/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140818.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 18, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 163 Headlines ACI DIRECT: Faces "Shields" Suit Over Unpaid OT Pursuant to FLSA ADAM LANDSCAPING: "Meza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Hours ADOBE SYSTEMS: $325-Mil. Settlement Offer Too Low, Court Ruled ADVANCE PARTNERSHIP: "Ahmed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT AKOTA CORP: "Khan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ALUMINUM & VINYL: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Klimczak" Suit Says AMERICAN CARGO: Faces "Hughes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AMERICAN HOME: Chesley Liable for $42MM Judgment in Fen-Phen Suit AMERICAN INT'L: Settles Securities Class Action for $970.5 Mil. AMERICAN SIGNATURE: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ANTHEM BLUE: Sued Over Alleged Failure to Send Insurance Card ATC FITNESS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Mulls Suit Over Oakley Water Contamination AUSTRALIA: Lex Wotton Leads Class Action Over Riots BAROLO RISTORANTE: Faces "Chamorro" Suit over Violation of FLSA BAY RIDGE: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages BROOKLYN FEDERAL: October 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set BP PLC: Files Petition to Enforce Claimants to Prove Fin'l Harm BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Judge Approves $6.8MM Class Action Settlement BUFFA A LLC: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages BUFFALO BILLS: Cheerleaders' Wage Theft Class Action Can Proceed CA LAW ENFORCEMENT: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Retirement Law Breach CALIFORNIA: Fees May Be Paid to Counsel of Diabetic Students CANADA: Court Approves RCMP Veterans Class Action Settlement CHINA COMMERCIAL: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act COASTAL COURIER: "Awai" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime DALLAS COWBOYS: Cannot Be Sued on Super Bowl XLV Seating Dispute DCH AUTO GROUP: Doesn't Want to Pay Premium Wages, Action Claims DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action EDAP TMS: Faces "Haddad" Suit Over Breach of Securities Law EDAP TMS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York ELECTRONIC GAME: Discovery Stay Not Violated, 9th Cir. Says EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces "Davis" Suit in E.D. Wash Over SoftTest FACEBOOK INC: Faces Data-Privacy Class Action in Austria FACEBOOK INC: 17,000+ People Join Privacy Class Action FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Updated Conservatorship Litigation Chart FORMIA MARBLE: Fails to Workers Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Says GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Nondisclosure of Adverse Facts GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Responds to Securities Class Action GEORGE AVENUE: Faces "Moya" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces "Siriano" Suit Over Damaged Products HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Stalling Defect in Santa Fe Vehicles IMAX CORP: Funds in Securities Suit Accord Distributed to Class IMAX CORP: Settlement Order in Canadian Stock Lawsuit Stands IMPACT ACQUISITIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Krupp" Suit Claims INDYMAC: Settles Securities Class Action for $340 Million INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Shapiro Haber Files Securities Class Action JADE RESTORATION: Faces "Cordova" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT JOHNS HOPKINS: Levy Victims Have Until Nov. 14 to Register KODIAK OIL: Being Sold at Unfair Price, "Reiter" Suit Claims L & K RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Misrepresented Company Facts LOCKHEED MARTIN: Employees' 401(K) Class Action Approved for Trial MACQUARIE GROUP: Class Action Lawyers Amid Compliance Breaches MICHELINOS PIZZERIA: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Says MODA HEALTH PLAN: Sued Over Exclusion of ABA Therapy Coverage NAT'L COLLEGIATE: September 19 Concussion Settlement Hearing Set NAT'L FOOTBALL: Retired Players' Concussion Suit Nears Settlement NIPPON SEIKI: November 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set NEIMAN MARCUS: Accused of Deceiving Consumers in California NELNET BUSINESS: Got Prelim. OK of Deal in Collection Calls Suit OLD WORLD BRICK: Faces "Solorzano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PARTS AUTHORITY: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Don" Suit Claims PAWSITIVE SERVICE: Faces Fraud Class Action in California PELLA CORPORATION: Sued Over Latent