases). The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. While management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements, there is still a reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of these cases. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is the largest producer and marketer of shell eggs in the United States. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Has Deal in Principle With Winn-Dixie et al. ------------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014, that the six of the cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class have been consolidated with the putative class actions into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted with prejudice the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the non-class plaintiffs' claims for damages arising before September 24, 2004. The parties have completed nearly all fact discovery related to these cases. The deadline for parties to file dispositive motions is July 2, 2015. On May 6, 2014, the Company agreed in principle to settle all claims brought by the four plaintiffs in one of the non-class cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.; Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc.; C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.; and H.J. Heinz Company, L.P. v. Michael Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv- 00510-GP. The parties are still in the process of finalizing their formal settlement papers. The terms of the settlement are confidential. The Company is settling this case for an amount and on terms that are not expected to have a material impact on the Company's results of operations. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Although both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000 and running "through the present," the Court's ruling on the statute of limitations alters the period for which damages are available. In the direct purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred prior to September 24, 2004. In the indirect purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred outside the state-specific statute of limitations period applicable to most causes of action asserted, with the precise damages period determined on a state-by-state and claim-by-claim basis. The direct purchaser putative class actions allege two separate sub-classes -- one for direct purchasers of shell eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products. The direct purchaser putative class actions seek relief under the Sherman Act. The indirect purchaser putative class actions seek injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under the statutes and common-law of various states and the District of Columbia. Five non-class cases remain pending against the Company (not counting the case in which the Company is finalizing formal settlement papers). In four of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling. The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases). The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. While management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements, there is still a reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of these cases. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is the largest producer and marketer of shell eggs in the United States. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Has Confidential Deal in Assoc. Wholesale Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014, that on March 3 all claims against the Company in the Kansas state court case styled as Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., et al., v. United Egg Producers, et al., No. 10-CV- 2171, were dismissed with prejudice. The Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement settling this case for an amount and on terms that are not expected to have a material impact on the Company's results of operations. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Although both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000 and running "through the present," the Court's ruling on the statute of limitations alters the period for which damages are available. In the direct purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred prior to September 24, 2004. In the indirect purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred outside the state-specific statute of limitations period applicable to most causes of action asserted, with the precise damages period determined on a state-by-state and claim-by-claim basis. The direct purchaser putative class actions allege two separate sub-classes -- one for direct purchasers of shell eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products. The direct purchaser putative class actions seek relief under the Sherman Act. The indirect purchaser putative class actions seek injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under the statutes and common-law of various states and the District of Columbia. Five non-class cases remain pending against the Company (not counting the case in which the Company is finalizing formal settlement papers). In four of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling. The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases). The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. While management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements, there is still a reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of these cases. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is the largest producer and marketer of shell eggs in the United States. CLOROX COMPANY: Court Refused to Certify Class in Fresh Step Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge has denied certification of a class of consumers who say The Clorox Company made false claims about its Fresh Step cat litter. The company advertised in 2010 and 2011 that its carbon-based litter product is "better at eliminating litter box odors" than the competing brand, Super Scoop, a baking soda-based product by Church & Dwight. C&D sued Clorox, won an injunction against the commercial and then settled privately out of court. Citing C&D's evidence, consumers around the country sued Clorox for misrepresentation. They brought allegations under the consumer-protection laws of California, Florida, New Jersey, New York and Texas, as well as claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment in those same states. They claim Clorox tricked them into paying more for a brand of cat litter that C&D studies show is no more effective than soda-based cat litter. U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti denied in part and granted in part Clorox's motion to dismiss in August 2013. However, Conti denied class certification on July 28, 2014, holding "the class is not ascertainable and because common questions do not predominate." He said, "the problem plaintiffs face is figuring out exactly who purchased Fresh Step during the class period. In their motion, plaintiffs do not propose any method for making this determination. None of the named plaintiffs in this case, for example, kept receipts for their purchases . . . nor do consumers necessarily remember when they bought cat litter, which sizes, types or even brands of cat litter they purchased." As a result, Conti said there is no "administratively feasible method of determining membership for the vast majority of potential members of plaintiff's proposed sub-classes. Therefore, plaintiffs' proposed classes are not ascertainable." Conti also said the plaintiffs' common questions don't predominate over individual concerns and that there is a lack of typicality. "Plaintiffs' proposed classes are hopelessly overbroad and include many persons who likely never saw the allegedly misleading statements," he said in his 27-page order. "Those class members therefore could not have relied on the alleged misrepresentations to purchase Fresh Step. Class certification is denied with respect to all five proposed sub-classes." The case is In Re Clorox Consumer Litigation, Master File No. 12- 00280 SC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Customers May Be Paid in 2011 Blizzard Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Tribune reports that about 35,000 ComEd customers who saw damage and spoiled groceries from massive storms in 2011 will be allowed to seek compensation, through a ruling on July 31 by the Illinois Appellate Court. The ruling upholds a 2013 decision by the Illinois Commerce Commission. That ruling culminated two years of testimony related to six summer storms and a blizzard in 2011 that left large portions of ComEd's customer service area without power for hours and, in some cases, days. Although the state passed a law 16 years ago aimed at holding ComEd financially responsible for damages related to extreme outages that are preventable, regulators had never forced the utility to pay under the law. ComEd reviewed claims and rejected most of them. The customers in question -- 34,595 of them -- experienced prolonged outages during the July 11, 2011, storm that could not be explained by weather conditions. The storm simultaneously left more than 480,000 customers without electricity for at least four hours. The utility's defense through the years was that it could not prevent massive power outages during storms. The outages for which ComEd is deemed liable under the law are preventable outages that leave 30,000 customers without power for at least four hours. In a statement on July 31, ComEd said it was "disappointed" in the decision, affirming its belief that utilities should not be held accountable for severe weather beyond their control. It also said that system improvements through the first half of the year have prevented a half-million service disruptions. ComEd is reviewing the decision and said it will evaluate its next steps. A spokesman for the Illinois Attorney General said in a statement: "We are pleased that the Court rejected ComEd's attempts to avoid paying customers for damages they experienced as a result of storms that its system should have been able to withstand." David Kolata, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, also said his group expects the decision will incentivize ComEd to act quickly to restore service in the event of future power outages. During the 2011 storms some people were out of power for four or five days, he said. "This is going to provide a valuable consumer protection for those with power outages," Mr. Kolata said. "Going forward it will create the right incentives to make sure our service quality is as good as it can be." DRISCOLL STRAWBERRY: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Saul Bolanos, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Inc.; and Does 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case No. CV 179685, (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Cruz Cty., July 24, 2014) alleges that the Defendant has a consistent policy of failing to pay wages and overtime to all "hourly employees" for the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek. Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Inc., is a California corporation headquartered in Watsonville, California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown. Driscoll grows and supplies berries. The Defendant provides raspberries, blueberries, blackberries, strawberries and organic berries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com liane@kingsleykingsley.com EBAY INC: N.C. Appeals Court Ruling in Ticket Resale Suit Final --------------------------------------------------------------- The decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals to overturn a ruling granting summary judgment to plaintiffs in a suit against StubHub, alleging it violated North Carolina's maximum ticket resale price law, is now final, according to eBay, Inc.'s July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Regulatory agencies or courts may claim or hold that the company is responsible for ensuring that the company's users comply with these laws and regulations or that the company or the company's users are either subject to licensure or prohibited from reselling event tickets in their jurisdictions. In October 2007, two plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court alleging that StubHub sold (and facilitated and participated in the sale) of concert tickets to plaintiffs with the knowledge that the tickets were resold in violation of North Carolina's maximum ticket resale price law (which has been subsequently amended). In February 2011, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, concluding that immunity under the Communications Decency Act did not apply. The trial court further held that StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices statute as it pertained to the two named plaintiffs, and certified its decision for immediate appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. In February 2012, the North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's decision, and the Court of Appeals' decision is now final. However, similar actions are expected in other states and other jurisdictions, such as Ontario. Laws and regulations governing the resale of event tickets outside the U.S. (for example, in Europe) may be more restrictive, and carry harsher penalties and fines, than corresponding U.S. laws and regulations. For example, France passed a law in 2012 prohibiting the habitual resale of event tickets without permission from the event organizer and Belgium passed a similar law in 2013 prohibiting habitual sale and subjecting occasional resale to a price cap. Restrictions on ticket resale are also under consideration by the Dutch Parliament and various state governments in Australia. In addition, the unauthorized resale of football (soccer) tickets is illegal in the U.K., where a StubHub site was launched in 2011. While the company has secured a number of commercial partnerships in the UK in order to enable the company's customers to buy and sell football (soccer) tickets, if it is unable to maintain these partnerships or develop new partnerships on acceptable terms, the company's tickets business would suffer. EBAY INC: PayPal Sued in Cal. for Limiting Users' Accounts ---------------------------------------------------------- PayPal, Inc. is facing lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that contains allegations it improperly held users' funds or otherwise improperly limited users' accounts, according to eBay, Inc.'s July 18, 2014, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits (Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc.; and Moises Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These lawsuits contain allegations that PayPal improperly held users' funds or otherwise improperly limited users' accounts. These lawsuits seek damages as well as changes to PayPal's practices among other remedies. A determination that there have been violations of laws relating to PayPal's practices could expose PayPal to significant liability. Any changes to PayPal's practices resulting from these lawsuits could require PayPal to incur significant costs and to expend product resources, which could delay other planned product launches or improvements and further harm the company's business. Also, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau launched a complaints portal on its website that allows customers to file complaints against money transfer service providers, including PayPal and Venmo, and publishes information on such complaints. If PayPal is unable to provide quality customer support operations in a cost-effective manner, PayPal's users may have negative experiences, PayPal may receive additional negative publicity, its ability to attract new customers may be damaged and it could become subject to additional litigation. As a result, current and future revenues could suffer, losses could be incurred and its operating margins could decrease. EBAY INC: Faces Suit in U.S. for "Monopoly" of Online Auctions -------------------------------------------------------------- eBay, Inc. is facing a lawsuit in the United States for allegedly monopolizing a market for online auctions, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. The company is subject to scrutiny by various government agencies under U.S. and foreign regulations, including competition laws. Some jurisdictions also provide private rights of action for competitors or consumers to assert claims of anti-competitive conduct. Other companies and government agencies have in the past and may in the future allege that the company's actions violate the antitrust or competition laws of the U.S., individual states, the European Commission or other countries, or otherwise constitute unfair competition. Contractual agreements with buyers, sellers or other companies could give rise to regulatory action or antitrust litigation. Also, the company's unilateral business practices could give rise to regulatory action or antitrust litigation. Some regulators, particularly those outside of the U.S., may perceive the company's business to have so much market power that otherwise uncontroversial business practices could be deemed anticompetitive. In the U.S., the company has been sued by a plaintiff representing a putative class of sellers who alleges that it has illegally monopolized a market for online auctions. In Korea, the national competition authority investigated allegations that the company has engaged in illegal exclusive conduct and rendered a decision against the company in October 2010. Both the main case and a related administrative action were resolved in the company's favor. The competition authorities in Germany and Australia have conducted investigations (now completed) of various actions taken by the company's businesses. Other competition authorities have conducted market studies of the company's industries. Such claims and investigations, even if without foundation, may be very expensive to defend, involve negative publicity and substantial diversion of management time and effort and could result in significant judgments against the company or require the company to change the company's business practices. EBAY INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Alleged TCPA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- eBay, Inc. remains a defendant in lawsuits filed in California and Illinois, alleging it violated The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Two putative class-action lawsuits have been filed containing allegations that the company's businesses violated the TCPA. Roberts v. PayPal (filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in February 2012) contains allegations that commercial advertisements for PayPal products and services were sent via text message to mobile phones without prior consent. In May 2013, the Court granted PayPal's motion for summary judgment challenging the viability of plaintiff's individual claim on grounds that plaintiff consented to receive the text message and entered judgment in favor of PayPal. Plaintiff has filed an appeal of this judgment. Murray v. Bill Me Later (filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in June 2012) contains allegations that Bill Me Later made calls featuring artificial or prerecorded voices without prior consent. These lawsuits, and other private lawsuits not currently alleged as class actions, seek damages (including statutory damages) and injunctive relief, among other remedies. Given the enormous number of communications the company sends to the company's users, a determination that there have been violations of laws relating to PayPal's or Bill Me Later's practices (or those of any of the company's other companies) under the TCPA or other communications-based statutes could expose the company to significant damage awards that could, individually or in the aggregate, materially harm the company's business. ELI LILLY: Seeks Indemnification From Takeda -------------------------------------------- A jury in the Western District of Louisiana on April 7, 2014, found in favor of the plaintiffs in the case of Terrence Allen, et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, et al., no. 6:12-md-00064. Because of the existence of the indemnification agreement, Eli Lilly and Company tendered its defense of the case to Takeda, according to Eli Lilly in its Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. The jury awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages to plaintiffs (allocated 75 percent to Takeda and 25 percent to Eli Lilly) and punitive damages of $6.00 billion against Takeda and $3.00 billion against Eli Lilly and Company. "We believe the evidence did not support plaintiffs' claims and strongly disagree with the verdict. We and Takeda intend to vigorously challenge this outcome through all available legal means," according to Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly added, "After the jury reached a verdict in Allen, Takeda notified us that it was reserving its right to challenge its obligations to defend and indemnify us with respect to the Allen case. We believe we are entitled to full indemnification of our losses and expenses in Allen and all other U.S. cases; however, there can be no guarantee we will ultimately be successful in obtaining full indemnification." The Company said, "We are named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates as a defendant in approximately 4,200 product liability cases in the U.S. related to the diabetes medication Actos, which we co-promoted with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until September 2006. Our agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us against our losses and expenses with respect to the U.S. product liability litigation and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the agreement. "In general, plaintiffs in these actions allege that Actos caused or contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of the active cases have been consolidated in federal multi-district litigation in the Western District of Louisiana or are pending in a coordinated state court proceeding in California or a coordinated state court proceeding in Illinois. We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we and Takeda are prepared to defend against them vigorously." Eli Lilly and Company is an American global pharmaceutical company. ELI LILLY: Still Faces Actos(R) Product Liability Suit in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company is named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. as a defendant in three purported product liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including one in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.). "We promoted Actos in Canada until 2009. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously," Eli Lilly said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. The Company said, "We are named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates as a defendant in approximately 4,200 product liability cases in the U.S. related to the diabetes medication Actos, which we co-promoted with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until September 2006. Our agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us against our losses and expenses with respect to the U.S. product liability litigation and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the agreement. "In general, plaintiffs in these actions allege that Actos caused or contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of the active cases have been consolidated in federal multi-district litigation in the Western District of Louisiana or are pending in a coordinated state court proceeding in California or a coordinated state court proceeding in Illinois. We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we and Takeda are prepared to defend against them vigorously." Eli Lilly and Company is an American global pharmaceutical company. ELI LILLY: Still Faces 360 Byetta Product Liability Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Eli Lilly and Company is named as a defendant in approximately 360 Byetta product liability lawsuits involving approximately 800 plaintiffs. Approximately 95 of these lawsuits, covering about 500 plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Approximately 260 lawsuits, covering about 290 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation in the Southern District of California. The remaining approximately 10 lawsuits, representing about 10 plaintiffs, are in various state courts. Approximately 300 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 415 plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer). "We are aware of approximately 400 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. The majority of these additional claims allege damages for pancreatitis. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously," the company said. Eli Lilly and Company is an American global pharmaceutical company. ELI LILLY: Faces 10 Prozac(R) Product Liability Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company is named as a defendant in approximately 10 U.S. lawsuits primarily related to allegations that the antidepressant Prozac caused or contributed to birth defects in the children of women who ingested the drug during pregnancy, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. "We are aware of approximately 550 additional claims related to birth defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously," the company said. Eli Lilly and Company is an American global pharmaceutical company. EPIRUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suits Over Merger in Del., Mass. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is facing lawsuits over its merger in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware And in the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, according to the company's July 15, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Between April 28, 2014 and May 2, 2014, three putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Zalicus in the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, against Zalicus, Merger Subsidiary, the members of Zalicus' board of directors and Epirus. These actions are: Paul Patrick Laky v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14- 1380; Michael Ma v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14-1381; Harrypersaud v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14-1455 (collectively, the "Massachusetts Actions"). The Massachusetts Actions allege that the Zalicus board breached its fiduciary duties, and that Epirus, Zalicus and Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted the purported breaches, in connection with the proposed Merger. The Massachusetts Actions seek relief including, among other things, to enjoin defendants from proceeding with the Merger, to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger unless additional procedures are implemented, and an award of all costs of the Massachusetts Actions, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. On May 1, 2014, another putative class action lawsuit, Harvey Stein v. Zalicus, Inc. et al., Case No. 9602, was filed by a purported stockholder of Zalicus in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Zalicus, Zalicus' directors and Epirus (the "Delaware Action"). The Delaware Action alleges that the Zalicus board breached their fiduciary duties, and Epirus and Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted the purported breaches, in connection with the proposed Merger. The Delaware Action seeks relief including, among other things, to preliminary and permanently enjoin the proposed Merger, to enjoin consummation of the proposed Merger and rescind the Merger if consummated (or to award rescissionary damages), and an award of all costs of the Delaware Action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. FAB UNIVERSAL: Faces Securities Litigations in New York Court ------------------------------------------------------------- FAB Universal Corp. is facing securities lawsuits in the federal court for the Southern District of New York in relation to statements it made about the number of kiosks it had deployed, according to the company's July 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In November and December 2013, three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the federal court for the Southern District of New York against FAB Universal Corp., its CEO and its CFO. The actions are: Simmons v. Spencer et al. (1:13-cv-08216-RWS. filed 11/18/13), Stubblefield v. Fab Universal Corp. et al. (1:13-cv- 08499-RWS, filed 11/27/13), and Cox v. Fab Universal Corp. et al. (1:13-cv-08716-RWS, filed 12/09/13). According to the complaints, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about FAB's business, operations, prospects and performance. Plaintiffs allege that defendants overstated the number of kiosks that FAB had deployed. FAB's kiosks are "inundated with pirated digital entertainment content," and the company's Chinese subsidiary issued RMB 100 million ($16.4 million) worth of bonds to Chinese investors that are not reflected in the Company's publicly disclosed financial statements. Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs assert causes of action for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, recessionary damages, fees and costs. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Faces "JonWall" Suit Over Propane Reduction ---------------------------------------------------------------- JonWall, Inc., d/b/a The Original Tom Thumb, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas L.P., AmeriGas Partners, L.P., AmeriGas Propane, L.P., AmeriGas, Inc., and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02370 (D. Kan., July 24, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspired to reduce the amount of propane gas contained in portable steel tanks, referred to as "propane exchange tanks," from 17 pounds to 15 pounds without a corresponding price decrease. The Defendants operate a national propane distribution business, and owns or has access to distribution locations nationwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Isaac L. Diel, Esq. SHARP MCQUEEN PA 6900 College Blvd., Suite #285 Overland Park, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 661-9931 Facsimile: (913) 661-9935 E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Jason S. Kilene, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Eric S. Taubel, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com jkilene@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com etaubel@gustafsongluek.com - and - Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. GRIES LENHARDT MICHENFELDER ALLEN, PLLP 12725 43rd Street NE, Suite 201 St. Michael, MN 55376 Telephone: (763) 497-3099 Facsimile: (763) 497-3639 E-mail: Pat@GLMALaw.com FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Alleged Propane Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------- Zerka's Party Store, Inc., individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership.; Ferrellgas L.P., a limited partnership (d/b/a Blue Rhino); Amerigas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership (d/b/a Amerigas Cylinder Exchange); Amerigas Propane, Inc.; Amerigas Propane, L.P.; and UGI Corporation, a corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-04193 (W.D. Mo., July 24, 2014), arises out of a conspiracy to fix the price of propane sold in exchangeable portable steel tanks commonly referred to as "propane exchange tanks." The Defendants sell propane, stored in propane exchange tanks, directly to retailers across the United States, including grocery stores, convenience stores, and gas stations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas V. Bender, Esq. WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, PC 1100 Main St, Ste 2500, PO Box 26188 Kansas City, MO 64196 Telephone: (816) 421-6620 Facsimile: (816) 421-4747 E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: RC Gasoline Sues Over Propane Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- RC Gasoline, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas, L.P.; Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.; Amerigas Propane, Inc.; Amerigas Propane, L.P.; Amerigas Partners, L.P.; and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02371 (D. Kan., July 24, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspired to reduce the amount of propane they would put in their tanks and thereby raise the per-pound price of propane across the country. The Defendants supply propane in propane exchange tanks to thousands of gas stations, convenience stores, hardware stores, grocery stores, and big box retailers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Isaac L. Diel, Esq. SHARP MCQUEEN PA 6900 College Blvd., Suite #285 Overland Park, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 661-9931 Facsimile: (913) 661-9935 E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com FLAGLER COUNTY: Faces "Rudell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Ruddell on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Flagler County Sheriff's Office, James L. Manfre, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Flager County Sheriff's Office, Case No. 3:14-cv-00873 (M.D. Fla., July 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing law enforcement and protection to the general public. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis Woods, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 420-5956 E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com FLUIDMASTER INC: Falsely Marketed Steel Line Products, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pat Sullivan, Karen Rhyne, Steve Ellefson, Mark Eisen, Bruce Elder and Jon Naef, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05696 (N.D. Ill., July 24, 2014), is brought for failure to disclose that its NO- BURST Braided Lines were subject to a serious design defect, were unsafe, and posed a substantial risk of failure, in that they would rupture and burst resulting in flooding and damaging building owners' real and personal property. Fluidmaster, Inc. manufactures and markets a line of braided steel supply lines used to supply water to common household fixtures including faucets, toilets and dishwashers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq. Edward Anthony Wallace, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: aek@wexlerwallace.com eaw@wexlerwallace.com FUJI JAPANESE: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Waitress Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Evangeline Baughman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fuji Japanese Buffet, Inc., and Zhi Bin Dong, Case No. 5:14-cv-12958-JCO-MKM (E.D. Mich., July 29, 2014) is brought on behalf of current and former employees of the Defendants, who worked as waiters and waitresses. Ms. Baughman alleges that the Defendants did not compensate her for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Fuji Japanese Buffet, Inc., is a Michigan corporation with its place of business in Madison Heights, Oakland County, Michigan. FJB owns and operates a restaurant in Madison Heights. Zhi Bin Dong is a resident of Troy, Oakland County, Michigan, and the principal shareholder of FJB. