/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140814.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 14, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 161 Headlines 607 LINCOLN ROAD: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims ABC COMPANIES: Recalls AH100 and AH85 Models ABC KIDZ: Faces "Cook" Suit in Ohio Over Failure to Pay Overtime ALBION FISHERIES: Recalls Live Kumamoto Oysters ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls AT248F, and AT37-G Models AMERICAN INT'L: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $970.5-Mil. AMERICAN INT'L: "Campbell" Suit Dismissal Upheld ARIZONA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action v. Dep't of Corrections BANCORPSOUTH INC: Faces "Burges" Suit Over Misleading Reports BANCORPSOUTH INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action BANK OF AMERICA: Enters Into Tentative Mortgage Settlement Deal BARCLAYS PLC: Sued in California Over False Marketing Materials BEST BUY: Continues to Sell 10 Recalled Products, CPSC Says BEST WAREHOUSING: "Bryant" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime BLUE BIRD: Recalls Vision School Bus Due to Fuel Leakage BRICKMAN GROUP: Does Not Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims BROOKDALE FAMILY: "Dookhan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime BUDGET CONTROL: Suit Seeks to Redress Unlawful Debt Collection C MART: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3 in 1 Coffee Due to Undeclared Milk CANDA SIX: Recalls Foodpro White Chocolate Lover CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Strubel" Suit Over Credit Card Application CLOVER TRADING: Recalls Flying Swallow White Pepper Powder COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Kirkland Signature Whole Mixed Nuts CPA GLOBAL: Faces "Bailey" Suit Over Failure to Paralegals Pay OT D.A. STEIN CULINARY: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT DOW CORNING: Tissue Expanders Are Breast Implants, 6th Cir. Says DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Sued Over Misleading Company Reports DUTCH MARKET: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Milk & Wheat EARTH CIRCLE: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella EDAP TMS S.A.: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Company Report EI DU PONT: Appeal v. Settlement of Suit Over Imprelis Resolved EI DU PONT: Faces 2,000+ Suits Over PFOA in Drinking Water ELITE FLOWER: Faces "Vives" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FAMILY DOLLAR: Sued Over Dollar Tree Acquisition Agreement FARM BOY: Recalls Chocolate Croissant Due to Undeclared Almonds FGL SPORTS: Recalls Capix Evo & Jr Evo Bike & Skateboard Helmets FIBCO INC: Faces "Fleck" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FIRST AMERICAN: August 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set FITBIT INC: Sued for Concealing Skin Allergies Due to Product Use FRESH SPROUTS: Recalls Fresh Bean Sprouts Due to E. Coli GAGAN FOODS: Recalls Petha Cubes Due to Swollen Packages GAP INC: Judge Allows Overtime Class Action to Proceed GARLOCK SEALING: Judge Wants Swift Trial in Asbestos Case GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Sesay" Suit Over Ignition Switches Defects GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Salaried Retirees' Class Action for $9MM GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Recall Causes Shortage of Parts GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 22 Spark Cars Due to Defective Part GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Camaro, Cruze, Sonic and Verano GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 6,809 Malibu and Regal Cars GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 29,555 Vehicles in Canada GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 11,430 Vehicles Due to Incomplete Weld GOOD CHOWS: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages HERTZ CORP: Wants Currency Conversion Fee Class Action Dismissed HYUNDAI: Recalls 419,000 Vehicles in US Over Various Defects INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Violation of Securities Law ITN FOOD: Recalls Shan Lemon Pickle Due to Undeclared Mustard KINCAID INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Report L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y. LINK SNACKS: Refused to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims LONDON SILVER: Faces "Nalven" Suit Over Price-Fixing of Silver METRORAIL: Lack of Funding Stalls Cosatu's Class Action Plan MGM GRAND DETROIT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act NATIONAL BUSINESS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Tower" Suit NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Players' Concussion Deal Objection Nixed NEBRASKA: Southwest Irrigators File Class Action Over Water Rights NETFLIX INC: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Seek to Amend Claims NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Cal. Over Breach of Securities Law NEUROLOGICAL SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime OMNICON GROUP: Suit Over Publicis Merger Junked After Deal Fails P2 LANDSCAPING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act PAPAGINO'S INC: Faces "Similien" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PARADIES SHOPS: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Background Checking PENN WEST: Faces "Frechter" Suit Over Violation of Securities Law PENN WEST: Faces "Spradlin" Suit Over Misleading Company Report PENN WEST: Two Law Firms to Jointly File Securities Class Action PETRILLO RESTAURANT: Faces "Najera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PRICE CHOPPER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime RED BEAN: Partial Bid to Dismiss "Bonilla" Action Denied ROMACORP INC: Faces "Gittens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SAFEWAY INC: Agrees to Settle Delaware Suit Over Merger SANIMAX: Faces Class Action Over Foul Odor at Brown County Plant SEASALT AND PEPPER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Recorded Lawyer-Inmate Calls SKYHOP GLOBAL: Faces "Stembridge" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT TACO BELL: Faces "Feldman" Suit in N.Y Over Violation of FLSA TELETECH L.L.C.: Suit Seeks Damages Over FLSA Violations TELIK INC: Agrees to Settle Suit by Stockholder in California TODD LANDAU: Faces "Galvez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TOYS R US: Sued Over Nondisclosure of Consumer Report Procurement UNITED DAIRY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages UNITED MORTGAGE: Faces "Hastie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime UNITED STATES: Bid for Review of Class Cert. Ruling Denied WALGREEN CO: Loses Bid to Sever Two Claims in Ear Remedy Suit WASHINGTON DC: Bid for Rehearing En Banc in "Johnson" Suit Denied WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, "Knox" Suit Says ********* 607 LINCOLN ROAD: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Amilcar Garcia v. 607 Lincoln Road, LLC., d/b/a Cantinetta, and Stefano Frittella, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22823 (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 607 Lincoln Road, LLC owns a restaurant located in Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew Ira Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA 168 Franklin Corner Road, Building 2, Suite 220 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (305) 726-0060 Facsimile: (305) 726-0046 E-mail: Jaffe.glenn@me.com aglenn@jaffeglenn.com ABC COMPANIES: Recalls AH100 and AH85 Models -------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 22, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Equipment Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 7 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014309 TC ID number: 2014309 Manufacturer recall number: CSN 598 On certain aerial devices installed on utility service vehicles (to elevate personnel in order to facilitate working on overhead service lines, for tree trimming, etc.), water ingress into the lower boom fiberglass inserts could allow a conductivity path through the boom from the boom elbow down to the chassis. If the boom elbow were to come in contact with, or in close proximity to, an energized conductor while persons on the ground are touching or in close proximity to the chassis, an increased risk of injury due to electrocution would result. Water ingress could also compromise the fiberglass insert glue joint, potentially leading to undesirable boom motion due to looseness of the joint, which could increase the risk of injury and/or damage to property. Altec will replace affected lower booms. Owners may contact Altec at 1-877-462-5832. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- ALTEC AH85 2010, 2011, 2012 ALTEC AH100 2010, 2011, 2012 ABC KIDZ: Faces "Cook" Suit in Ohio Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marissa Cook, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ABC Kidz Childcare, LLC, ABC & ME Childcare, LLC, I Can Investments, LLC, and Takara L. Madkins, Case No. 1:14-cv- 01707 (N.D. Ohio, August 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate daycare business in Elyria, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. LAZZARO LAW FIRM 920 Rockefeller Bldg., 614 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com ALBION FISHERIES: Recalls Live Kumamoto Oysters ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 25, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Other Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Albion Fisheries Ltd. (Richmond) Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 9106 ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls AT248F, and AT37-G Models --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 29, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Equipment Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 29 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014318 TC ID number: 2014318 Manufacturer recall number: CSN599 On certain aerial devices installed on Ford F450 and F550 vehicles equipped with Stable Ride front torsion bars, improper welding could cause the torsion bar to fail, affecting aerial device stability in certain work positions, which could increase the risk of injury and/or damage to property. Owners will be given instructions on how to inspect sway bars for improper welding and supplied with replacement sway bars as necessary. Owners may contact Altec at 1-877-462-5832. Affected products: 2011, 2013, 2014, 2011, 2013, 2014 ALTEC AT37-G AMERICAN INT'L: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $970.5-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., headquartered in Rochester, Michigan, on Aug. 4 announced that historic $970.5 million settlements have been reached on behalf of its client, the State of Michigan Retirement Systems, in the American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Miller Law Firm, P.C. is a lead counsel for The State of Michigan Retirement Systems, which served as the sole court- appointed Lead Plaintiff in the case. If approved by the Court, the total settlement amount will be among the largest recoveries ever achieved in a securities fraud class action stemming from the 2008 financial crisis. It would release claims of the members of the putative class, which consists of all persons and funds that purchased publicly issued common stock, corporate units, bonds, subordinated debentures and notes of AIG from March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and were injured thereby. E. Powell Miller stated that "This settlement represents an outstanding result for the State of Michigan and other investors." After the close of fact discovery in 2012, the parties agreed to participate in several mediation sessions through Retired U.S. District Judge Layn Phillips that culminated in the settlement just one month after the Supreme Court's recent decision in Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton. Assuming preliminary approval of the settlement, a Notice and the Proof of Claim form will be sent to members of the class who can be identified from AIG's records and will also be available online. Proceeds from the settlement, if approved by the Court, will go the State of Michigan Retirement Systems and a putative class that consists of all persons and funds that purchased publicly issued common stock, preferred stock, bonds and notes of AIG from March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and were injured thereby. Miller Law attorneys E. Powell Miller, Marc L. Newman, Jayson E. Blake, Justin B. Vandeputte and M. Ryan Jarnagin prosecuted the action on behalf of the plaintiffs. In re American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:08-cv-04772 (S.D.N.Y.) The Miller Law Firm, P.C. E. Powell Miller 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Tel: (248) 841-2200 MRS, as custodian of four state retirement systems, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of AIG common stock from March 16, 2006, to Sept. 16, 2008. Timothy Raub, writing for LexisNexis, reports that MRS alleges that AIG, subsidiary AIG Financial Products (AIGFP), former CEO Martin J. Sullivan, Chief Financial Officer Steven J. Bensinger, former AIGFP President Joseph Cassano, AIGFP Executive Vice Presidents Andrew Forster and Alan Frost, AIG Principal Accounting Officer David L. Herzog, Chief Risk Officer Robert Lewis, 34 underwriters of AIG stock offerings, 15 current and former outside directors, board member Edmund S.W. Tse and outside accountant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 by issuing a series of misrepresentations concealing AIG's exposure to the subprime mortgage lending crisis through its securities lending program and its credit default swaps portfolio. This exposure, MRS contended, led to a liquidity crisis at AIG that required a U.S. government bailout. MRS is represented by Leonard Barrack -- lbarrack@barrack.com -- M. Richard Komins, Jeffrey W. Golan, Robert A. Hoffman, Lisa M. Lamb and Julie B. Palley of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine in Philadelphia and E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- Marc L. Newman, David H. Fink, Jason E. Blake and Brian E. Etzel of The Miller Law Firm in Rochester, Mich. Defendants AIG is represented by Joseph S. Allerhand -- joseph.allerhand@weil.com -- Robert F. Caranagelo, Paul Dutka and Stacy Nettleton of Weil, Gotshal & Manges in New York. Mr. Bensinger is represented by Richard A. Spehr -- rspehr@mayerbrown.com -- Joseph De Simone, S. Christopher Provenzano and Bradford Jealous III of Mayer Brown in New York. Mr. Sullivan is represented by James A. Diehl -- jdiehl@akingump.com -- David M. Murphy -- DMMurphy@wlrk.com -- and Richard B. Zabel of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in New York and David M. Murphy and Meredith L. Turner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York. Mr. Lewis is represented by Michael R. Young, Antonio Yanez Jr., Mei Lin Kwan-Gett and Brian R. Faerstein -- bfaerstein@orrick.com -- of Wilkie Farr & Gallagher in New York. Mr. Herzog is represented by Allerhand of Weil Gotshal in New York. Mr. Frost is represented by Andrew E. Tomback, Dorothy Heyl and Tamieka Spencer Bruce of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy in New York. Mr. Forster is represented by Richard D. Owens, David M. Brodsky and Lillian E. Gutwein of New York. Cassano is represented by Lee G. Dunst -- ldunst@gibsondunn.com -- Jim Walden, Georgia K. Winston and Julie I. Smith of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in New York. The underwriter defendants are represented by Richard A. Rosen -- rrosen@paulweiss.com -- and Brad S. Karp of Paul, Weiss -- cdavidow@paulweiss.com -- Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York and Charles E. Davidow of Paul Weiss in Washington, D.C. PwC is represented by Thomas G. Rafferty -- trafferty@cravath.com -- Antony L. Ryan and Samira Shah of Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York. Mr. Tse is represented by Allerhand, Caranagelo and Nettleton of Weil Gotshal in New York. The outside director defendants are represented by James G. Gamble of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York. AMERICAN INT'L: "Campbell" Suit Dismissal Upheld ------------------------------------------------ Kathryn Lynn Campbell contended that the American International Group, Inc. (AIG) and its board of directors wrongfully reduced the value of certain securities issued by AIG. The district court dismissed Campbell's securities class action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) does not confer federal jurisdiction over Campbell's state-law claims. The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, in an opinion dated August 1, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ancJOCfrom Leagle.com, agreed with the district court and held that SLUSA does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction in the case. The Appeals Court also considered Ms. Campbell's remaining arguments in favor of federal jurisdiction and found them to be without merit for the reasons explained by the district court. The district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, is, therefore, affirmed. The case is KATHRYN LYNN CAMPBELL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND SIMILARLY SITUATED EQUITY UNITS HOLDERS OF AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., ET AL., Appellees, NO. 13-7041. Wendu Mekbib was on the briefs for appellant. Robert F. Carangelo -- robert.carangelo@weil.com -- at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP; and Peter C. Thomas -- pthomas@stblaw.com -- and Paul C. Curnin -- pcurnin@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP were on the brief for appellees. ARIZONA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action v. Dep't of Corrections ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that blasting a class action critical of the care it gives inmates, the Arizona Department of Corrections has criticized the lawsuit is full of isolated anecdotes and exaggerated or outdated claims, and said should be booted out of federal court. The state's attorneys moved on July 29 for summary judgment in Parsons v. Ryan in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The lawsuit alleges life-threatening neglect of prisoners' medical, dental and mental health needs, and demands reforms. Arizona's attorneys contend the American Civil Liberties Union-led complaint is packed with allegations that have not been backed up by named plaintiffs, and focuses on delays in care that have already been rectified. In some cases, the defense said, the complaint protests a situation -- such as the prisons' failure to provide televisions for inmates who can't afford them -- that "borders the ridiculous," according to Arizona's motion. The state cites depositions of several of the 13 named plaintiffs that cast doubt on the reality of the problems the lawsuit alleges. In one case, an inmate alleged to be losing weight because of insufficient food said his dropped pounds actually stemmed from a strenuous exercise regime. Another inmate was cited as waiting months to get treatment for cancer; in fact, the state alleges, she never had the disease. The lawsuit gained support on June 5 when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the granting of class certification by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The state had argued that the claims of maltreatment of inmates in a system holding 34,000 prisoners should be judged individually rather than as a class. But the panel said the defendants exhibited a "fundamental misunderstanding of the law" and said the case presents the very definition of a class: "Given that every inmate in ADC custody is likely to require medical, mental health and dental care, each of the named plaintiffs is similarly positioned to all other ADC inmates . . . to a substantial risk of serious harm resulting from exposure to the defendants' policies and practices governing health care," Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for himself and judges John Noonan and Paul Watford. Plaintiffs' counsel include David Fathi of the ACLU's National Prison Project; Daniel Pochada of the ACLU Foundation of Arizona; Donald Specter and Corene Kendrick of the Prison Law Office Arizona; Jennifer Alewelt of the Arizona Center for Disability Law; and attorneys with Perkins Coie LLP and Jones Day. BANCORPSOUTH INC: Faces "Burges" Suit Over Misleading Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- William E. Burges and Rose M. Burges, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Bancorpsouth, Inc., James D. Rollins III, and William L. Prater, Case No. 3:14-cv-01564 (M.D. Tenn., July 31, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's procedures, systems and processes related to certain of its compliance programs. Bancorpsouth, Inc. operates as a financial holding company for BancorpSouth Bank that provides commercial banking and financial services to individuals and small-to-medium size businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis P. McConville, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert P. Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES PO Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 248-2828 Facsimile: (615) 254-4116 E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com robert@bramlettlawoffices.com BANCORPSOUTH INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on July 31 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against BancorpSouth, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, and docketed under 14-cv-01564, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased BancorpSouth securities between January 8, 2014 and July 21, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased BancorpSouth securities during the Class Period, you have until September 29, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. BancorpSouth operates as a financial holding company for BancorpSouth Bank that provides commercial banking and financial services to individuals and small-to-medium size businesses. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's procedures, systems and processes related to certain of its lending and compliance programs. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) BancorpSouth's operations and credit practices violated the Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA") and federal anti-money-laundering programs; (2) the Company's lending practices were not in compliance with the regulations promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and as a result of the above, (3) BancorpSouth's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times; and (4) regulatory scrutiny into the Company's lending practices could severely jeopardize the Company's ability to close recently announced mergers with Central Community Corporation and Ouachita Bancshares Corp. On July 21, 2014, after the market closed, BancorpSouth issued a press release announcing financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2014. The press release also disclosed "The Company has learned that federal bank regulators have identified concerns during the course of routine supervisory activities regarding the Company's procedures, systems and processes related to certain of its compliance programs, including its Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-laundering programs." On this news, shares of BancorpSouth fell $1.90, or over 8%, on extremely heavy volume, to close at $21.51 on July 22, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. BANK OF AMERICA: Enters Into Tentative Mortgage Settlement Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Taylor, Esq., in an article for Findlaw.com, reports that Bank of America has reached a tentative $17 billion settlement deal with the U.S. Department of Justice to resolve allegations that it fraudulently marketed mortgage-backed securities. The terms of the mortgage settlement were reached during a phone conversation between Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan and Attorney General Eric Holder, reports USA Today. If approved, the settlement would be the largest ever between the government and a financial institution in the ongoing string of disputes involving mortgage servicing and mortgage-backed securities. What are the terms of the settlement and how does it compare to past settlements between the government and financial institutions? Rumored Settlement Terms The tentative deal is rumored to include about $9 billion in cash, with the rest going toward consumer relief programs, reports The Associated Press. Bank of America had previously vowed to fight the Department of Justice, arguing that it should not be liable for mortgages issued by Merrill Lynch and Countrywide -- companies BofA acquired in 2008. However, in a separate case last week, a federal judge in New York found that Bank of America was liable for actions taken for Countrywide before the companies merged, and hit BofA with more than $1.2 billion in fines. Previous Settlements If approved, the $17 billion settlement would eclipse last year's $13 billion settlement between JP Morgan and the Justice Department stemming from similar mortgage-backed securities fraud allegations. Both JP Morgan and Bank of America were also part of a 2012 settlement in which the five largest U.S. mortgage-servicing institutions -- BofA, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Ally -- agreed to pay $25 billion and make changes to the way the institutions handled foreclosures and serviced mortgages. Earlier this summer, the Justice Department settled its case with SunTrust Banks over unlawful mortgage practices. In that settlement, the bank agreed to pay nearly $1 billion, including $500 million to help borrowers at risk of foreclosure or underwater on their mortgages. BARCLAYS PLC: Sued in California Over False Marketing Materials --------------------------------------------------------------- Great Pacific Securities, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Barclays PLC, Barclays Capital Inc, Does 1-5, inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-01210 (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2014), alleges that the Defendants falsified marketing material showing the type of trading in its dark pool as part of a business strategy to dramatically increase its market share. Barclays PLC is a British multinational banking and financial services firm with its principal place of business in London, England. Barclays Capital, Inc. is a securities brokerage and financial advisory services firm incorporated under the laws of Connecticut, and with its principal place of business in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq. BOTTINI AND BOTTINI INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 Facsimile: (858) 914-2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com - and - Elizabeth T. Tran, Esq. Joseph Winters Cotchett, Esq. Kevin Patrick O'Brien, Esq. Mark Cotton Molumphy, Esq. Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcom Road Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com kobrien@tingleylawgroup.com mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com nnishimura@cpmlegal.com BEST BUY: Continues to Sell 10 Recalled Products, CPSC Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Kavita Kumar, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Best Buy Co. continued to sell or resell 10 products after they had been recalled, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. On July 24, the agency put out an alert, in conjunction with the Richfield-based retailer, warning customers to stop using the products, which had been recalled in 2012 and 2013. While it is illegal for a retailer to sell a recalled item, the agency said the number of items Best Buy sold after they were recalled was about 200. But that number does not include an undetermined number of recalled digital cameras that also were sold. "We regret that any products within the scope of a recall were not removed entirely from our shelves and other sales channels," Best Buy spokesman Jeff Shelman said in a prepared statement. "While the number of items accidentally sold was small, even one is too many and we are taking steps to help prevent such issues from reoccurring." The 10 products were sold or resold by Best Buy or one of its other properties, including Magnolia stores, as well as liquidators Best Buy Private Auction, CowBoom and TechLiquidators. The recalled items are: Canon EOS Rebel T4i digital camera, Coby televisions, Definitive Technology SuperCube 2000 subwoofers, GE dishwashers, Gree dehumidifiers, iSi North America Twist'n Sparkle beverage carbonation systems, LG Electronics electric ranges, LG Electronics gas dryers, Samsonite dual-wattage travel converters and Sauder Woodworking Co. Gruga office chairs. The commission said hazards from the products include fire, burn, shock, expelled parts, falls and skin irritation. Consumers can get a refund, replacement or repair for the items. For more information, contact Best Buy's recall hot line at 1-800- 566-7498 or go to Safety Commission's website: www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls BEST WAREHOUSING: "Bryant" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kenyata Bryant, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Best Warehousing and Transportation Center, Inc., Case No. 1:14- cv-02497 (N.D. Ga., August 1, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable expenses of litigation, and attorneys' fees pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Best Warehousing and Transportation Center, Inc., is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Georgia that provides third party logistics. 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 BLUE BIRD: Recalls Vision School Bus Due to Fuel Leakage -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 22, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: School Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 148 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014308 TC ID number: 2014308 Manufacturer recall number: R14XJ On certain propane-powered school buses, the fuel return line may fatigue and crack, causing a fuel leak. Fuel leakage, in the presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire causing injury and/or property damage. Dealers will replace the return fuel lines and add additional support clamps. Affected products: 2013, 2014, 2015 Blue Bird Vision School Bus BRICKMAN GROUP: Does Not Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. The Brickman Group Ltd. LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-05900 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Brickman Group Ltd. LLC provides landscaping and maintenance services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. State Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 Facsimile: (312) 853-1459 E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org - and - Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 513-9555 E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com BROOKDALE FAMILY: "Dookhan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clement Dookhan, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Brookdale Family Care Centers, Inc, Joyce Wynters, Trina Cornet, Susan Pennachio, Case No. 1:14-cv-04587 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Brookdale Family Care Centers, Inc. is a health care facility conducting business in Kings County, at Linden Boulevard at Brookdale Plaza, Brooklyn, N.Y, 11212. The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com BUDGET CONTROL: Suit Seeks to Redress Unlawful Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- Tara Best, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Budget Control Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-04769 (D.N.J., July 31, 2014), seeks to redress for the Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Budget Control Services, Inc. is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly collects debts alleged to be due another. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com C MART: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3 in 1 Coffee Due to Undeclared Milk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 18, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: C Mart Enterprises Ltd. Distribution: Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9075 CANDA SIX: Recalls Foodpro White Chocolate Lover ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: July 21, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Canda Six Fortune Enterprise Co. Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9073 Affected products: 160 g. Foodpro White Chocolate Lover (White Chocolate Cookies with Almond) CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Strubel" Suit Over Credit Card Application -------------------------------------------------------------- Abigail Strubel individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-05998 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014), alleges that the Defendant fails to furnish accurate disclosures in connection with new credit card account applications. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. is doing business in the State of New York and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Lewis Bromberg, Esq. Jonathan Robert Miller, Esq. BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C. 26 Broadway, 21st fl New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 248-7906 Facsimile: (212) 248-7908 E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com jonathan@bromberglawoffice.com - and - Harley Jay Schnall, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF HARLEY J. SCHNALL 711 West End Ave New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 678-6546 Facsimile: (212) 678-0322 E-mail: schnall_law@hotmail.com CLOVER TRADING: Recalls Flying Swallow White Pepper Powder ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 28, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Clover Trading Company Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Possibly National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9113 Clover Trading Company Ltd. is recalling Flying Swallow brand White Pepper Powder from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high- risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: 55 g. Flying Swallow White Pepper Powder COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Kirkland Signature Whole Mixed Nuts ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 24, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. Distribution: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9067 Affected products: 1.13 kg. Kirkland Signature Whole Mixed Nuts with best before date of 02 APR 2015 CPA GLOBAL: Faces "Bailey" Suit Over Failure to Paralegals Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rachelle Bailey, on behalf of herself Case No. and all others similarly situated and the Proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class v. CPA Global Support Services, LLC, Case No. 0:14-cv-03091 (D. Minn., August 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay its paralegals overtime pay due to its misclassification of these individuals as exempt from the overtime laws. CPA Global Support Services, LLC is the world's leading intellectual property management and IP software specialist, and international provider of outsourced legal services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander M. Baggio, Esq. Michele R. Fisher, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 S. 8th St. Ste 4600 Mpls, MN 55402-2242 Telephone: (612) 256-3295 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: abaggio@nka.com fisher@nka.com D.A. STEIN CULINARY: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Efigenia Jimenez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. D.A. Stein Culinary Group, LLC, and Brett Stein, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05969 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. D.A. Stein Culinary Group, LLC is a restaurant owned and managed by Brett Stein. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Tito Narvaez , Esq. Consumer Law Group, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (877) 509-6422 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com DOW CORNING: Tissue Expanders Are Breast Implants, 6th Cir. Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dow Corning Corporation lost an appeal when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling over the definition of "breast implants". Dow Corning manufactures and distributes various medical devices, including "breast implants" and "tissue expanders." For purposes of the dispute, "[b]reast [i]mplant[s]" are "all silicone gel and saline-filled breast implants with silicone elastomer envelopes manufactured and either sold or otherwise distributed by [Dow Corning]." "Tissue expanders" come in hundreds of varieties, but three Dow Corning models are designed for implantation in the breast, where they are filled with saline to stretch the patient's skin before (typically) being removed after several weeks. Not all of these products worked the way they should. By 1995, thousands of breast-implant patients had filed lawsuits against Dow Corning stemming from their use of the company's devices. Dow Corning eventually filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The company agreed to a plan of reorganization that establishes a more than $2 billion fund for patients willing to settle their claims. The plan describes what claims are eligible for payment, how claims will be paid, how much money claimants can receive, and so on. The plan empowers the district court "to resolve controversies and disputes regarding interpretation and implementation of th[e] Plan and the Plan Documents." The parties asked the district court to determine whether the plan's breast-implant coverage extended to tissue expanders. As the trial court initially saw it, Dow Corning's three models of breast-implanted tissue expanders met every element of the reorganization plan's "[b]reast [i]mplant" definition. Each model has a silicone envelope that is implanted in the breast and gradually filled with saline solution. In the court's view, "breast implants" thus unambiguously included "tissue expanders." In a 2010 appeal, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the lower court, in part. After acknowledging that the court's resolution of the "breast implant" question reasonably construed the reorganization plan's words, the Sixth Circuit identified another, more technical reading of "breast implant" that might exclude "tissue expanders" from its scope. On this basis, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that the definition was ambiguous, vacated the district court's order, and remanded the case to allow the court to consider other evidence about the meaning of the phrase. On remand, the district court considered the question anew. After accounting for this other possibility, it still concluded that the parties intended "[b]reast [i]mplant" to include "tissue expanders." Dow Corning again elevated the matter to the Sixth Circuit. Dow Corning insists that the district court erred because its second ruling on the "breast implant" issue contradicts its first. In its first opinion on this topic, Dow Corning pointed out that the district court said that "tissue expanders made by Dow Corning did not trigger the 50% reduction in benefits as did breast implants, lending credibility to [Dow Corning's] claim that even under the [Revised Settlement Program] tissue expanders were not considered `Breast Implants.'" The district court's second opinion, Dow Corning argues, treated this evidence differently. A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit said this is an odd argument for Dow Corning to make, as it sought a ruling from the district court that was 180 degrees away from its first ruling. That possibility was the whole point of the remand, the appeals court said. According to the Sixth Circuit, "At any rate, there is less material tension here than Dow Corning suggests. To say that some evidence "lend[s] credibility" to an argument does not establish that the district court found Dow Corning's argument conclusive or even persuasive. The first time around, moreover, the statement was dicta. The district court was careful to explain in its first opinion that it did not "consider[] the [extrinsic] evidence involving the [Revised Settlement Program]," because it believed the parties' "[b]reast [i]mplant" definition to be unambiguous. Only in its second opinion did the district court rely on (or make any findings concerning) the Revised Settlement Program. On remand, the district court fairly did what we asked and reasonably construed the operative terms of the settlement agreement in the process." The case before the Sixth Circuit is, DOW CORNING CORPORATION, Interested Party-Appellant, v. CLAIMANTS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Interested Party-Appellee, No. 13-2456 (6th Cir.). A copy of the Sixth Circuit's July 31, 2014 opinion is available at http://is.gd/r4vmt9from Leagle.com. Judge Jeffrey Stuart Sutton penned the decision. Judges Richard Allen Griffin and Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation, are the other two members of the panel. About Dow Corning Dow Corning Corp. -- http://www.dowcorning.com/-- produces and supplies more than 7,000 silicon-based products and services to more than 25,000 customers worldwide. Dow Corning is equally owned by The Dow Chemical Company and Corning Incorporated. The Company filed for Chapter 11 protection on May 15, 1995 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Case No. 95-20512) to resolve silicone implant- related tort liability. The Company owed its commercial creditors more than $1 billion at that time. A consensual Joint Plan of Reorganization, amended on February 4, 1999, offering to pay commercial creditors in full with post-petition interest, establish a multi-billion-dollar settlement trust for tort claims, and leave Dow Corning's shareholders unimpaired, took effect on June 30, 2004. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Sued Over Misleading Company Reports ---------------------------------------------------------- Charles Paddock, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Lewis W. Coleman, Case No. 2:14-cv-06053 (C.D. Cal., August 1, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. is a Delaware corporation engaged in the development, production, and exploitation of animated films and their associated characters worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq. Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com lglancy@glancylaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-661-1100 Facsimile: 212-661-8665 - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 DUTCH MARKET: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Milk & Wheat ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 29, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: The Dutch Market Ltd. Distribution: New Brunswick, Ontario CFIA reference number: 9099 Affected products: -- 350 g. Calve Peanut Sauce with all codes where milk and wheat are not declared on the label; and -- 150 g. Dutch Bakery Butter Pretzel Cookies with all codes where milk is not declared on the label EARTH CIRCLE: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: July 23, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Earth Circle Organics, (River Canyon Retreat, Inc., dba), Harmonic Arts Botanical Dispensary Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Possibly National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9098 Industry is recalling Earth Circle Organics and Harmonic Arts Botanical Dispensary brand Organic Carob Powder from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled products described. The following products have been sold in British Columbia and Alberta, and may have been sold in other provinces or through Internet sales. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Consumers who are unsure whether they have the affected products are advised to check with their retailer. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by a recall in the United States. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. EDAP TMS S.A.: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Company Report -------------------------------------------------------------- Marvin A. Eaton, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. EDAP TMS S.A., Marc Oczachowski, and Eric Soyer, Case No. 1:14-cv-06069 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. EDAP TMS S.A. is a French corporation that designs and manufactures medical equipment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis Paul McConville, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com EI DU PONT: Appeal v. Settlement of Suit Over Imprelis Resolved --------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal by one class member against a settlement reached in a lawsuit filed against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company over Imprelis was resolved in the second quarter 2014, according to the company's July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. The company has received claims and has been served with multiple lawsuits alleging that the use of Imprelis herbicide caused damage to certain trees. Sales of Imprelis were suspended in August 2011 and the product was last applied during the 2011 spring application season. The lawsuits seeking class action status were consolidated in multidistrict litigation in federal court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In February 2014, the court entered the final order dismissing these lawsuits as a result of the class action settlement. The appeal by one class member was resolved in the second quarter 2014. As part of the settlement, DuPont paid about $7 in plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses. In addition, DuPont is providing a warranty against new damage, if any, caused by the use of Imprelis on class members' properties through May 2015. Certain class members opted out of the settlement. The opt-outs have filed about 125 individual actions encompassing about 420 claims for property and related damage in state court in various jurisdictions. DuPont has removed most of these cases to federal court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Once removed to federal court, the individual actions remain stayed pending further action by the court. The company has established review processes to verify and evaluate damage claims. There are several variables that impact the evaluation process including the number of trees on a property, the species of tree with reported damage, the height of the tree, the extent of damage and the possibility for trees to naturally recover over time. Upon receiving claims, DuPont verifies their accuracy and validity which often requires physical review of the property. At June 30, 2014, DuPont had recorded charges of $1,175, within other operating charges, to resolve these claims, which represents the company's best estimate of the loss associated with resolving these claims. The company did not take any charges related to this matter during the three and six months ended June 30, 2014. The three and six months ended June 30, 2013 included charges of $80 and $115, respectively. At June 30, 2014, DuPont had accruals of $364 related to these claims. The company has an applicable insurance program with a deductible equal to the first $100 of costs and expenses. The insurance program limits are $725 for costs and expenses in excess of the $100. Insurance recoveries are recognized when realized. DuPont has submitted and will continue to submit requests for payment to its insurance carriers for costs associated with this matter. The company has begun to receive payment from its insurance carriers and continues to seek recovery although the timing and outcome remain uncertain. To date the company has recognized and received insurance recoveries of $73. EI DU PONT: Faces 2,000+ Suits Over PFOA in Drinking Water ---------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 2,290 lawsuits filed against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia, alleging personal injury and wrongful death from exposure to PFOA in drinking water, according to the company's July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. The company funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel"). The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy- induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible class members. The medical panel is expected to address monitoring and may make additional recommendations in a subsequent report. The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion. The company is obligated to fund up to $235 for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members. In January 2012, the company put $1 in an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The court has appointed the Director of Medical Monitoring, who is in the process of setting up a program, to implement the medical panel's recommendations. Testing has not yet begun and no money has been disbursed from the fund. In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users. Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. At June 30, 2014, there were approximately 2,290 lawsuits filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia of which about 400 had been served on DuPont, an increase of about 1,000 in the number of lawsuits filed and 300 in the number of lawsuits served, respectively, over March 31, 2014. These lawsuits have been or will be consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio federal court ("MDL"). These lawsuits allege personal injury and 7 of them allege wrongful death from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. Based on comments from attorneys for the plaintiffs, DuPont expects additional lawsuits may be filed. In the MDL a "discovery pool" of 20 plaintiffs has been established from which individual cases will be selected for the initial trials. The first trial is scheduled to begin in September 2015, and the second in November 2015. DuPont denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously. ELITE FLOWER: Faces "Vives" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Ana Gloria Vives and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Elite Flower Services, Inc., Juan C. Madrinan, Case No. 1:14-cv-22832 (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages. Elite Flower Services, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM FAMILY DOLLAR: Sued Over Dollar Tree Acquisition Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Thomas, writing for Charlotte Business Journal, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Family Dollar Stores Inc. and Dollar Tree Inc. tied to their acquisition plans. The filing on July 31 in Delaware Chancery Court also names all members of Family Dollar's board of directors as defendants. It alleges that Family Dollar, Dollar Tree and the board have violated their fiduciary duties at the expense of Family Dollar's shareholders. The Matthews-based discount retailer announced that it would be acquired by Dollar Tree for $8.5 billion. The cash and stock agreement is valued at $74.50 per share -- a nearly 23 percent premium over the stock's closing price on July 25, the last trading day before the deal was announced. The acquisition is slated to close in early 2015. Family Dollar did not respond to a request for comment on Aug. 1. Dollar Tree said it is unable to comment on pending litigation. But in an interview with the Charlotte Business Journal, Family Dollar CEO Howard Levine said: "Despite some of the external publicity and critique, our board stayed steadfast on the right thing, and that was determining what was the right thing for all of our shareholders." The lawsuit alleges the deal "offers unfair and inadequate consideration that does not constitute a maximization of stockholder value." The filing states that analysts have projected that the inherent value of the Family Dollar is worth at least $79 per share. Family Dollar's stock hit a high of $75.29 in the past year. It cites the unfair price of $74.50 per share and "grossly unfair and inadequate terms of the deal." The lawsuit alleges that Family Dollar's board has breached fiduciary duties owed to shareholders to take all necessary steps to ensure shareholders receive maximum value. It notes the deal includes provisions that stand to benefit Dollar Tree. Examples given include a no-solicitation provision that prevents Family Dollar from soliciting other potential buyers or continuing discussions. Dollar Tree has five days to match any competing proposal and there is a $305 million termination fee tied to ending the deal. "These provisions essentially "lock up" the proposed transaction and prevent the board from fulfilling its fiduciary duties to the Company," the filing states. It cites potential conflicts of interest with Mr. Levine being Family Dollar's largest stockholder and a member of the Family Dollar's board. He is slated to receive about $130 million from the sale of his stock. Mr. Levine also will continue to work as CEO of Family Dollar, reporting to Dollar Tree CEO Bob Sasser. The lawsuit states that Family Dollar has taken strategic initiatives to position the company for a positive turnaround. That includes closing approximately 370 underperforming stores and lowering prices to draw shoppers away from competitors. "These events were designed to positively impact current earnings and will lead to improved earnings in future years," it states. The deal will make Dollar Tree the leading discount retailer in North America. It will have more than 13,000 stores in 48 states and five Canadian provinces, with sales of more than $18 billion. Family Dollar currently operates more than 8,100 stores in 46 states. It has been a family-run operation since the first store opened in Charlotte in November 1959. The lawsuit was filed by Peter Andrews -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- with Andrews & Springer LLC in Delaware. FARM BOY: Recalls Chocolate Croissant Due to Undeclared Almonds --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 24, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Farm Boy 2012 Inc. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9093 Affected products: 396 g. Farm Boy Chocolate Croissant with 0 210493 203998 code FGL SPORTS: Recalls Capix Evo & Jr Evo Bike & Skateboard Helmets ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 30, 2014 Posting date: July 30, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40767 Affected products: Capix Evo and Capix Jr Evo Bike and Skateboard Helmets The voluntary recall involves the Capix Evo and Capix Jr Evo bike and skateboard helmets. The products are identified by Corporate Style Numbers: 331473210, 331473212, 331473226, 331473231, 331473235 and 331473239 and Franchise Style Numbers: H24-EVO and H24-EVOJR. The helmets were made available in these colors: Capix Jr Evo Helmets - Black/Green and White/Purple, Capix Evo Helmets- Black, Blue, Red and White. The voluntary recall is being initiated by FGL Sports Ltd. as a precautionary measure due to a manufacturing defect which may cause cracks to appear near the rivets securing the chinstrap, posing a potential safety hazard to consumers. Neither Health Canada nor FGL Sports Ltd. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these helmets. Approximately 8,684 units of the affected helmets were sold at Sport Chek, Sports Experts, Intersport and S3 stores across Canada. The recalled helmets were manufactured in China and sold between January 2014 and June 2014. Companies: Importer FGL Sports Ltd. Calgary Alberta Canada Consumers should immediately stop using the affected helmets and return them to their local local Sport Chek, Sports Experts, Intersport and S3 stores for a refund or exchange. FIBCO INC: Faces "Fleck" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- John Fleck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fibco, Inc., and Donald Braddy, Jr., Case No. 5:14- cv-00177 (N.D. Fla., July 31, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act Fibco, Inc. is a communications contractor that contracts with, among others, the federal government to install fiber optic cable. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Clark Davis, Esq. JOHN C. DAVIS PA 623 Beard St. Tallahassee, FL 32303 Telephone: (850) 222-4770 Facsimile: (850) 222-3119 E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net FIRST AMERICAN: August 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION REGARDING FIRST AMERICAN MONETARY CONSULTANTS, INC., INFORMATION RADIO NETWORK, INC., LARRY BATES, BARBARA BATES, ROBERT BATES, CHARLES E. BATES, KINSEY BROWN BATES and CECILIA STANDLEY ORLOWSKI, et al v. FIRST AMERICAN MONETARY CONSULTANTS, INC., INFORMATION RADIO NETWORK, INC., LARRY BATES, BARBARA BATES, ROBERT BATES, CHARLES E. BATES, KINSEY BROWN BATES and CECILIA STANDLEY Case No. 2:11-cv-01396, U.S. District Court, Western Dist. of Tenn., Western Section * This notice has been authorized by a federal Court -- This is NOT a solicitation from a lawyer* ATTENTION ALL PURCHASERS OR SELLERS OF PRECIOUS METALS DOING BUSINESS WITH FIRST AMERICAN MONETARY CONSULTANTS, INC., INFORMATION RADIO NETWORK, INC., LARRY BATES, BARBARA BATES, ROBERT BATES, CHARLES E. BATES, KINSEY BROWN BATES and CECILIA STANDLEY: If you transacted business with First American Monetary Consultants, Inc., Information Radio Network, Inc., Larry Bates, Barbara Bates, Robert Bates, Charles E. Bates, Kinsey Brown Bates, or Cecilia Standley for the purchase/sale/trade of precious metals or coins, on or before January 1, 2006, or if, at any time, you transacted business with the above persons/entities for the purchase of precious metals with the understanding that metals would be stored on your behalf indefinitely, you may be a member of this class action lawsuit. Your damages may include: incomplete metals orders, inferior substituted metals, delays in fulfillment of your order, the inability to locate your stored metals, or other damages. What This Lawsuit is About In December 2012, customers of First American Monetary Consultants, Inc., Information Radio Network, Inc., Larry Bates, Barbara Bates, Robert Bates, Charles E. Bates, Kinsey Brown Bates, or Cecilia Standley filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, against the above individuals/entities alleging damages caused by the actions of First American Monetary Consultants, Inc., Information Radio Network, Inc., Larry Bates, Barbara Bates, Robert Bates, Charles E. Bates, Kinsey Brown Bates, or Cecilia Standley in breaching duties owed and conducting a fraud to deprive individuals of their metals, money or assets. Relief Sought The Plaintiff Class is seeking: monetary compensation for damages; treble damages; costs; attorneys' fees; exemplary/punitive damages; injunctive relief; accounting, constructive trust. The court may grant all, part, or none of the relief that the Plaintiff Class seeks. Your Right to Be Excluded You may choose to exclude yourself from or "opt out" of the Plaintiff Class or intervene in this lawsuit. If you choose to be excluded from the Plaintiff Class, follow the directions regarding Exclusion contained in the full version of the Notice of Class Action, and submit your Request no later than Thursday, August 21, 2014. Possible Financial Consequences If you remain a member of the Plaintiff Class, you will be able to share in the recovery or benefit to Class Members that may be awarded by the court or paid in settlement of this lawsuit, less costs and attorney fees, and you will be bound by the judgment of the court in this lawsuit, favorable or not. If you choose to exclude yourself from the Plaintiff Class, you will not be able to share in any recovery or benefit to Class Members that may be awarded by the court or paid in settlement of this lawsuit, and you will not be bound by the judgment of the court in this lawsuit, favorable or not. What You Should Do If you believe that you are a member of this Class, please contact Class Counsel immediately to obtain the full version of the Notice of Class Action and so that you may be added to the Class list: J. Houston Gordon, Esq. Amber Griffin Shaw LAW OFFICE OF J. HOUSTON GORDON, PLLC 114 W. Liberty Ave, Suite 300 Covington, TN 38019 Telephone: (901) 476-7100 Fax: (901) 476-3537 E-mail: cvandiver@lawjhg.com Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. David Honigman, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN & WILLIAMSON P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 Fax: (248)457-9201 E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com dhonigman@manteselaw.com FITBIT INC: Sued for Concealing Skin Allergies Due to Product Use ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Casar, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Fitbit Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01679 (N.D. Ohio, July 31, 2014), alleges that the Defendant did not warn potential customers, or the general public, that the Fitbit ForceTM could cause skin irritation, allergic dermatitis, allergic reactions, or other physical injuries, resulting in redness, rashes, blistering, or related symptoms, where an individual's skin came into contact with the it. Fitbit Inc. is a manufacturer of wireless activity-tracking wristbands. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald S. Weiss, Esq. OHIO LEMON AUTO Ste. 600, 7035 Orchard Lake Road West Bloomfield, MI 48322 Telephone: (248) 737-8000 Facsimile: (248) 737-8003 E-mail: rweiss@ohiolemonauto.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. James L. Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC 5550 Glades Rd, Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: aradbil@mgjdlaw.com FRESH SPROUTS: Recalls Fresh Bean Sprouts Due to E. Coli -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 24, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage), Microbiological - Other Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Fresh Sprout International Ltd. Distribution: Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9104 Affected products: 454 g. Fresh Sprouts Fresh Bean Sprouts with 8 27468 00100 0 UPC GAGAN FOODS: Recalls Petha Cubes Due to Swollen Packages -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 18, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Other Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Gagan Foods International Limited Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9040 Affected products: 3.8 kg. Gagan Petha Cubes with 75620 11686 7 UPC GAP INC: Judge Allows Overtime Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------ Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that the defendant in a proposed overtime pay lawsuit alleging various affronts to California employment statutes tried to quash the proceedings. But while the judge extended a few small olive branches to The Gap Inc., the ruling overall went in favor of the plaintiffs. To wit, the judge left more than just a gap for the lead plaintiff to wiggle through. There's lots of space to work with. The unpaid overtime lawsuit is Tiffany Ino v. The Gap Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00292, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. According to court records, lead plaintiff Ino in the proposed nationwide class action accuses The Gap of requiring employees to work off the clock and stiffing them from overtime pay, which is governed under California overtime law. Ms. Ino filed her overtime pay lawsuit in January of this year and seeks to represent any and all current or former employees, who worked for The Gap nationwide for a three-year period immediately preceding the filing of Ms. Ino's lawsuit in January 2014. The judge, in his ruling, sided with The Gap with regard to Ms. Ino's claim that employees should be compensated for locating and opening company lockers, putting away their belongings at the end of the day, and time spent reviewing schedules. However, the Court allowed for the remainder of Ms. Ino's allegations to stand -- including claims by Ms. Ino that Gap employees were required to remain on call without overtime pay or compensation, as well as for time spent undergoing bag checks for security, and assisting customers with various activities while employees were off the clock. "Ino alleges specific examples of The Gap's practices denying overtime compensation and minimum wage, including requiring employees to submit to bag checks and assist customers off the clock," said US District Judge Vince Chhabria, in his ruling. "These allegations do not merely parrot the statutory language and nakedly assert that the defendant has violated the law. They identify specific ways in which The Gap allegedly deprives workers of the minimum wage and overtime pay, and they specify that Ms. Ino herself has suffered these deprivations. "This is enough to state a claim and to put The Gap on notice of the specific unlawful conduct of which it is accused," the ruling said. The Gap had also pursued a stay of the litigation until after the US Supreme Court delivered a ruling in a case that is expected to determine whether or not time spent by employees in security screenings is compensable. Judge Chhabria denied the request for a stay based on the fact that Mr. Ino is pursuing her claims on her own behalf and those of the representative class - claims that will not be resolved or satisfied by the pending Supreme Court decision. Thus, the overtime laws case involving a major US retailer will continue in California. GARLOCK SEALING: Judge Wants Swift Trial in Asbestos Case --------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a bankruptcy judge, recently reversed on closing to the public a trial on a gasketmaker's liability to asbestos plaintiffs, said he has gotten the message that public access should be provided quickly. The closed trial was held last year to estimate the liability of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, which is undergoing in bankruptcy. The company, facing asbestos claims, is restructuring and discharging liability by setting up a trust for claimants, as provided for under federal bankruptcy law. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western District of Carolina closed the trial and sealed evidence upon which he made his decision regarding how to measure Garlock's liability to asbestos plaintiffs. In that decision, Judge Hodges concluded that past settlements Garlock had entered into were not a reliable way to estimate the company's liability because of alleged misrepresentations by plaintiffs' lawyers. On July 31, Judge Hodges said the U.S. District Court's quick decision regarding the appeal to closing the trial and sealing evidence was "some message on their part that we should get on with it." He set a 30-day deadline for any objectors to state why they think an evidentiary seal is still warranted. He set replies to the objector's arguments at 21 days. The sealed evidence revolves around evidence that led Judge Hodges to conclude there was a pattern of misrepresentation by plaintiff's lawyers in cases in which Garlock was a defendant. The judge found that the plaintiffs' counsel allegedly indicated their clients were exposed to certain sources of asbestos at issue in tort cases. Then, according to Hodges, the plaintiffs counsel indicated their clients were exposed to other sources of asbestos when seeking compensation from the trusts formed out of the bankruptcy of companies that made products containing asbestos. Last month, U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. of the Western District of North Carolina remanded the case back to Judge Hodges' courtroom in order for the lower court to conduct fact-finding about the public's right of access because of the common law or because of the First Amendment. Other asbestos defendants, insurance companies or media outlets have been seeking access to the Garlock evidence. Judge Hodges said it was clear from Judge Cogburn's ruling that he needs to determine on a document-by-document basis whether any should be sealed and kept out of the public eye. He said the proposed order should require that parties state their basis for making their claims of access. "My general feeling is we should move on this quickly as we could," Judge Hodges said. K. Elizabeth Sieg -- bsieg@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuire Woods LLP in Richmond, Va., said that non-parties like her client Ford Motor Company want to reserve the right to object to sealing orders. Ford and the other non-parties want to be able to have their attorneys review the materials or conduct discovery to get more specificity on what is being sealed. "We're the only ones who can't see any of this stuff," Ms. Sieg said. "We're litigating with our hands tied behind our backs in some respect." While Judge Hodges's order does reserve right for anyone to challenge sealing orders, he said during the hearing he hopes "we don't end up with satellite litigation to the satellite litigation." He was apparently referencing that the fight over the access to the alleged evidence that was misrepresented by plaintiffs is ancillary to Garlock's restructuring through bankruptcy. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Sesay" Suit Over Ignition Switches Defects ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ishmail Sesay, and Joanne Yearwood, for themselves, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Delphi Automotive PLC, and DPH-DAS LLC f/k/a Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-06018 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose risks related to the ignition switches defects in GM vehicles. General Motors LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. On October 19, 2009, it began conducting the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles. Delphi Automotive PLC designs, manufactures, and supplies GM with motor vehicle components. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Peller, Esq. GARY PELLER 600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20781 Telephone: (202) 662-9122 Facsimile: (202) 662-9680 E-mail: peller@law.georgetown.edu GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Salaried Retirees' Class Action for $9MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Grace Macaluso, writing for The Windsor Star, reports that General Motors Canada has reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with salaried retirees, who launched a class-action lawsuit after the automaker slashed health care and insurance benefits. The $9-million settlement is "excellent news," for the more than 3,200 retirees and their families, including between 300 and 400 in Windsor and Essex County, said Jim Onslow, a Windsor-based GM retiree. "We are very pleased," said Mr. Onslow, a 68-year-old Windsor resident who spent 35 years with the automaker before retiring as a logistics manager at the former Trim plant. The settlement ends a legal battle that started in early 2010 after the automaker imposed a number of changes including the elimination of semi-private hospital coverage, a reduction in the annual maximum coverage for dental and orthodontic benefits, an increase in the amount members would have to pay for prescription drugs and decrease in out-of-province health coverage from six months to two months. In some cases, former workers saw their basic life insurance benefit cut from more than $100,000 to $20,000. In July, 2013, Ontario Superior Court Judge Edward Belobaba ruled that GM violated an agreement with some of its retired workers. GM, which signaled its intention to appeal, had argued that a clause allowing it to make the changes was included in a benefits package booklet that had been handed out to employees. But, Judge Belobaba said GM was vague about its right to reduce or eliminate benefits. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said many of the retirees were unable to purchase life insurance or health benefits elsewhere due to their age. "We were told that our benefits were there for the rest of our life," said Mr. Onslow. Under the agreement, the first priority will be to resolve any life insurance claims for retirees who've died since the class action was launched. Mr. Onslow said the retirees are "very satisfied with General Motors and plan to continue our support as we always have. We want to continue buying their products." GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Recall Causes Shortage of Parts --------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Hudson, writing for CBS Minnesota, reports that in the service bays of Mauer Chevrolet, auto mechanics are busy swapping out the small parts that caused a huge problem. "We get a half dozen to a dozen every day," operations director, Norm Kordell, said. General Motors announced a nation-wide recall of 2.59 million vehicles after it was discovered that the ignition switch assembly was tied to fatal accidents involving certain GM vehicles. Safety engineers determined that the faulty switches could disengage from the run position and shut an engine off unexpectedly. When that happens while driving on the highway, it has caused drivers to lose control of the vehicle. Added to the danger is the malfunction of air bags, which failed to deploy. So, GM dealerships like Mauer are doing the fix as fast as parts come in. And that's not so easy, since the massive recall is swamping the part supplier, Delphi, with orders. Because all the parts are different, depending on the make, model and year of the vehicle, Delphi has had to ramp up production by taking some machines out of storage. "When the parts come in we call the customer and schedule the repairs be made. It's taking an hour to two hours per vehicle," Mr. Kordell said. Already, this one lone dealership has completed, or will perform, the work for more than one-thousand customers. Other GM dealership express handling similar volumes of customers. General Motors CEO, Mary Barra, testified before Congress about the mistakes made years ago when the defective part was first revealed. In response to both criticism and lawsuits, Ms. Barra accepted blame on behalf of the company and announced a nearly half-billion dollar victim's compensation fund. "I got my Cobalt in 2012 after I graduated college," GM car owner, Jennifer Palmer, said. She's among the many GM customers who have received recall notices and are anxious to get the repair work performed. But the problem is many are learning scheduling recall repairs is taking longer than they would like. The massive recall is causing a parts shortage -- meaning Jennifer Palmer's car won't get fixed for a month or two. So in the meantime, she'll avoid driving her two-year-old daughter around in the car and will plan another way to work. "I'm going to try not driving this vehicle as much as possible and my husband and I can car pool to work. So we'll take our other vehicle," Ms. Palmer said. "We anticipate it's going to take a few more months to get them all done," Mr. Kordell said. The vehicles affected by GM's safety recall are: 2003-07 Saturn Ion, 2005-10 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2006-10 Pontiac Solstice, 2007-10 Pontiac G5, 2007-10 Saturn Sky, 2006-11 Chevrolet HHR More information is available on the company's recall website: www.GMIgnitionupdate.com GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 22 Spark Cars Due to Defective Part ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 22, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 22 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014304 TC ID number: 2014304 On certain vehicles, bolts securing the front lower control arm ball joint to the steering knuckle may not have been tightened to specification and could loosen. This could result in the lower control arm separating from the steering knuckle while driving, resulting in a loss of steering control and increasing the risk of crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will inspect bolts and tighten to specification as necessary. Affected products: 2014 Chevrolet GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Camaro, Cruze, Sonic and Verano ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 22, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 3985S ource of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014306 TC ID number: 2014306 Manufacturer recall number: 12261B On certain vehicles, the primary stage of the driver's airbag may not deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted). Failure of an airbag to deploy correctly could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Dealers will replace the steering wheel airbag coil. Note: This is an expansion of recall 2012368. Affected products: Maker Model Model Year(s) Affected ----- ----- ---------------------- CHEVROLET CAMARO 2012 CHEVROLET CRUZE 2012 CHEVROLET SONIC 2012 BUICK VERANO 2012 GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 6,809 Malibu and Regal Cars --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 23, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 6809 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014310 TC ID number: 2014310 Manufacturer recall number: 12212 Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices. If one of the two front turn signal bulbs burn out in either front turn signal lamp, no indication would be provided to the driver, which is contrary to the requirements of the standard. Dealers will update vehicle software. Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- BUICK REGAL 2011, 2012, 2013 CHEVROLET MALIBU 2013 GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 29,555 Vehicles in Canada ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 23, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 29555 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014311 TC ID number: 2014311 Manufacturer recall number: 14271 On certain vehicles equipped with power height adjustable front seats, a bolt securing the adjuster mechanism may loosen and fall out. This would cause the seat to drop to the lowest vertical adjustment position, which could affect the driver's ability to safety operate vehicle controls as well as cause reduced driver visibility. These issues could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will replace the bolt. Affected products Maker Model Model year(s) Affected ----- ----- ---------------------- BUICK REGAL 2011, 2012 CHEVROLET CAMARO 2011, 2012 CADILLAC SRX 2010, 2011, 2012 CHEVROLET EQUINOX 2010, 2011, 2012 GMC TERRAIN 2010, 2011, 2012 BUICK LACROSSE 2011, 2012 GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 11,430 Vehicles Due to Incomplete Weld -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 29, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 11430 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014315 TC ID number: 2014315 Manufacturer recall number: 14340 On certain vehicles, the hook bracket assembly for either front seat may have been manufactured with an incomplete weld. If the weld is incomplete and the assembly is exposed to a high load condition, the hook may separate from the seat track. This could increase the risk of occupant injury during a crash. Dealers will inspect the weld, and if necessary, replace the lower seat track. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- GMC SIERRA 2014 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2014 CADILLAC CTS 2014 CADILLAC ATS 2013, 2014 BUICK ENCORE 2013, 2014 CHEVROLET TRAX 2013, 2014 GOOD CHOWS: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ya Chen, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Good Chows Inc. d/b/a "Land of Plenty", Chen Tao Li, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-05960 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage, and overtime compensation. Good Chows Inc. is a restaurant located at 204 East 58th St., New York, New York 10022. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. Kevin Edison Vorhis, Esq. HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com kevin.vswlaw@gmail.com HERTZ CORP: Wants Currency Conversion Fee Class Action Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Siegel, writing for Law360, reports that The Hertz Corp. asked a New Jersey federal judge on Aug. 1 to toss a proposed class action alleging the company failed to disclose currency conversion fees to customers who rent cars from the company abroad, claiming the Hertz units involved are foreign subsidiaries not subject to the court's jurisdiction. In a motion for a judgment on the pleadings, Hertz asks U.S. District Judge William J. Martini to enter an order dismissing the case, arguing that the plaintiff's complaint involves allegations against Hertz Italiana and Hertz UK, and that under the federal rules of civil procedure the lawsuit must be dismissed without their presence. "Plaintiff's case should be dismissed because Hertz Italiana, Hertz UK and all other Hertz foreign subsidiaries are not subject to personal jurisdiction in this court, and this case cannot in equity and justice proceed without them," Hertz's motion states. Lead plaintiff Daniel Margulis filed suit in February, claiming Hertz failed to inform customers who rent cars from the company in foreign countries that it intends to add a currency conversion fee to their bills. Although many companies allow consumers to choose which currencies they'd like to be charged in, Hertz automatically converts its bills to a cardholder's native currency at an inflated exchange rate, the complaint claimed. Hertz claims that despite being the parent company of the two foreign subsidiaries, it played no role in generating the bills disputed in the complaint. Hertz admits in its filing it does business in New Jersey, but cites a Third Circuit precedent saying a parent company's jurisdictional contacts are not attributable to a foreign subsidiary. "Though it is the parent company, Hertz cannot adequately protect Hertz Italiana and Hertz UK's interests in this matter because it is a separate and distinct corporate entity and Hertz is not a party to the rental contracts signed by plaintiff at the time of pickup, nor did Hertz impose the currency conversion charges about which plaintiff complains," the motion states. Mr. Margulis, who is a U.S. citizen, said he noticed the fees after renting cars from Hertz in Italy and England in 2013. He claimed that when Hertz presented bills for the rental cars, the company automatically converted its charges into U.S. dollars at a rate that was approximately 4.5 percent higher than the exchange rates between the U.S. and the European countries, effectively levying a 4.5 percent fee. Mr. Margulis claimed Hertz employees in Italy and England refused to convert his bills to euros and pounds, saying it was Hertz's policy to charge U.S. cards in dollars. The employees also contended that Mr. Margulis had been given a choice about which currency to pay in, a choice linked to which credit card he used, according to the complaint. The suit alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud and consumer protection claims. Mr. Margulis argued that Hertz violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by misrepresenting the true cost of its car rentals by hiding its currency conversion fees in its quotes, and by failing to give consumers a choice about which currencies they wanted to use. Hertz raised concerns in its motion that any judgment for the plaintiff would necessarily call for changes in the way Hertz Italiana and Hertz UK conduct their business and could lead to the foreign subsidiaries being subject to additional litigation. "The court cannot shape its relief to enjoin customers outside of the United States, who are not involved with this lawsuit, from bringing future suits," Hertz's motion states. Daniel Margulis is represented by James E.Cecchi of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC. Hertz is represented by Ross B. Bricker -- rbricker@jenner.com -- John F. Ward -- jward@jenner.com -- and Laura C. Bishop -- lbishop@jenner.com -- of Jenner & Block LLP and by Kevin H. Marino -- kmarino@khmarino.com -- and John D. Tortorella -- jtortorella@khmarino.com -- of Marino Tortorella & Boyle PC. The case is Daniel Margulis v. The Hertz Corporation, case number 2:14-cv-01209 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. HYUNDAI: Recalls 419,000 Vehicles in US Over Various Defects ------------------------------------------------------------ Menchie Mendoza, writing for Tech Times reports that according to US safety regulators, the recall will cover three models which displayed unique issues in the US. The issues, which range from electrical, brake, and suspension malfunctions, were posted at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's website. Out of the three recalls, the biggest involved 225,000 Santa Fe SUVs that are manufactured from 2001-2006. The vehicle needed a replacement of its front coil springs which are found to be susceptible to rusting and cracking when driven in states that have cold weather. The springs can suffer from a fracture and can cause the car to crash if a contact is made with the car tire. The Santa Fe SUVs was sold in cold places where the roadways are filled with clear snow and ice. Clearing the roads would need the use of salt. It should be noted that road salt can cause the coil spring to rust. The coil spring with rust could fracture and puncture the vehicle's tire which increases its risk to commit a crash. Apart from Washington DC, the 20 states where the recall is rolling out would include Wisconsin, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New York, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maine, Indiana, Delaware, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Ohio, New Jersey, Missouri, Michigan, Maryland, Iowa, Illinois, and Connecticut. The second type of vehicle that is being recalled is the Veracruz crossover which covers the model years of 2007 to 2012. The recall, which will affect a total number of 61,000 vehicles, will deal with an oil leak problem. If not treated, the problem can lead to damaging the vehicle's alternator and charging system that could result to a total loss of power, hence, placing the occupants at the risk of a crash. The third set of recall involves the mid-size Sonata sedans from the model years of 2011 to 2014. Around 133,000 of these vehicles showed issues of a leaking brake fluid while 883,000 had displayed a potentially defective transmission shift cable. Hyundai will notify the owners of affected vehicles by the end of September. They can go to the nearest dealer and have their vehicle's coil springs replaced for free. Other free services would include hose replacement and repair or replacement of the car's alternator and front valve cover gasket. So far, the company already received 1,200 claims on the product's warranty wherein 90 cases had claimed that the car springs came in contact with a tire. There were no reported cases of crashes or injuries prior to the recall. INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Violation of Securities Law ---------------------------------------------------------- Battle Construction Co., Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. and Frank Reynolds, Case No. 1:14-cv-13180 (D. Mass., July 31, 2014), is a class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013, inclusive seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws. InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. is a biotechnology company in the business of developing treatments to improve function in individuals paralyzed from traumatic spinal cord injuries. It is developing a biopolymer scaffold product for individuals with acute spinal cord injuries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Two Seaport Lane, 6th Flr. Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 Facsimile: (617) 439-0134 E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com ITN FOOD: Recalls Shan Lemon Pickle Due to Undeclared Mustard ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 25, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: ITN Food Corporation Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9109 The food recall warning issued on July 4, 2014 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. ITN Food Corporation is recalling Shan brand Lemon Pickle from the marketplace because it contains mustard which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to mustard should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. If you have an allergy to mustard, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by CFIA inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. KINCAID INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Griceldo Leonides-Buenaventura and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Kincaid, Inc., Campuzano Cedar Hill, L.L.C., Pam Cleveland a/k/a Pamela Kincaid, Case No. 3:14-cv-02741 (N.D. Tex., July 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant in Dallas County, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq. J H ZIDELL PC 6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zubair Patel, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., Michael T. Strianese, and Ralph G. D'Ambrosio, Case No. 1:14-cv-06038 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial matters. L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. is prime contractor in aerospace systems and national security solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis Paul McConville, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 1 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-6038, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased L-3 securities between April 25, 2013 and July 30, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased L-3 securities during the Class Period, you have until September 30, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. L-3 is a prime contractor in aerospace systems and national security solutions. L-3 is also a leading provider of a broad range of communication and electronic systems and products used on military and commercial platforms. Through its subsidiary, L-3 Communications Corporation, L-3 provides command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems; aircraft modernization and maintenance; and national security solutions in the United States and internationally. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's Aerospace Systems segment. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) L-3's financial statements contained errors related to the improper deferral of cost overruns on a fixed-price maintenance and logistics support contract resulting in overstatement of operating income; (2) net sales with respect to the fixed-price maintenance and logistics support contract were overstated; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 31, 2014, before the markets opened for trading, L-3 announced preliminary results due to the disclosure of a concurrent internal accounting review into matters at the Company's Aerospace Systems segment. As a result of its preliminary review, which is still ongoing, the Company announced that it expects to incur an aggregate pre-tax charge of $84 million against operating income and a related reduction in net sales of approximately $43 million. On this news, shares of L-3 fell $14.68, or more than 12%, on extremely heavy volume, to close at $104.96 on July 31, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. LINK SNACKS: Refused to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Ann Truesdell and Darvin A. Heider, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Link Snacks, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00551 (W.D. Ky., August 1, 2014), alleges that the Defendants refused to properly pay overtime wages for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Link Snacks, Inc. produces and distributes meat snacks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW G. JONES 10401 North Meridian Street, Suite 300 Indianapolis, IN 46290 Telephone: (317) 616-3671 E-mail: ajones@andrewgjoneslaw.com LONDON SILVER: Faces "Nalven" Suit Over Price-Fixing of Silver -------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Nalven, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. The London Silver Market Fixing Ltd.; Deutsche Bank AG; HSBC Bank U.S.A., N.A; and The Bank of Nova Scotia, Case No. 1:14-cv-04591 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014), alleges that the Defendants fixed and manipulated the price of silver and COMEX Silver Futures. The London Silver Market Fixing Ltd. is a British private company with its principal place of business located at One Silk Street, London EC2Y 8HQ, United Kingdom. It is the umbrella entity that administers and sets the silver rate. Deutsche Bank AG is a German bank with its principal place of business located at Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany. HSBC Bank U.S.A., N.A. is a federally chartered banking corporation with its principal place of business located at 1800 Tysons Boulevard, McLean, Virginia 22102. The Bank of Nova Scotia is a Canadian public company with its principle place of business located at 44 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 1H1. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: pbarile@gelaw.com - and - Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com METRORAIL: Lack of Funding Stalls Cosatu's Class Action Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ Bekezela Phakathi, writing for BusinessDay, reports that failure to raise funding has stalled plans by the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) to file a class action lawsuit against Metrorail. Cosatu had intended pursuing the class action in June, accusing the state-owned rail operator of effecting "unfair" increases in passenger rail fares. This came after Metrorail announced a fare increase despite objections from the labor federation, which asked for a delay until services "visibly" improved. Rail is seen as the backbone of public transport in Cape Town. However, the service has been dogged by so many breakdowns, delays and cancellations that last month Metrorail began giving commuters letters to explain to their employers why they were late for work. "There have been complications with the planned class action," said Cosatu Western Cape secretary Tony Ehrenreich on July 31. "We have not been able to raise the money for the class action lawsuit or to find lawyers that can take on the case pro bono . . . lawyers are expensive these days but we still want to take the case forward," Mr. Ehrenreich said. But he did not divulge how much money the union required to pursue the case. "It is really a sad day for workers who are made to suffer by Metrorail . . . we have always said that justice in this country seems to be for the rich," Mr. Ehrenreich said. Jackie Dugard, a senior researcher from the Socio-Economic Right's Institute of South Africa and an associate professor at the University of the Witwatersrand's school of law, said on July 31 it was difficult to quantify the cost of a class action lawsuit, "but it is very expensive". She also said driving up the cost was the fact that South Africa has a split bar, which meant that the attorney and advocate both had to be paid. Civil litigation also had no right to legal representation at the state's expense. Metrorail said last month that Cosatu's demand that the state- owned rail company should only increase its fares after it had completed infrastructure improvements was "unrealistic". According to the company delaying the fare increase could lead to a reduction of services or even force some train services to be cut in the Western Cape. The increases had imposed an extra burden on commuters who, after buying a weekly ticket, often had to pay for taxis and buses one or two days a week due to cancellations and breakdowns, Cosatu said. Metrorail increased the price of a single-trip ticket by 50c, return-trip tickets by R1, weekly tickets by between R3 and R7 and monthly tickets by between R7 and R30. Meanwhile, Cosatu on July 31 condemned vandalism on the railway lines in Cape Town. Cables were cut at various points in Khayelitsha which disrupted the rail services. The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa has spent R382 million over the past three years as a result of theft and vandalism. Mr. Ehrenreich said Metrorail had to start "an urgent program to move the cables above ground and out of reach of criminals in order to ameliorate this problem". "The situation has been ongoing for years and is now reaching crisis proportion and no coherent plan is emerging from Metrorail to respond to the threat that exists to the system," Mr. Ehrenreich said. MGM GRAND DETROIT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Applebaum, Warren Black, Anita Matlock, Patrick Ridgeway, and William Sly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC., Case No. 2:14-cv- 13005 (E.D. Mich., August 1, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC is engaged in dining and gaming business with its principal place of business in Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan Bonanni, Esq. Robert W. Palmer, Esq. PITT McGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C. 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com NATIONAL BUSINESS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Tower" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL BUSINESS CAPITAL, INC. and 3081 MAIN STREET, LLC d/b/a NEW ENGLAND WINE AND SPIRITS, Defendants, DOCKET NO. 155786/2012, 2014 NY Slip Op 31985(U), Tower moved for summary judgment declaring that it has no duty to defend or indemnify defendant National Business Capital, Inc. ("NBC") in the underlying action, a proposed class action, entitled 3081 Main Street, LLC d/b/a New England Wine and Spirits v. National Business Capital, Inc., pending in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut, under Docket Number 3:12-cv-00531 (AWT); and dismissing NBC's counterclaims against it. NBC opposed the motion and cross moved for summary judgment on its first counterclaim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, on its second counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that NBC has a right to a defense by independent counsel, on its third counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that Tower has an obligation to defend and indemnify NBC, and on its fourth counterclaim for attorneys' fees. 3081 also opposed Tower's motion, and cross moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that Tower is obligated to defend and indemnify NBC. "Tower is obligated to defend and indemnify NBC in the underlying action except that it is not required to indemnify NBC for any damages that are punitive in nature," Judge Joan A. Madden of the Supreme Court, New York County, stated in a ruling dated July 28, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/O4lwqxfrom Leagle.com. Judge Madden ruled that Tower's motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent of declaring that it is not required to indemnify NBC for any punitive damages in connection with the underlying action and to the extent of dismissing the first and second counterclaims. NBC's cross motion is granted on its third counterclaim. 3081's cross motion is granted. NBC's cross motion is granted as to liability on its fourth counterclaim for attorneys' fees incurred by it in connection with this action, and the fourth counterclaim is severed and an assessment will be held to determine the reasonable amount of the fees. Judge Madden added that on or before August 28, 2014, NBC must file a note of issue and statement of readiness and the court will place the matter on the calendar for an assessment of reasonable attorneys' fees. NBC's failure to comply will result in the dismissal of the fourth counterclaim. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Players' Concussion Deal Objection Nixed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has rejected an attempt by seven former professional football players to intervene in a tentative class action settlement of concussion claims that would cost the NFL at least $765 million. Senior U.S. District Judge Anita Brody issued an order in Philadelphia on July 29 denying the NFL retirees' motion to intervene in the case. The players object to the settlement, calling it a "lousy deal" for ex-players whose symptoms don't qualify them for compensation. Judge Brody's order said that players who object to the deal can raise their concerns at a fairness hearing scheduled for Nov. 19, or opt out of the settlement. Judge Brody gave preliminary approval to the settlement earlier in July. The group includes 2008 Pro Bowl player Sean Morey, now Princeton University's sprint football coach. NEBRASKA: Southwest Irrigators File Class Action Over Water Rights ------------------------------------------------------------------ McCook Gazette reports that four southwest Nebraska irrigators filed a class-action lawsuit against the State of Nebraska and the Department of Natural Resources for damages to their 2013, crops. Greg Hill of Furnas County, Brent Coffey of Harlan County, James Uerling of Red Willow County, and Warren Schaffert of Hitchcock County, filed the case in Furnas County District Court on July 31st. The suit is filed on behalf of the four named farmers and a group of persons similarly situated, all of whom are water users of Frenchman Cambridge Irrigation District who have consented to be members of the Class. The 19-page Complaint asserts that the irrigators each have a right to use water taken from them, and that those rights are superior to the rights of the State to take water for the purpose of passing it to Kansas to comply with the State's Republican River Compact obligations. The irrigators contend their crops were damaged because they were denied by state action water that otherwise would have reached them through FCID canals and ditches in 2013. Damaged crops identified in the complaint include corn, soybeans, wheat and alfalfa. The Complaint alleges that each irrigator in the Class was entitled to receive 18 acre inches of water from FCID. It contends the farmers were denied the water because the State caused it to bypass in the flow locations to reclamation dams and canals required to supply water to FCID and, in turn, get water to the farmers. The suit does not contend the state lacked authority to divert the water. Instead, it claims the State must pay for the crop losses caused when water was diverted because the State decided to take this action. Trial by jury is requested. NETFLIX INC: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Seek to Amend Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-00225-SC are appealing a decision preventing them from filing an amended complaint, to the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Two additional purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same court on January 27, 2012 and February 29, 2012 alleging substantially similar claims. These lawsuits were consolidated into In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv- 00225-SC, and the Court selected lead plaintiffs. On June 26, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Court dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on February 13, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint on March 22, 2013. The Court dismissed the first amended consolidated complaint with prejudice on August 20, 2013, and judgment was entered on September 27, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and requested leave to file a second amended complaint on October 25, 2013. On January 17, 2014, the Court denied that motion. On February 18, 2014, plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Cal. Over Breach of Securities Law --------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Paulovits, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Netsol Technologies, Inc., Najeeb Ghauri, Naeem Ghaur, and Salim Ghauri, Case No. 2:14-cv-06084 (C.D. Cal., August 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Netsol Technologies, Inc. designs, develops, markets, and exports software products primarily to the automobile finance and leasing, banking, healthcare, and financial services industries worldwide. It also provides system integration, consulting, and IT products and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com lglancy@glancylaw.com mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com NEUROLOGICAL SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Raquel Martinez, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v. Neurological Services of Orlando, PA a Florida corporation and Daniel H. Jacobs, individually, Case No. 6:14-cv-01261 (M.D. Fla., August 4, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Neurological Services of Orlando, PA provides diagnostic, treatment, and rehabilitative services to patients throughout Central Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA Suite 404, 1515 S Federal Hwy Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com OMNICON GROUP: Suit Over Publicis Merger Junked After Deal Fails ---------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated case against Omnicom Group Inc. over its merger with Publicis Groupe S.A. was dismissed after the proposed deal was terminated, according to Omnicon's July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. In August 2013, several putative class actions challenging the proposed merger of Omnicom and Publicis were filed on behalf of Omnicom shareholders and named as defendants Omnicom and its board of directors, as well as Publicis and Publicis Omnicom Group. The suits alleged that the members of the Omnicom board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving a merger that was purportedly detrimental to Omnicom's shareholders. The actions also alleged that Publicis aided and abetted the Omnicom board's breach of their fiduciary duties. In October 2013, all the actions were consolidated with each other into one case. On May 8, 2014, the proposed merger of Omnicom and Publicis was terminated. On May 22, 2014, a stipulation of voluntary discontinuance was submitted to the Court. The Court so-ordered the stipulation and dismissed the case on May 23, 2014. P2 LANDSCAPING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Armando Aguirre, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. P2 Landscaping, Inc., D/B/A The Yard Crew, and Patrick Jones, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05899 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. P2 Landscaping, Inc. provides landscaping and maintenance services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. State Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 Facsimile: (312) 853-1459 E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org - and - Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 513-9555 E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com PAPAGINO'S INC: Faces "Similien" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jean Maxime Similien and Jay A. Jenks, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Papagino's, Inc., Papa Gino's Holdings Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-13192 (D. Mass., August 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Papagino's, Inc. and Papa Gino's Holdings Corp. own Papa Gino's restaurants throughout Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Fogelman, Esq. FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN 100 Wells Avenue Newton, MA 02459 Telephone: (617) 559-1530 E-mail: mjf@fogelmanlawfirm.com PARADIES SHOPS: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Background Checking ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mikel Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly) situated v. The Paradies Shops, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00551 (W.D. Ky., August 1, 2014), arises based on a criminal background check report procured for employment purposes without first providing a pre-adverse action disclosure that included a copy of consumer report, a description in writing of rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a pre-adverse action opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the reported information. The Paradies Shops, LLC operates stores and other retail businesses at airports throughout the United States and Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Piers, Esq. Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq. HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD. Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 580-0100 PENN WEST: Faces "Frechter" Suit Over Violation of Securities Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Frechter, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Penn West Petroleum Ltd., Murray R. Nunns, David E. Roberts, and Todd H. Takeyasu, Case No. 1:14-cv-06046 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Securities Exchange Act. The Defendants are one of the largest conventional oil and natural gas producers in Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Fei-Lu Qian, Esq. Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Robert Craig Finkel, Esq. Robert S. Plosky, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 E-mai:l fqian@wolfpopper.com pavery@wolfpopper.com rfinkel@wolfpopper.com rplosky@wolfpopper.com PENN WEST: Faces "Spradlin" Suit Over Misleading Company Report --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert G. Spradlin, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Penn West Petroleum Ltd., David E. Roberts, Murray R. Nunns, and Todd H. Takeyasu, Case No. 1:14-cv-06068 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Penn West Petroleum Ltd. is one of the largest conventional oil and natural gas producers in Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. POMJERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com fmcconville@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMJERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312)377-1181 Facsimile: (312)377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip C. Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com PENN WEST: Two Law Firms to Jointly File Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Geoffrey Morgan, writing for Alberta Oil, reports that two Toronto-based firms specializing in class action lawsuits announced on July 31 that they would jointly file a statement of claim against Penn West Petroleum Ltd. Koskie Minsky LLP and Sutts, Strosberg LLP announced that they would commence a $400-million securities class action suit against Penn West, and asked anyone who bought shares in the energy company between March 2011 and July 2014 to contact their firms and join the suit. The legal announcement comes two days after a Penn West press release said the company was beginning an internal review of its accounting practices and that "certain of the company's historical financial statements and related management's discussion and analysis must be restated." It also said that this review may delay the release of its second quarter financial results and that the senior finance and accounting staff at the company who were originally responsible for the improper financial reporting had been dismissed. The company's share price dropped roughly 15 per cent when the markets opened on July 30 to the news that the company's finance teams had improperly classified operating expenses, royalty expenses and property plant and equipment expenses between 2011 and 2013. In a research note published on July 30, FirstEnergy Capital Corp. analyst Katrina Karkkainen said, "While we have elected to wait until further information is available to update our estimates, given the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate financial impact of this review we have reduced our target price to $10.00 per share and maintain our market perform rating." Other analysts say they are trying to figure out if the accounting irregularities resulted from a deliberate attempt to deceive the market, or if they were simply being flexible with their classifications of capital and operating costs. In its announcement, Penn West showed that for the fiscal year 2013, roughly $70 million in operating expenses were reclassified as property, plant and equipment and as capital expenditures. In 2012, $111 million were "reclassified" in the same way. Over those two years, a further $100 million in operating expenses "were incorrectly reclassified as royalty expenses." As a result, the class action suit against Penn West alleges the company "made a misrepresentation in its public disclosure between 2010 and 2014." In announcing their lawsuit, the firms said that Penn West "improperly stated to the public that its financial statements followed Generally Accepted Accounting Principles [GAAP] and International Financial Reporting Standards [IFRS]." The Canadian Accounting Standards Board decided in 2007 that, beginning in 2011, "publicly accountable enterprises" would be required to switch from GAAP to IFRS accounting practices. Penn West's accounting irregularities seem to have begun in 2011, at about the time that the new accounting standards came into effect. In the same press release announcing its "management-initiated" accounting review Penn West board chair Rick George said, "We have acted quickly and effectively to review our accounting practices. We will take the steps necessary to correct our historical and financial statements and we will take the appropriate steps to ensure that we avoid a similar situation in the future." PETRILLO RESTAURANT: Faces "Najera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Najera, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Petrillo Restaurant Inc. (d/b/a Pinochio Ristorante), and Mark Petrillo, Case No. 1:14-cv-06032 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Petrillo Restaurant Inc. is an Italian restaurant owned by Mark Petrillo, located at 1748 First Avenue, New York, New York 10128. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 PRICE CHOPPER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------ WRGB CBS 6 reports that supermarket chain Price Chopper is facing a federal class action lawsuit. The suit, filed on July 30, claims that Price Chopper was trying to cut labor costs by telling department managers that they do not qualify for overtime, even though they were allegedly required to work more than 40 hours a week and performed the same tasks as employees who accrue overtime. The lawsuit names one plaintiff, Shelly Davine. She worked as a department team leader and a department manager in three price chopper stores in North Adams, Lenox and Lee, Massachusetts from 1983 through June 2014. "What we allege is that in order to keep labor costs low, Price Chopper used team leaders and other to work lots of hours getting the work done in their departments, but without paying them the overtime they deserved," explained Rachel Bien, who represents Ms. Devine and is heading up the class-action lawsuit. A spokesperson for Price Chopper has released a statement about the suit: "At this time, we haven't been served with the complaint, so we have not had the opportunity to review the allegations. With regard to compliance with wage and hour laws, we are very familiar with their requirements and the analysis that must be done to make sure that employees are paid accordingly. We take our obligations to our employees seriously and take the necessary steps to ensure that we comply with the law." RED BEAN: Partial Bid to Dismiss "Bonilla" Action Denied -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Beryl A. Howell denied a partial motion to dismiss the collective action captioned EDWIN BONILLA, Plaintiff, v. RED BEAN SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-342 (BAH), (D.D.C.). Mr. Bonilla brings this suit as a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that the Defendants failed to pay him and other similarly situated employees the overtime to which they were statutorily required. Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss the collective action allegations. Judge Howell held that the plaintiff has identified the Proposed Collective as consisting of (1) food prep and kitchen staff, (2) employed in the District of Columbia and Maryland, (3) between March 2011 and the present, (4) who were "suffered or permitted to work by Defendants," and (5) were not paid overtime wages as a result of the Defendants' policy. This is adequate at the motion to dismiss stage to identify who the similarly situated employees may be and why they are similarly situated. "The Court is not ruling today on conditional certification since there is no motion before it for such a ruling," held Judge Howell. "The defendants are free to dispute any motion for conditional certification of the Proposed Collective at the appropriate time, but for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff has met his burden." The parties, by August 17, 2014, must comply with the requirements of the Court's Standing Order by filing jointly a Meet and Confer Report pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.3(b), Judge Howell added. A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2014 memorandum opinion is available at http://is.gd/UOnN0gfrom Leagle.com. EDWIN BONILLA, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg Cohen Greenberg -- ggreenberg@zagfirm.com -- ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC. RED BEAN SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, represented by Michael Ruxton Strong -- mstrong@stronglawfirm.com -- THE STRONG LAW FIRM. OY CHANGSIRLA, Defendant, represented by Michael Ruxton Strong, THE STRONG LAW FIRM. ROMACORP INC: Faces "Gittens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Lavon Gittens, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Romacorp, Inc., Roma Franchise Corporation, and Atlantic Yards Plaza LLC, d/b/a "Tony Roma's", Case No. . 1:14-cv- 04589 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Romacorp, Inc., Roma Franchise Corporation, and Atlantic Yards Plaza LLC own "Tony Roma's" food and beverage establishment located at 673 Atlantic Avenue, New York, New York, 11217. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com SAFEWAY INC: Agrees to Settle Delaware Suit Over Merger ------------------------------------------------------- The defendants in In Re Safeway Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. 9445-VCL reached an agreement-in-principle providing for a settlement of all of the claims in the suit, according to the company's July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Since the announcement of the Merger, 14 purported class action complaints were filed by alleged stockholders of the Company against the Company, the individual directors of the Company, and against Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., AB Acquisition, Albertsons Holdings, Albertson's LLC and/or Merger Sub. Seven lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Barnhard v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9445-VCL (March 13, 2014); Morales v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9455-VCL (March 18, 2014); Ogurkiewicz v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9454-VCL (March 18, 2014); Pipefitters Local 636 Defined Benefit Fund and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9461-VCL (March 20, 2014); Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension and Health & Welfare Funds v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9466-VCL (March 24, 2014); KBC Asset Management NV, Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H., Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, and Bristol County Retirement System v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9492-VCL (March 31, 2014); and The City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9495-VCL (April 1, 2014), which have been consolidated by order of the Court as In Re Safeway Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. 9445-VCL (the "Delaware Action"). Four other lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, and are captioned Lopez v. Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. HG14716651 (March 7, 2014); Groen v. Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. RG14716641 (March 7, 2014); Ettinger v. Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. RG14716842 (March 11, 2014); and Brockton Ret. Board v. Edwards, et. al., Case No. RG 14720450 (April 7, 2014), which were consolidated by order of the court (the "Consolidated California State Action"). On May 7, 2014, an amended complaint was filed in the Consolidated California State Action. On May 14, 2014, the court in the actions entered an order dismissing the Consolidated California State Action, finding that the plaintiffs were contractually obligated to bring their claims against defendants in the Delaware Court of Chancery in light of the forum selection clause in the Company's By-Laws. Three other lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and are captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pensions Fund v. Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-01670 (April 10, 2014); Romaneck v. Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-02015 (May 1, 2014); and Templeton v. Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02412 (May 23, 20214) (collectively, the "Federal Court Actions"). An amended complaint was filed in the Steamfitters action on May 15, 2014. Each of the cases is purportedly brought on behalf of the Company stockholder class. Collectively, the actions generally allege that the members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger because, among other things, the Merger involves an unfair price, a flawed sales process and preclusive deal protection devices. The actions allege that the Company and various combinations of the Albertsons entities aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint in the dismissed Consolidated California State Action further alleged that the proxy statement for the Company's Annual Meeting of Stockholders fails to disclose material information relating to, among other things, the fairness opinions of Goldman, Sachs and Co. and Greenhill & Co., LLC, the Company's financial projections, analyses concerning the intrinsic value of Blackhawk, and the background of the proposed transaction. The Federal Court Actions also allege that the defendants violated Sections 14 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the proxy statement fails to disclose material information relating to, among other things, the background of the proposed transaction, the fairness opinions of Goldman Sachs and Greenhill and the Company's financial projections. Among other remedies, the lawsuits seek to enjoin the Merger, or in the event that an injunction is not entered and the Merger closes, rescission of the Merger or unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' and experts' fees. On June 13, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement-in-principle providing for a settlement of all of the claims in the Delaware Action on the terms and conditions set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding"). Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding: (a) the Board amended the Merger Agreement (which such amendments are incorporated into Amendment No. 2 to the Merger Agreement) to (i) change the terms of the PDC CVR Agreement so that, among other things, the holders would, instead of not receiving any value for any PDC assets that remain unsold at the end of the PDC Sale Deadline (as defined in the Merger Agreement), be entitled to the fair market value of the unsold PDC assets, after the payment of certain fees, expenses and debt repayments, and net of certain assumed taxes (based on a 39.25% rate) and (ii) change the terms of the Casa Ley CVR Agreement to, among other things, (A) reduce the Casa Ley Sale Deadline (as defined in the Merger Agreement) from four years to three years and (B) provide that in the event that any equity interests of Casa Ley owned by the Company remain unsold as of the Casa Ley Sale Deadline, the fair market value determination to be made either mutually by the Company and the Shareholder Representative (as defined in the Merger Agreement) or by an independent investment banking firm shall exclude any minority, liquidity or similar discount regarding such equity interests relative to the value of Casa Ley in its entirety; (b) the Board adopted an amendment to the Company's Shareholder Rights Plan to accelerate the expiration date; and (c) the Company made certain changes to the Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The plaintiffs in the Federal Court Actions have reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action whereby they will participate in the settlement, and the parties in the Federal Court Actions have entered into stipulations staying the Federal Court Actions pending resolution of the Delaware Action. On July 14, 2014, the parties presented a negotiated stipulation of settlement to the Delaware Court of Chancery. The settlement will be subject to the approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Company believes these claims are entirely without merit, and in the event the settlement does not resolve them, the Company intends to vigorously defend these actions. The Company has received a subpoena from the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") concerning the Company's record keeping, reporting and related practices associated with the loss or theft of controlled substances. The Company is cooperating with the DEA on this matter. SANIMAX: Faces Class Action Over Foul Odor at Brown County Plant ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABC 2 WBAY reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of people living near Sanimax, who claim the smell from the company's rendering plant in Brown County has made them "shut-ins" in their homes. There are 5 Brown County residents seeking to represent their neighbors within a 2-mile radius of the facility, which creates products from animal carcasses. The lawsuit claims foul odors from the plant are negatively impacting the quality of life for residents and lowering property values. They want the stink to stop, and they want to be financially compensated for enduring it. "For instance on a bad day, you can't go outside and sit on your porch and have a cocktail at 5 o'clock 'cause you can't stand the odor," said attorney Victor Harding of Warshafsky Law Firm, one of two firms that filed suit in Dane County. He may be reached at: Victor Harding, Esq. WARSHAFSKY LAW FIRM 6250 Nesbitt Road, Suite 500 Madison, WI 53719 Tel: 608-535-1153 This isn't the first time Sanimax was accused of emitting a foul odor. As Action 2 News reported in February, the health department's pile of complaints about Sanimax's odor grew from 12 in 2011 to 75 in 2013. A company attorney sent us a statement from the company, saying in part, "We have invested almost $3 million over the past several years for odor-reduction improvements to our Green Bay facility . . . we have gone 65 days without a verified odor complaint. We will continue to work cooperatively with Brown County on odor reduction efforts." The company says it's "odor profile" went down 61 percent between 2012 and 2013. Mr. Harding isn't buying it. "It's a nice opinion, but it doesn't hold water with our clients who say it's worse and getting worse," he said. "They throw a few things at it and they say 'Oh, we're doing all these great things' but aren't getting any results. So something is wrong. They're either not doing it (or) their volume has increased beyond the capacity of whatever the scrubber is they're using." That attorney says they've heard from several hundred residents asking to be included in the suit against Sanimax. The Sanimax attorney says the lawsuit is being drive by "out-of- state lawyers, and was not even filed in Brown County is inconsistent with the cooperative effort that has been taking place." Sanimax has 45 days to respond to the lawsuit. It says it will "defend itself vigorously." SEASALT AND PEPPER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Gutierrez on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Seasalt and Pepper, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Carlos Miranda, individually, and Stephane Dupoux, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22852 (S.D. Fla., August 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The defendants own and operate a seafood restaurant located in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Elizabeth Kayfus, Esq. Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. Morgan & Morgan PA 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3017 E-mail: akayfus@forthepeople.com afrisch@forthepeople.com SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Recorded Lawyer-Inmate Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ Angela Morris, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that in a case that alleges that calls between criminal defense lawyers and their inmate-clients are being recorded and shared with prosecutors, the plaintiffs now claim that judges tried to stop the alleged conduct, to no avail, and that the matter is reducing attorneys' incomes. Aside from the fact that the clients' Sixth Amendment rights are in "serious jeopardy," the plaintiffs also allege that a lawyer has a "choice of using an insecure phone line or devoting significant time to visiting the detainee in person," said the July 23 amended class action complaint in Austin Lawyers Guild v. Securus Technologies. "Attorneys' incomes are reduced if they are forced to rely exclusively on visitation rather than the phone," the plaintiffs allege. If the lawyer charges a flat fee, the increased time commitment cuts into his income; if the lawyer charges by the hour, fewer clients can afford the cost of representation. Three of the defendants -- Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton, County Attorney David Escamilla and District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg -- all deny the allegations, said their attorney, Tony Nelson, an assistant county attorney in the Travis County Attorney's Office. He said he would file "responsive pleadings to address it." "We certainly don't believe that there's a basis for their claim, but I would need to confer with my clients to see if we want to comment beyond what we will be asserting in our pleadings," Mr. Nelson said. S. Cass Weiland, the lawyer for defendant Securus Technologies Inc., didn't return a call seeking comment before deadline. Brian McGivern, attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project, represents the plaintiffs: attorneys Carl Gossett, David Grassbaugh, Mark Sampson and Francis Williams and advocacy groups the Austin Lawyers Guild and the Prison Justice League. Mr. McGivern said the amended complaint responds to allegations that the defendants raised in motions to dismiss. Among other things, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to bring their constitutional claims, because none of them were inmates. Mr. McGivern said the Prison Justice League does have standing to bring claims on behalf of inmates, because inmates are members of the group and it advocates for their interests. He said the new allegations in the amended complaint also show that the lawyer- plaintiffs have standing. "They are suffering a consequential injury in terms of their incomes," explained Mr. McGivern. "You can establish third-party standing. . . I think the attorneys in question here have standing to assert these inmates' rights." Judges Intervene The plaintiffs allege in the amended complaint that senior county and district prosecutors have been aware that "confidential conversations were being recorded. "Attorneys and investigators with the county and district attorney's offices, from top to bottom, have had direct access to the Securus Technologies database of recorded attorney calls for years," alleges the amended complaint. Criminal defense lawyers in early 2013 contacted policymakers with evidence, the plaintiffs allege, but the defendants "did nothing to fix it." Then, in late 2013, criminal defense lawyers talked with county and district judges, who contacted the county and district attorneys. "This sparked another round of discussion among defendants' policymakers. But again, nothing was done," according to the class action. In an interview, Mr. McGivern declined to give the names of the judges who attempted to stop the conduct. "It's a sensitive issue for them," he said. "I think they acted very reasonably and as much as they could within the scope of their authority to try to deal with the issue." Leaders of the criminal defense community proposed that all the judges sign a protective order that would apply to future cases to prevent the alleged conduct, he said. But the judges wanted prosecutors "to be on board with the solution," said Mr. McGivern. Defense lawyers tried negotiating with the prosecutors' offices, but it "went nowhere," he said. "It's gone on long enough. We decided it was absolutely necessary to pursue this litigation," said Mr. McGivern. SKYHOP GLOBAL: Faces "Stembridge" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Brett Stembridge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Skyhop Global, LLC., Allied Skyhop, Inc. and Allied Airbus, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-03084 (D. Minn., August 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide airport shuttle services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Lukas, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 S 8th St Ste 4600 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: lukas@nka.com TACO BELL: Faces "Feldman" Suit in N.Y Over Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Feldman, Nereida Aguilera, Maira Henriquez, Jacquilene Abreu, individually and on behalf of those individuals similarly situated v. Taco Bell Corp., Taco Bell of America, LLC and Yum! Brands, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04600 (E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2014), seeks to recover monetary damages, declaratory relief and affirmative relief based upon Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate fast food restaurants with its principal place of business located at 1 Glen Bell Way, Irvine, California, 92618. The Plaintiff is represented by: Saul D. Zabell, Esq. ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103 Bohemia, NY 11716 Telephone: (631) 589-7242 Facsimile: (631) 563-7475 E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com TELETECH L.L.C.: Suit Seeks Damages Over FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Tina Atkinson, Richard Hall, and Shelly Primus, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Teletech, L.L.C., Teletech@Home, Inc. and Kenneth Tuchman, Case No. 3:14-cv-00253 (S.D. Ohio, August 1, 2014), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs, including reasonable costs and attorneys' fees as a result of willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide customer management, business-process and database-marketing solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Robert E. DeRose II, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com bderose@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: mturner@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.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 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com gianmfanelli@jtblawgroup.com TELIK INC: Agrees to Settle Suit by Stockholder in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Telik, Inc. agrees to settle suit filed by Cadillac Partners in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Santa Clara, according to Telik's July 22, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 30, 2014, a putative class action complaint (the complaint) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Santa Clara, captioned Cadillac Partners, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Michael M. Wick, et al. The complaint asserts claims concerning the private placement of the Company's Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (the PIPE transaction) and transactions contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and among the Company, MabVax Therapeutics, Inc. (MabVax) and Tacoma Acquisition Corp. (the merger agreement), each of which were entered into on May 12, 2014, and is brought against the Company, MabVax, past and current members of the Company's board, and the investors participating in the PIPE transaction. The details of the litigation are more fully described on pages 43-44 of the definitive proxy statement under the heading "Legal Proceedings" which was filed with the SEC on June 3, 2014. On July 16, 2014, the Company and all other parties to the litigation entered into an agreement which, if consummated, will settle the litigation (the proposed settlement). Among many other terms, under the proposed settlement the Company agreed to provide the supplemental disclosure filed as definitive additional materials to the definitive proxy on June 30, 3014, and the Company and all defendants will receive a broad release of any and all claims pertaining to the PIPE transaction, the merger, the prior disclosure and a wide variety of other matters. The proposed settlement also calls for the parties to ask the court to, among other things, enter orders enjoining other shareholders from bringing similar actions, certifying the putative settlement class, and approving the proposed settlement as a fair, final, and binding resolution of the litigation. Under the proposed settlement, the Company and the other defendants have expressly denied the allegations of the complaint and denied engaging in any other misconduct, nor will any of them make any payment or in any respect amend the negotiated terms of the since- consummated PIPE transaction and merger. Finally, under the proposed settlement, the Company and the other defendants have not agreed to pay any legal fees, or reimburse any expenses, allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs who filed the complaint; instead, the Company expects that counsel for those plaintiffs will present any such disputed claim for legal fees and expenses to the court for resolution. The proposed settlement remains contingent upon a number of future events, including, without limitation, court certification of the putative class and entry of a final, non-appealable order and final judgment approving the settlement (including the broad releases and other terms set forth therein). TODD LANDAU: Faces "Galvez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Galvez and other similarly situated individuals v. Todd Landau, P.A., a Florida corporation, and Todd Landau, an individual, Case No. 0:14-cv-61745 (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2014), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Todd Landau, P.A. is a law firm, having their main place of business in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Julisse Jimenez, Esq. Julisse Jimenez, P.A. 20801 Biscayne Blvd Suite 403 Aventura, FL 33180 E-mail: julissejimenez@bellsouth.net - and - Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com TOYS R US: Sued Over Nondisclosure of Consumer Report Procurement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yasmijn Esposito, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Toys R US-Delaware, Inc. a Delaware corporation and Toys R US, Inc. a Delaware corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61762 (S.D. Fla., August 1, 2014), alleges that the Defendants fails to provide proper disclosure to job applicants and employees regarding their procurement of consumer reports and fails to obtain the required authorization to obtain such consumer reports prior to doing so. The Defendants operate stores under the Babies "R" Us brand name, the F.A.O. Schwartz brand name, the K.B. Toys brand name. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Jefferey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: NYJG@aol.com UNITED DAIRY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- Kelly Holleran, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that a man has filed a putative class action lawsuit, alleging a failure to timely pay employees after they were terminated. Shawn R. Carter filed suit July 15 in Kanawha Circuit Court against United Dairy Inc. According to the complaint, United Dairy failed to pay its discharged employees all due wages within the time constraints mandated by West Virginia law. Mr. Carter was involuntarily terminated Dec. 17, but was not paid all wages owed to him until after Dec. 27, according to the complaint. Mr. Carter alleges United Dairy violated the Wage Payment and Collection Act. Mr. Carter is seeking an unspecified judgment, plus general compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and other relief the court deems just. He is being represented by attorneys Todd S. Bailess and Joy B. Mega of Bailess Law in Charleston and Rodney A. Smith and Jonathan R. Marshall -- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- of Bailey and Glasser in Charleston. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Jennifer F. Bailey. Kanawha Circuit Court case number 14-C-1256 UNITED MORTGAGE: Faces "Hastie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Hastie, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. United Mortgage Corp., AK Marketing Group Inc., The Lead Zone Inc., Mark Rosenbloom, Ira Zimmerman, Anthony Franzese, and John Does #1-5, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 2:14-cv-04578 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are engaged in mortgage loan business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com UNITED STATES: Bid for Review of Class Cert. Ruling Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- Eight African-American Secret Service agents who were denied promotions to the GS-14 or GS-15 level, allegedly because of their race, were certified by the district court to sue the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of a class comprising all similarly situated agents, of whom there are approximately 120. The Government argued the plaintiffs are not eligible to proceed as a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 because they do not meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) that there be "questions of law or fact common to the class" and that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class," nor the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." The Government asked the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit to exercise its discretion under Rule 23(f) to grant interlocutory review of the class certification order on the ground either that the decision is "manifestly erroneous" or that it presents "an unsettled and fundamental issue of law relating to class actions . . . that is likely to evade end-of-the-case review." The Court of Appeals denied the U.S. Government's petition in an opinion dated August 1, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/KrMkXefrom Leagle.com. The Appeals Court said it recognizes there are unsettled questions of law relating to class actions at issue in the case, but now is not the appropriate time to resolve them. None of the district court's rulings in support of its order certifying the plaintiff class is foreclosed by controlling precedent and the unsettled questions are not likely to evade end-of-the-case review, said the ruling. The case is IN RE: JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Petitioner, NO. 13-8002. Marina Utgoff Braswell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Douglas N. Letter, Director; Marleigh D. Dover and Charles W. Scarborough, Attorneys; Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney; and R. Craig Lawrence, Benton G. Peterson, and Peter C. Pfaffenroth, Assistant U.S. Attorneys. Catherine E. Stetson argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were E. Desmond Hogan -- desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com -- Erica Knievel Songer -- erica.songer@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells; and Jennifer I. Klar -- jklar@relmanlaw.com -- John P. Relman -- jrelman@relmanlaw.com -- and Megan Cacace -- mcacace@relmanlaw.com -- at relman Dane & Colfax PLLC. WALGREEN CO: Loses Bid to Sever Two Claims in Ear Remedy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that two claims involving ear treatment products sold by Walgreen Co. Inc., will remain joined in a proposed class action filed by California consumers who allege the retailer is falsely advertising the products, according to a ruling by a California federal judge. U.S. District Judge Barry Moskowitz of the Northern District of California on July 24 denied Walgreen's motion to sever plaintiffs' claims involving Walgreen's homeopathic Ear Pain Relief and Ear Ache Drops, ruling against the company's argument that the products are made by different manufacturers. Judge Moskowitz also found no merit in Walgreen's contentions, in Demison v. Walgreen, that because the ingredients differed in the two products, and the circumstances of the plaintiffs' purchases were disparate, the claims should be severed. "[A]llowing the suit to move forward will serve the ends of judicial economy and prevent the needless repetition created by two suits which raise similar facts and issues," Judge Moskowitz wrote. Plaintiffs Denielle Demison and Teri Spano alleged in their complaint, filed in 2013, that Walgreen knowingly misrepresented the products on their labels as effective in relieving pain or itching and in stimulating the body's natural ability to calm pain. They contend the amount of active homeopathic ingredients in the products is so small that no such effects would occur. The ear ailment case is one in a series of class complaints Walgreen has battled this year against claims that the company mislabels or misrepresents the benefits of some of its pharmacy products. In April, Walgreen, along with CVS Caremark Corp. and other retailers, reached a $14 million settlement with plaintiffs over false advertising claims involving Hydroxycut weight loss supplements. On July 16, Walgreen and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. reached a preliminary $2.8 million settlement of allegations the companies misled consumers about the joint-healing power of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements. Representing Walgreen are Bridget Moorhead -- BAMoorhead@Mintz.com -- Daniel Silverman, Michelle Gillette -- MGillette@mintz.com -- and Daniel Herling -- DJHerling@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo. Plaintiffs' counsel are Ronald Marron and Beatrice Resendez of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marro. WASHINGTON DC: Bid for Rehearing En Banc in "Johnson" Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In DIANNA JOHNSON, ET AL., APPELLEES, RUBBIYA MUHAMMED, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND TODD DILLARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND OFFICIALLY, UNITED STATES MARSHAL, D.C. SUPERIOR COURT, APPELLEES, NO. 11-5115, Appellants' petition for rehearing en banc and the responses thereto were circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. A majority of the judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Accordingly, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the petition is denied. This case was brought by a plaintiff class of approximately 1,600 women arrested between 1999 and 2003 in the District of Columbia for non-violent, non-drug minor offenses (such as traffic stops) who were held briefly at the D.C. Superior Court cellblock. Each of these women was subject to a visual body-cavity strip search pending her appearance before a judge or magistrate. The plaintiffs have sought a rehearing en banc of the panel decision dismissing their Fourth Amendment Bivens claims. Those claims challenge the practice of the former U.S. Marshal for the D.C. Superior Court of conducting pre-arraignment body-cavity searches of women, but not men, without any warrant or even individualized suspicion that the women were carrying contraband in their body cavities. A copy of the Appeals Court's August 1, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/CKrNwyfrom Leagle.com. WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, "Knox" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracey M. Knox on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-13185 (D. Mass., August 1, 2014), arises as a result of the Defendant's materially false statements concerning the sugar content in the Yogurt Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt expressly states on the label that it contains 2 grams of sugar per serving. Whole Foods Market, Inc., is incorporated in Texas and maintains it principal executive offices at 550 Bowie Street in Austin, Texas. As of September 29, 2013, it operates 347 stores in 40 states. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica C. Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW 132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 Facsimile: (617) 583-1905 E-mail: emirabella@gnemlaw.com - and - Matthew E. Miller, Esq. William H. Anderson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 - and - Jon Herskowitz, Esq. BARON & HERSKOWITZ 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-0101 Facsimile: (305) 670-2393 ********* 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 * * *