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Hardesty, Esq. Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq. Armin Halilovic, Esq. GOLD STAR LAW, P.C. 2701 Troy Center Dr., Suite 400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 275-5200 Facsimile: (248) 817-2765 E-mail: dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com ahalilovic@goldstarlaw.com GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Accused of Using Promoters to Raise Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Galectin Therapeutics and its top three officers used stock promoters to inflate its share price and the price fell from $14.54 to $5.70 in a day when the truth came out, shareholders claim in Nevada Federal Court. GANNETT SATELLITE: Accused of Illegal Disclosure of Users' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Yershov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. d/b/a Usa Today, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-13112 (D. Mass., July 24, 2014), seeks to put an end to its unlawful practice of disclosing its users' sensitive information, and to obtained redress for such conduct in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. is an international media company that produces a variety of news and entertainment programming. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica C. Mirabella, Esq. 132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 Facsimile: (617) 583-1905 E-mail: emirabella@gnemlaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls About 718,000 Vehicles on Safety Issues --------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Chappell, writing for The Two-Way, reports that announcing six different safety recalls on July 23, GM said it needs to fix problems that range from a turn-signal bug to an unpredictable loss of power steering. The flaws were found in vehicles from model years 2011 to 2015. GM says no deaths and only two crashes have been linked to the recalls, which come in a year that has already seen the Detroit carmaker recall nearly 30 million vehicles worldwide. The company has "passed the 22 million vehicles recalled by all automakers last year," the AP says. More than 400,000 of the recalled vehicles have a potential problem with a bolt in their front-seat height adjustor. Others have more serious risks, such as a possible loss of steering. "We are bringing greater rigor and discipline to our analysis and decision making," GM Global Vehicle Safety Vice President Jeff Boyer said. "If we identify an issue -- large or small -- that might affect the safety of our customers, we will act decisively." Here are the models and problems GM outlined on July 23 in a news release that blamed "varying safety issues" for the recalls: 414,333 Vehicles: "2011-2012 model year Chevrolet Camaro; 2010- 2012 model year Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain; 2011-2012 Buick Regal and LaCrosse; and 2010-2012 Cadillac SRX models in the U.S. equipped with power height adjustable driver or front passenger seat structures. In these vehicles, the bolt that secures the height adjuster actuator may become loose or fall out. If the bolt falls out, the seat will move up and down freely because it is no longer attached at the height adjuster. The vehicles are safe to drive, but customers should not use the power height adjustable feature until dealers can replace the height adjuster bolt. GM is aware of one crash and three injuries but no fatalities related to this condition." 124,008 Vehicles: "Model year 2014 Chevrolet Caprice, 2014 Chevrolet SS, 2014-2015 Chevrolet Silverado LD and HD, 2013-2014 Cadillac ATS, 2014 Cadillac CTS, 2014 Cadillac ELR; 2013-2014 Buick Encore; and 2014-2015 GMC Sierra LD and HD vehicles because certain vehicles may have an incomplete weld on the seat hook bracket assembly. A loss of power to a laser welding machine may have resulted in an incomplete weld, according to data collected from the machine between July 2013 and January 2014. Dealers will inspect the weld. If it is sufficient, no further action is necessary. If it is insufficient, dealers will replace the lower seat track at no charge. Less than 1 percent of welds are expected to require seat track replacement. GM is unaware of any crashes or injuries as a result of this issue." 120,426 Vehicles: "2011-2013 model year Buick Regal and 2013 model year Chevrolet Malibus equipped with front turn signals that use two bulbs in each front turn signal. While the driver would get a rapidly flashing turn signal arrow in the instrument cluster if both bulbs in one turn signal were burned out; if only one bulb on either side burns out, there would be no signal to the driver. Dealers will reprogram the body control module to fix the condition. GM knows of no crashes, injuries or complaints related to this issue." 57,242 Vehicles: "2014 Chevrolet Impalas equipped with belt-drive electric power steering. On certain vehicles, customers may experience reduced or no power steering assist at start-up or while driving due to a poor electrical ground connection to the Power Steering Control Module. If power steering is lost, a warning message is displayed on the Driver Information Center and a chime sounds. Steering control can be maintained because the vehicle will revert to manual steering mode, but would require greater driver effort particularly at low vehicle speeds. Paint may have seeped behind the nut on the power steering control module ground stud. Dealers will inspect and clean paint from behind the ground nut, re-torque the nut and update the power steering control module software at no charge. GM is aware of one crash but no injuries or fatalities related to this condition." 1,919 Vehicles: "2014-2015 Chevrolet Sparks imported from Korea that were assembled with a lower control arm bolt not fastened to specification. The condition could result in noise from the front suspension and separation of the lower control arm from the steering knuckle while driving resulting in loss of steering control. Dealers will inspect the left and right hand lower control arm attaching bolts to assure they are tightened to specification. GM knows of no crashes, injuries or fatalities related to this condition." 22 Vehicles: "2015 model year Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban and GMC Yukon/Yukon Denali vehicles in the U.S. In these vehicles, the roof carriers may have been attached with the wrong retaining nuts, resulting in holes or tears in the roof rail air bags if they deploy. Eight of these vehicles are in dealer stock and will be repaired before being sold." GYRODYNE CO: N.Y. Court Signs Order to Show Cause in Merger Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk signed an Order to Show Cause submitted by the plaintiff in a suit against Gyrodyne Company Of America, Inc. over a merger, setting a return date on certain of plaintiff's motion, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 3, 2014, a purported stockholder of Gyrodyne filed a putative class action lawsuit against Gyrodyne and members of the Board (the "Individual Defendants"), and against Gyrodyne Special Distribution, LLCand Gyrodyne, LLC (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk (the "Court"), captioned Cashstream Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Paul L. Lamb, et al., Index No. 065134/2014 (the "Action"). The plaintiff in the Action alleges that (i) the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties or aided and abetted the breach of those duties in connection with the Merger and (ii) Gyrodyne and the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. The plaintiff in the Action seeks, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, requiring corrective disclosures in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, compensatory and/or rescissory damages, and interest, attorney's fees, expert fees and other costs. On July 17, 2014, the Court signed an Order to Show Cause submitted by the plaintiff setting a return date of August 5, 2014 on plaintiff's motion for an order (a) preliminarily enjoining consummation of the Merger, (b) granting expedited discovery and (c) scheduling a hearing for continuation of a preliminary injunction after completion of expedited discovery. HERBALIFE LTD: Faces "Awad" Securities Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action, filed on April 14, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Awad v. Herbalife Ltd., et al. The case asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers made material misstatements concerning the Company's finances and business practices, and contends that the Company is operating a pyramid scheme. The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount and asks to represent a class of investors in Herbalife between May 4, 2010 and April 11, 2014. The Company intends to vigorously defend the class action suit. Herbalife Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempt limited liability company, or Herbalife, was incorporated on April 4, 2002. Herbalife Ltd. is a global nutrition company that sells weight management products, nutritional supplements, energy, sports & fitness products and personal care products. HERBALIFE LTD: Trial on "Bostick" Claims to Begin in April 2015 --------------------------------------------------------------- Herbalife LTD has been named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed April 8, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Bostick, et al., v. Herbalife International of America, Inc., et al) challenging the legality of the company's network marketing program under various state and federal laws. On May 30, 2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on a variety of grounds. On October 11, 2013, after plaintiff indicated his intention to dismiss certain claims brought under federal law, the Court denied the company's motion to dismiss the remaining state claims. On July 7, 2014, the complaint was amended to add additional plaintiffs. As of June 30, 2014, a class has not been certified. Trial on these state claims has been set to commence on April 21, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. "We believe the suit is without merit and plan to defend the suit vigorously," the Company said. Herbalife Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempt limited liability company, or Herbalife, was incorporated on April 4, 2002. Herbalife Ltd. is a global nutrition company that sells weight management products, nutritional supplements, energy, sports & fitness products and personal care products. HOUSTON AMERICAN: Dismissal of Securities Litigation Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------- Houston American Energy Corp. (NYSE MKT: HUSA) announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reversed the District Court's prior dismissal of the previously disclosed securities class action lawsuit brought against the company, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The appellate court ruling focused on the sufficiency of the pleadings in the case, made no determination regarding the merits of the factual allegations, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. About Houston American Energy Corp. Based in Houston, Texas, Houston American Energy Corp is an independent energy company with interests in oil and natural gas wells and prospects. The Company's business strategy includes a property mix of producing and non-producing assets with a focus on Colombia, Texas and Louisiana. Additional information can be accessed by reviewing the company's Form 10-K and other periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. For additional information, view the company's website at www.houstonamericanenergy.com or contact the Houston American Energy Corp. at (713) 222-6966. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Still Faces "Gross" Securities Suit in Mo. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The securities suit Gross v. Kansas City Southern, et al., 4:14- cv-00345-BCW continues in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter June 30, 2014. On April 15, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The securities class action is styled as Gross v. Kansas City Southern, et al., 4:14-cv-00345- BCW. On April 16, 2014, the first of two shareholder derivative actions purportedly brought on behalf of the Company (which is named as a "nominal defendant") was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers. The first derivative action is styled as Webster v. Starling, et al., 4:14-cv-00349-BCW. The second derivative action was filed on June 6, 2014, and is styled as Lerner v. Starling, et al., 4:14-cv-00509-BCW. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company made misrepresentations or omitted to disclose certain facts in connection with its volume guidance for fiscal year 2013. The complaints seek unspecified damages and equitable relief. KIMBALL INT'L: Receives $3.5MM From Two Antitrust Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Kimball International said in its Form 10-12b (Amendment No. 2) filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the first nine months of fiscal year 2014, net sales increased 6% compared to the first nine months of fiscal year 2013 due to growth in net sales to customers in the automotive and industrial markets. Sales to customers in the automotive market improved primarily due to the strength of the Chinese market. Sales to customers in the industrial market improved primarily due to additional program awards from an existing customer. For the first nine months of fiscal year 2014, net sales to the public safety and medical industries declined compared to the same period of fiscal year 2013. Sales to customers in the public safety industry were negatively impacted by lower spending and delays in ordering by government agencies. Net income for the first nine months of fiscal year 2014 totaled $19.3 million, inclusive of $3.5 million of after-tax settlements received related to two anti-trust class action lawsuits of which Kimball Electronics was a class member. Net income for the first nine months of fiscal year 2013 totaled $14.3 million. Kimball Electronics is a global provider of engineering, manufacturing, and supply chain services to customers in the automotive, medical, industrial, and public safety end markets. KINDER MORGAN: Faces "Slotoroff" Case in Delaware Chancery Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action and derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware (Case No. 9318) on February 5, 2014 against defendants Kinder Morgan, Inc, Kinder Morgan G.P, Inc., and nominal defendant Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. The suit was filed by Jon Slotoroff, a purported unitholder of KMEP, and seeks to assert claims both individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders of KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011 through the date of the filing of the suit. The suit alleges direct and derivative causes of action for breach of the partnership agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting, and tortious interference. Among other things, the suit alleges that defendants made a bad faith allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures for the alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMEP's distributions and growth rate. The suit seeks disgorgement of any distributions to KMGP, KMI and any related entities, beyond amounts that would have been distributed in accordance with a "good faith" allocation of maintenance capital expenses, together with other unspecified monetary damages including punitive damages and attorney fees. Defendants believe this suit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. KMEP is a Delaware limited partnership formed in August 1992. KMEP is a leading pipeline transportation and energy storage company in North America, with a diversified portfolio of energy transportation and storage assets. KINDER MORGAN: Faces "Burns and Zehrer" Case -------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014 that a putative class action and derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware (Case No. 9479) on March 27, 2014 against defendants Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P, Inc. and nominal defendant KMEP. The suit was filed by Darrell Burns and Terrence Zehrer, purported unitholders of KMEP, and seeks to assert claims both individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders of KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011 through the date of the filing of the suit. The suit asserts claims and allegations substantially similar to the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff, and on April 8, 2014, the Court ordered that this suit be consolidated for all purposes with the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff and the caption of the consolidated action shall be In Re Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Derivative Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 9318. KMEP is a Delaware limited partnership formed in August 1992. KMEP is a leading pipeline transportation and energy storage company in North America, with a diversified portfolio of energy transportation and storage assets. KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Case Stayed Pending "Slotoroff" Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014 that a putative class action and derivative complaint was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No. 2014-11872 in the 215th Judicial District) on March 6, 2014, against Kinder Morgan Inc, Kinder Morgan G.P,Inc, Kinder Morgan Management, LLC, Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, Ted A. Gardner, Gary L. Hultquist, Perry M. Waughtal and nominal defendant KMEP. The suit was filed by Kenneth Walker, a purported unit holder of KMEP, and alleges direct and derivative causes of action for alleged violation of duties owed under the partnership agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, "abuse of control" and "gross mismanagement" in connection with the calculation of distributions and allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital expenditures and maintenance capital expenditures. The suit seeks unspecified money damages, interest, punitive damages, attorney and expert fees, costs and expenses, unspecified equitable relief, and demands a trial by jury. Defendants believe this suit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. By agreement of the parties, the case is stayed pending further resolution of the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff. KMEP is a Delaware limited partnership formed in August 1992. KMEP is a leading pipeline transportation and energy storage company in North America, with a diversified portfolio of energy transportation and storage assets. LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued Over Failure to Handle Diminution Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Chis, LLC, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., and Peerless Insurance Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-00277 (M.D. Ga., July 24, 2014), alleges that the Defendants have implemented, and continue to implement, procedures whereby it systematically fails to assess for and pay diminution in value in first-party physical damage claims and fails to establish procedures to handle diminution in value claims. Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc. is a Massachusetts mutual holding company and maintains its principal place of business at 175 Berkeley Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. is a for-profit, Massachusetts corporation, which maintains its principal place of business at 175 Berkeley Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 and is a licensed insurer in the State of Georgia. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. is a for-profit, Massachusetts corporation, which maintains its principal place of business at 175 Berkeley Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02166 and is a licensed insurer in the State of Georgia. Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company is a for-profit, Illinois corporation, maintains its principal place of business at 27201 Bella Vista Parkway. The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Princenthal, Esq. C. Cooper Knowles, Esq. PRINCENTHAL & MAY, LLC. 260 Peachtree St Nw Ste 502 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 524-4000 E-mail: aprincenthal@akpfirm.com cknowles@akpfirm.com - and - Clinton W. Sitton, Esq. Richard Kopelman, Esq. KOPELMAN SITTON LAW GROUP, LLC 4840 Roswell Rd Ste E200 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (404) 257-0777 E-mail: clint@kopelmansitton.com richard@kopelmansitton.com - and - James C. Bradley, Esq. Nina Fields Britt, Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC PO Box 1007 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: (843) 727-6500 E-mail: jbradley@rpwb.com nfields@rpwb.com - and - Michael J. Brickman, Esq RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 174 E Bay St. Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 727-6520 E-mail: mbrickman@rpwb.com MAGNUM HUNTER: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in New York Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation continues to face a securities lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On April 23, 2013, Anthony Rosian, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company and certain of its officers, two of whom also serve as directors. On April 24, 2013, Horace Carvalho, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a similar class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against the Company and certain of its officers, two of whom also serve as directors. Several substantially similar putative class actions have been filed in the Southern District of New York and in the Southern District of Texas. All such cases are collectively referred to as the Securities Cases. The cases filed in the Southern District of Texas have since been dismissed, but the cases in the Southern District of New York have been consolidated and remain ongoing. The plaintiffs in the Securities Cases have filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that the Company made certain false or misleading statements in its filings with the SEC, including statements related to the Company's internal and financial controls, the calculation of non-cash share-based compensation expense, the late filing of the Company's 2012 Form 10-K, the dismissal of Magnum Hunter's previous independent registered accounting firm, the Company's characterization of the auditors' position with respect to the dismissal, and other matters identified in the Company's April 16, 2013 Form 8-K, as amended. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act based on alleged false statements made regarding these issues throughout the alleged class period, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act based on alleged false statements and omissions regarding the Company's internal controls made in connection with the 35,000,000-share secondary offering that Magnum Hunter completed on May 14, 2012. The consolidated amended complaint demands that the defendants pay unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs, including damages allegedly caused by the decline in the Company's stock price between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013. MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Faces Federal RESPA Violations Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- MGIC Investment Corporation continues to face purported class cases in various U.S. district courts, according to the company's July 16, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Consumers continue to bring lawsuits against home mortgage lenders and settlement service providers. Mortgage insurers, including MGIC, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly known as FCRA. MGIC's settlement of class action litigation against it under RESPA became final in October 2003. MGIC settled the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it under FCRA in December 2004, following denial of class certification in June 2004. Since December 2006, class action litigation has been brought against a number of large lenders alleging that their captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA. Beginning in December 2011, MGIC, together with various mortgage lenders and other mortgage insurers, has been named as a defendant in twelve lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various U.S. District Courts. Seven of those cases have previously been dismissed without any further opportunity to appeal. The complaints in all of the cases allege various causes of action related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders, including that the lenders' captive reinsurers received excessive premiums in relation to the risk assumed by those captives, thereby violating RESPA. MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the lawsuits. There can be no assurance that the company will not be subject to further litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the outcome of any such litigation, including the lawsuits as mentioned, would not have a material adverse effect on the company. MITSUBISHI UFJ: Faces Lawsuit in U.S. Over Benchmark Submissions ---------------------------------------------------------------- In connection with benchmark submissions, Kabushiki Kaisha Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group/Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. was named defendant in a number of civil lawsuits, including putative class actions, in the United States, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In December 2012, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., or BTMU, agreed to make an approximately $8.6 million payment to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, of the U.S. Department of the Treasury to settle potential civil liability for apparent violations of certain U.S. sanctions regulations from 2006 to 2007. In June 2013, BTMU entered into a consent agreement with the New York State Department of Financial Services, or DFS, to resolve issues relating to certain U.S. dollar payments that were routed through New York from 2002 to 2007. Under the terms of the agreement with DFS, BTMU made a civil monetary payment of $250 million to DFS and retained an independent consultant to conduct a compliance review of the relevant controls and related matters in BTMU's current operations. BTMU continues to cooperate closely with all relevant regulators and is undertaking necessary actions. The company received requests and subpoenas for information from government agencies in some jurisdictions that are conducting investigations into past submissions made by panel members, including the company to the bodies that set various interbank benchmark rates. The company is cooperating with these investigations and have been conducting an internal investigation among other things. In connection with these matters, the company and other panel members have been named as defendants in a number of civil lawsuits, including putative class actions, in the United States. In June 2013, BTMU was censured by the Monetary Authority of Singapore for deficiencies in its governance, risk management and internal controls for its involvement in benchmark submissions and was directed, among other things, to adopt measures to address these deficiencies. NIELSEN CO: Faces Class Suit Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- The Nielsen Co. stiffs its field reps for overtime, a class action claims in Broward County Court, in Florida, according to Courthouse News Service. NORTHERN TRUST: Records $19MM Pre-Tax Charge From Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Northern Trust Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that "a number of participants in our securities lending program, which is associated with the Corporation's asset servicing business, have commenced either individual lawsuits or purported class actions in which they claim, among other things, that we failed to exercise prudence in the investment management of the collateral received from the borrowers of the securities, resulting in losses that they seek to recover. The cases assert various contractual, statutory and common law claims, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty under common law and under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)." In the fourth quarter of 2013, Northern Trust recorded a $19.2 million pre-tax charge in connection with an agreement to resolve claims related to two of these lawsuits. The settlement is not final as it requires further documentation, signed agreements and court approval. Other lawsuits related to securities lending are not part of the proposed settlement, and remain pending. In April 2014, Northern Trust received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking documents related to Northern Trust's securities lending activities. Northern Trust is cooperating with the SEC in this investigation. Northern Trust Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a leading provider of asset servicing, fund administration, asset management, fiduciary and banking solutions for corporations, institutions, families, and individuals worldwide. Northern Trust focuses on servicing and managing client assets through its two primary business units, Wealth Management (WM) and Corporate & Institutional Services (C&IS). Asset management and related services are provided to Wealth Management and C&IS clients primarily by a third business unit, Asset Management. Northern Trust emphasizes a high level of client service complemented by the effective use of technology, delivered by a fourth business unit, Operations & Technology (O&T). Except where the context otherwise requires, the term "Northern Trust" refers to Northern Trust Corporation and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. NOVEX BIOTECH: Sued Over False Claims Related to Growth Factor-9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Novex Biotech, Sierra Research Group and GNC Corp. falsely claim that Growth Factor-9 is a "clinically tested hormone secretagogue" that will create a "682% mean increase in serum growth hormone levels," a class action claims in California Federal Court, reports Courthouse News Service. PAYLOCITY CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Johnson, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Paylocity Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-02667 (N.D. Tex., July 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Paylocity Corporation is a provider of online payroll and human resource products. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Melissa Breanne Wesley, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL LLP 1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com mbwesley@l-b-law.com PRECISION SOLIDS: "Perry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Jody P. Perry, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Precision Solids Control, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-02370 (W.D. La., July 24, 2014), to recover unpaid wages, including overtime pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Precision Solids Control, Inc. is a foreign corporation not licensed to do but doing business in the State of Louisiana with its principle address as 115 Lafferty Drive, Broussard, LA 70518. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH D. ST. PE 311 W University Ave Ste A Lafayette, LA 70506 Telephone: (337) 534-4043 Facsimile: (337) 534-8379 E-mail: kennethstpe@aol.com PRETIUM RESOURCES: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Pretium Resources Inc. faces shareholder lawsuits in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form F-10 filing (Amendment No. 1) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On October 29, 2013, David Wong, a shareholder of the Company, filed a proposed class action against the Company, Robert Quartermain (a director, the President and the CEO of the Company) and Snowden (the "Wong Action"). A similar proposed class action was filed by Roksana Tahzibi, a shareholder of the Company, on November 1, 2013 (the "Tahzibi Action"). The defendants in the Tahzibi Action are the Company, Mr. Quartermain, Joseph Ovsenek (an officer and director of the Company), Kenneth McNaughton (an officer of the Company), Ian Chang (an officer of the Company) and Snowden. The Wong Action and Tahzibi Action (together, the "Ontario Actions") were filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The plaintiffs in the Ontario Actions seek certification of a class action on behalf of a class of persons, wherever they reside, who acquired the Company's common shares commencing on November 22, 2012 and ending on October 22, 2013 (in the case of the Wong Action) or commencing on July 23, 2013 and ending on October 21, 2013 (in the case of the Tahzibi Action). The plaintiffs in the Ontario Actions allege that certain of the Company's disclosures contained material misrepresentations or omissions regarding the Brucejack Project, including statements with respect to probable mineral reserves and future gold production at the Brucejack Project. The plaintiffs further allege that until October 22, 2013, the Company failed to disclose alleged reasons provided by Strathcona Mineral Services Ltd. ("Strathcona") for its resignation as an independent qualified person overseeing the bulk sample program. The Tahzibi Action also includes a claim for unjust enrichment as against Mr. McNaughton. PRETIUM RESOURCES: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in In re Pretium Resources Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 13-CV-7552 remains pending, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Between October 2013 and November 2013, five putative class action complaints were filed in the United States against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, alleging that defendants violated the U.S. securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information concerning the Brucejack Project. All five actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In January 2014, the Court ordered that these actions be consolidated into a single action, styled In re Pretium Resources Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 13-CV-7552. The Court has appointed as lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action three individuals who are suing on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the Company's common shares between November 20, 2012 and October 21, 2013. In March 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. In May 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. The motion remains pending. PURE BEAUTY: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Stravino, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pure Beauty Services, Inc., Patrick Tunney and Regina Tunney, Case No. 1:14-cv-04521-BMC (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Pure Beauty Services is a New York corporation that owns and operates Pure Spa and Salon located in New York City. Patrick and Regina Tunney are owners of Pure Spa. The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent E. Bauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT E. BAUER 112 Madison Avenue, 5th floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 575-1517 Facsimile: (212) 689-2726 E-mail: v.bauer@verizon.net PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: Defrauds Small Businesses, Owners Claim in Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A debt collector defrauds mom and pop businesses, leasing them a defective credit card processing machine, then suing to collect on a forged four-year lease, business owners claim in a class action, according to Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiffs Ronald Blankenship and Gary Brassfield sued Pushpin Holdings, Lease Finance Group, and Jay Cohen, who owns both companies, in Cook County Court. "This class action is brought to stop a scam being operated by Pushpin, Lease Finance and Cohen," the lawsuit states. "The scam is to threaten to file, and to actually file, hundreds of bogus small claims suits in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The suits are frivolous and all subject to dismissal with prejudice. They are frivolous because their filing violates mandatory arbitration clauses in the subject lease agreements. In addition, the suits are time barred." Blankenship is a 70-year-old sole proprietor of a shoe repair store in Bessemer, Ala. Brassfield operates an auto lube shop in Arkansas. Both men say they were solicited with high-pressure sales tactics to lease a credit card processing machine, and agreed to lease the machine for one year. They say the machines either did not work properly, or broke, and they returned them. Then the defendants sued them in small claims court, claiming they had violated a 4-year lease agreement. The plaintiffs say they "did not even sign the lease agreements on which they are being sued. Instead, their signatures were forged on the documents." In 2013, Lease Finance settled criminal charges brought by the state of New York accusing it of withdrawing $3.6 million from more than 100,000 customers' bank accounts without authorization, according to the complaint. It agreed to repay the money, the plaintiffs say, citing a press release from the New York Attorney General's Office. But "instead of learning their lesson from the New York settlement, the class action defendants simply changed the nature of the scam that they operate. Instead of wrongfully taking money from the bank accounts of customers on expired leases, they now obtain default judgments on bogus collection suits filed in Cook County and then extort money out of customers through unlawful collection demands and threats," the plaintiffs say. In the first two weeks of July this year, the defendants filed more than 150 new collection suits in Cook County, according to the complaint. "The collection suits are brought in clear violation of mandatory arbitration clauses which require that all disputes must be submitted to arbitration. The arbitration clauses say that all disputes arising out of the leases shall be submitted to arbitration. Filing hundreds of collection suits is a willful breach of contract," the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs say the collection letters and notices are rife with false or misleading information, and that the complaints purport to be notarized by Luisa Tatbak, whose name is not on a list of registered notary publics. They seek class certification and damages for fraud and violation of the Illinois Collection Agency Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Howard B. Prossnitz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD PROSSNITZ 218 North Jefferson, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 328-8201 Facsimile: (312) 382-8203 E-mail: howard@prossnitzlaw.com QUAKER OATS: Received Final OK of $1.4-Mil. Deal in Labeling Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Quaker Oats Co. has agreed to pay $1.4 million to settle a class action that claimed it willfully mislabeled granola bars as trans-fats free when in fact they were not, reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Robert Chacanaca and Victor Guttmann filed a class action against Quaker Oats in San Jose, Calif., alleging that Chewy Granola Bars deceptively labeled as having "0g Trans Fat" actually contain "dangerous amounts" of the "toxic additive." Indeed, the granola bars are tainted with partially hydrogenated oil (PHO), which causes heart disease, cancer and type 2 diabetes, the plaintiffs claim. But Quaker Oats "vigorously denies" the allegations and "stands by its products and marketing," according to the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement approval. The company nonetheless agreed to injunctive relief at a cost of approximately $1.4 million, and U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg preliminary approved the deal Feb. 12, under which Quaker must pay up to $120,000 to cover the cost of notifying all potential class members. Under the settlement, "defendant agrees to remove PHOs by December 31, 2015 from the Oatmeal to Go and Instant Quaker Oatmeal Products that currently contain PHOs, and not to reintroduce PHOs into those products for a period of ten years," the plaintiffs' motion states. Quaker also agreed to not introduce PHOs into bars which do not already contain the oils, for the next ten years, according to the motion. By the end of this year, the company must "cease making the statement 'contains a dietarily insignificant amount of trans fat' on the label of any product containing 0.2 grams or more of artificial trans fat per serving,'" the motion states. Judge Seeborg approved the final settlement on July 29, 2014, finding that it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate, with terms that are within the range of reasonableness. The settlement agreement was entered into at arms'-length by experienced counsel and after extensive negotiations spanning months. The settlement agreement is not the result of collusion." The court concluded "the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation favor settlement -- which provides meaningful benefits on a much shorter time frame than otherwise possible -- on behalf of the class." "The support of class counsel, who are highly skilled in class action litigation such as this, and the plaintiffs, who have participated in this litigation and evaluated the settlement agreement, also favor final approval," according to the ruling. Under the settlement, the plaintiffs released all "claims for personal injury that resulted in actual bodily harm" relating to the granola bars, the ruling states. About 50 different flavors of Quaker's Instant Oatmeal and Chewy and Oatmeal to Go bars are named in the decision, including Reduced Sugar Cookies & Cream, Weight Control Maple & Brown Sugar, Nestle Crunch, and 90 Calorie Low Fat Chocolate Chunk. In a separate order, Seeborg tossed aside objections filed by plaintiffs Chacanaca and Amy Yang, finding that the fee award "in no sense" diminishes the cash available to the class. "In essence, the objections reduce to a complaint that a fee award is improper in the absence of a cash recovery by class members, or that more favorable settlement terms might have been obtainable," Seeborg wrote. "The parties have shown, however, that a settlement providing only injunctive relief is appropriate here given the value of that relief and the limited possibility of recovering damages and distributing them in an economically- feasible manner." The judge also refused to seal the litigation, which might impact similar claims pending against Quaker Oats in Chicago. The case is In Re Quaker Oats Labeling Litigation, Case No. 5:10- cv-00502 RS, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. QUALITY SYSTEMS: Wants Police Pension Fund Case Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- Quality Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action complaint was filed on November 19, 2013, on behalf of the shareholders of the Company other than the defendants against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Quality Systems, Inc., Steven T. Plochocki, Paul A. Holt and Sheldon Razin, No. SACV13- 01818-CJC-JPRx, by the Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, a shareholder of the Company. After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges that statements made to the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20, 2014. Quality Systems, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries operate as four business divisions which are comprised of: (i) the QSI Dental Division, (ii) the NextGen Division, (iii) the Hospital Solutions Division and (iv) the RCM Services Division. QUALITY SYSTEMS: Parties Agree to Stay "Foss" Case -------------------------------------------------- Quality Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on January 24, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and current and former directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Timothy J. Foss, derivatively on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Craig A. Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig and Quality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14-00110-DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J. Foss, a shareholder of the Company and generally alleges breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by the Company's directors, in addition to unjust enrichment and insider selling by individual directors. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of all profits, court costs, attorneys' fees and implementation of enhanced corporate governance procedures. The parties have agreed to stay this litigation pending resolution of the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the Federal Securities Class Action. Quality Systems, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries operate as four business divisions, which are comprised of: (i) the QSI Dental Division, (ii) the NextGen Division, (iii) the Hospital Solutions Division and (iv) the RCM Services Division. REMI GROUP: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Deana Friday, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Remi Group, LLC, Remi Corporation, Remi Holdings, LLC, Daniel Schuster, Brent Howison, Robert Fleischacker, and Brian Landon, Case No. 3:14-cv-00405 (W.D.N.C, July 24, 2014), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide Equipment Maintenance Management and Asset Management Programs across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Leighton Kinsley, Esq. CRUMLEY ROBERTS 2400 Freeman Mill Rd., Ste. 200 Greensboro, NC 27406 Telephone: (336) 333-9899 Facsimile: (336) 333-9894 E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Gian M. Fanelli, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C. 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Phone: (201) 630-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com gianmfanelli@jtblawgroup.com SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maurice Jones and Leonel R. Leon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System; San Diego Trolley, Inc.; and Does 1-50, Case No. 3:14-cv- 01778-LAB-KSC (S.D. Cal., July 29, 2014) alleges that the Defendants have engaged in an unlawful pattern and practice of failing to pay its operators for all compensable work performed by those employees, including minimum wage and overtime pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 9-2001. The Plaintiffs have each been employed as bus or train operators by San Diego Metropolitan Transit System or San Diego Trolley, Inc. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System operates a public transportation system and its principal place of business is in San Diego, California. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System uses funds for operations from a countywide tax measure approved by the voters of San Diego County, is part of a self-funded San Diego Transit Pension Plan, can issues bonds, can be sued in its own capacity, take property in its own name, can levy taxes, and is legally obligated to pay money judgments levied against it. San Diego Trolley, Inc. operates a public transportation system and is a subsidiary corporation of San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven G. Tidrick, Esq. THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM 2039 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 308 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 788-5100 Facsimile: (510) 291-3226 E-mail: sgt@tidricklaw.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Rovai" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adriana Rovai, individually, and on behalf of the class of all others similarly situated v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01738 (S.D. Cal., July 24, 2014), arises from the Defendants systematic failure to report millions of dollars in mortgage interest that it has actually received from consumers holding negative amortization "Option Arm" loans -- and potentially other types of loans where interest was deferred by borrowers. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is a Utah corporation and is, according to its website "a nationally recognized leader in the residential mortgage servicing business." The Plaintiff is represented by: David James Vendler, Esq. Michael R. Brown, Esq. MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP 1055 W Seventh Street, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2503 Telephone: (213) 891-9100 Facsimile: (213) 488-1178 E-mail: dvendler@mpplaw.com mbrown@mrbapclaw.com SEMILEDS CORP: New York Court Dismisses Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York signed a notice of dismissal for In re SemiLEDs Corporation Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-04776-DLC, according to the company's July 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. The Company is directly or indirectly involved from time to time in various claims or legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. On July 10, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, styled as Huard v. SemiLEDs Corporation, et al., alleging violations of the U.S. federal securities laws. On July 31, 2013, a second investor filed a complaint, styled as Mohammad v. SemiLEDs Corporation, et al. On September 30, 2013, the Court appointed Mohammad Yasir as lead plaintiff and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as lead counsel. On November 15, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint, styled as In re SemiLEDs Corporation Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-04776-DLC (S.D.N.Y.). The Amended Complaint alleged one count of violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and one count of violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, both arising out of alleged misstatements made by the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in connection with the Company's initial public offering and the Company's results in the first, second, and third quarter of 2011. On February 20, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action. On February 21, 2014, the Court signed the notice of dismissal and the case was closed. There were no material pending legal proceedings and claims as of May 31, 2014. ST. JOSEPH HEALTH: Sued for Breaching Privacy of 33,000 Patients ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that St. Joseph Health System and Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital breached the medical privacy of 33,000 patients, a class action claims in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sonoma. T & R MARKET: Faces Suit in New Mexico Alleging Abuse of Navajos ---------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Prieskop, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a Gallup pawn shop abused an elderly Navajo widow by selling off her pawned jewelry, baskets and clothes, charging illegal rates, and keeping the profits from selling the collateral, though it knew that was illegal, as it had been sued for it before, the woman claims in a federal class action. Lead plaintiff Caroline Tullie sued T & R Market on July 25. She claims T & R, which "makes high-cost pawn loans to people living in poverty on the Navajo Nation . . . has engaged in the same illegal conduct in its pawn loans to hundreds, if not thousands of other customers." And, Tullie, adds: "Defendant knew its conduct was illegal because it was sued for many of the same violations of the law two years ago, in Merritt et al. v. T & R Market, Inc." The 27,413-square-mile Navajo Nation is the largest reservation in the United States. Thirty-eight percent of its people live below the poverty line; 48 percent of the households earn less than $25,000 a year, which is less than half the U.S. median household income of $51,371, according to tribal and U.S. Census figures. Tullie claims in the lawsuit that she and her husband pawned jewelry, baskets, robes and shawls at T & R, and that when her husband died in 2013 and she fell behind on payments, T & R "misrepresented its right to sell the collateral and to keep the entire proceeds of the sale," and that when it sold the collateral it failed to pay her the surplus of the loan, "as required by law." T & R did this, Tullie claims, after violating a slew of lending laws along the way, including charging illegally high interest, misrepresenting the interest rates, failing to disclose legally required information on the pawn tickets, failing to sign the pawn tickets, and selling her possessions illegally after telling her she owed much more on them than she actually did. The lawsuit adds: "In the complaint in the Merritt case, plaintiff pointed out that T & R's 'violations of law are willful. The Truth in Lending Act has been in effect for more than 40 years. The defendant corporation was formed in 1973. The TILA provides model forms for the creditor to use.' "T & R's willfulness is all the more vivid and indisputable now." Tullie seeks class certification and statutory and treble damages for violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, the New Mexico Pawnbrokers Act, the New Mexico Uniform Commercial Code, and the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Mattison, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FEFERMAN & WARREN 300 Central Avenue SW, Suite 2000 West Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 243-7773 Facsimile: (505) 243-6663 TRIPLE LI: Faces "Zalloum" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dalya Zalloum, individualy and similarly situated employees v. Mei Hui Chen, Triple Li & J Asian Food, Inc., Triple Li of Ocala, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00418 (M.D. Fla., July 24, 2014) is brought for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in accordance to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Triple Li & J Asian Food, Inc. is in the business of providing food and drink to customers. Its principal place of business is Tony's Sushi, 3405 SW College Rd., Ocala, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. Christina Jean Thomas, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600 PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com cthomas@forthepeople.com ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Terri Alves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., Case No. 2:14-cv-05772 (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2014), is brought for negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. Zwicker & Associates, P.C. is a law firm whose primary business function is debt collection. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Jessica R. K. Dorman, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com Jessica@westcoastlitigation.com * Most Recalled Products Still in Use Despite Warnings ------------------------------------------------------ According to Corpus Christi Caller Times, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recalls hundreds of products every year -- several of which have caused deaths or started fires. But despite warnings, many of these dangerous products are still in homes around the country because consumers either ignored the warning or weren't aware of it, experts say. "We know most recalled products, no matter how dangerous, remain in homes," Nancy Cowles, executive director for the safety advocacy group Kids in Danger, told Dailyfinance.com. Here are seven recalled products that are believed to be in millions of homes across the country: 1. Dehumidifiers More than 2.5 million dehumidifiers (all made in China by Gree Electric Appliances) were recalled in 2013 and 2014 because they can start fires. Gree is arranging for refunds ($110 to $400) for anyone who bought one. 2. Nap Nanny The Nap Nanny infant recliner, designed for babies to sleep in, has been connected to at least six deaths by government investigators. Consumers who have Nap Nanny products are urged to stop using them. 3. Blair chenille robes After a recall of hundreds of thousands of chenille robes sold by catalog retailer Blair over concerns about their flammability, the CPSC learned that at least nine women had died wearing robes that had ignited. 4. Maclaren strollers After the CPSC received reports of children's fingertips being chopped off by exposed hinges in Maclaren strollers, it recalled about a million sold from 1999 to 2009. 5. Buckyballs and Buckycubes Magnetic Buckyballs and Buckycubes were recalled after dozens of kids swallowed the toys and required medical treatment. The high- powered magnets can twist inside the intestines of anyone who swallows them, posing a risk of death or serious injury. 6. Lane cedar chests Lane cedar chests were first recalled in 1996 after at least a half-dozen children died from suffocation after being trapped inside the chests. More deaths were reported since the recall, including two more this year. 7. Simplicity cribs and bassinets More than a dozen babies died in Simplicity cribs and bassinets. ********* 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 * * *