Defects in Clad Windows PENN WEST: Sued in N.Y. Over Manipulation of Financial Report PENN WEST: Wolf Popper Law Firm Files Class Action in New York PENN WEST: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action PFIZER INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Patent Protection QR ENERGY: Faces "Taylor" Action Over Sale to Brietburn Energy ROYAL CARRIBEAN: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Labor Suit SANDFORD OIL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Faces Personal Injury Suit Over Lead in Paint SOUTH AFRICA: Class Action v. EC Education Department Postponed STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations STARDUST DINERS: "Rosa" Suit in Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces RICO Act Violation Suit in Wisconsin SUPERVALU INC: Seeks Review of Judgment in Suit Over C&S Deal SUPERVALU INC: Seeks Final Approval of FWW Suit Settlement TEREX CORP: Motions to Dismiss Securities, ERISA Lawsuits Pending TIRE SHOP: Faces "Ferrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TK RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Reyes" Suit Claims TOLEDO MUDLOGGING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages TRANSNET: Pensioners' Class Action to Hit Expansion Program TRULIA INC: Being Sold to Zillow for Too Little, Suit Claims UNITED REFINING: Sued in Pa. Over Violation of Disabilities Act UNITED STATES: Black Secret Service Agents' Bias Suit Can Proceed VISA INC: Consumer Interchange Litigation Transferred to MDL 1720 VISA INC: Plaintiffs Pursue Bid to Amend U.S. ATM Access Fee Suit VISA INC: Wants to Separate Data Breach Suit From Case v. Target VISA INC: Provides Updates on Merchant Litigations in Canada WCS SERVICES: "Hicks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over False Marketing of Yogurt YELP INC: Faces "Curry" Suit Over Misleading Financial Report ********* ACI DIRECT: Faces "Shields" Suit Over Unpaid OT Pursuant to FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Shields, on his own behalf and for all others similary situated v. ACI Direct, Inc., (d/b/a Aero Communications, Inc.), and Time Warner Cable, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01722 (N.D. Ohio, August 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provides services include installing and maintaining cable equipment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Nealon, Esq. Michael L. Fine, Esq. OHIO CONSUMER LAWYER Ste. 1300, 55 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 456-2486 Facsimile: (216) 456-2487 E-mail: djnealon@gmail.com mfine@ohioconsumerlawyer.com - and - Lewis A. Zipkin, Esq. Markus S. Lyytinen, Esq. ZIPKIN WHITING, LPA 3637 South Green Road Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 514-6400 x 324 Facsimile: (216) 514-6406 E-mail: zfwlpa@aol.com mlyytinenzipkinwhiting@gmail.com ADAM LANDSCAPING: "Meza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Hours -------------------------------------------------------------- Isac Meza, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Adam Landscaping LLC d/b/a Adam Landscaping and Dennis M. Nardone, Case No. 1:14-cv-06185 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid spread of hours premium, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Adam Landscaping LLC is a landscaping service company located at 143 Wilkins Avenue, Port Chester, NY 10573. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-576-1857 Facsimile: 212-576-1888 ADOBE SYSTEMS: $325-Mil. Settlement Offer Too Low, Court Ruled -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on August 8, 2014, rejected a $325 million class action settlement that accused Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel of conspiring to restrict tech workers' wages, finding the offer too low: outside "the range of reasonableness." U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh denied the plaintiffs' request for preliminary approval of the settlement. Class representatives Mark Fichtner, Siddharth Hariharan and Daniel Stover sought preliminary approval of the settlement in April. In May, a number of class members submitted letters supporting and opposing the proposed amount. Software engineers, on behalf of an estimated class of 64,000, sued the tech giants, plus Intuit and Walt Disney subsidiaries LucasFilm and Pixar, in 2010, over illegal "no cold-call agreements" that restricted or eliminated competition for high- tech employees, which "disrupted the normal price-setting mechanism that apply in the labor setting." The poaching ban, workers claimed, maintained internal salary structures at the companies from 2005 to 2009, and involved "gentleman's agreements" via CEO-to-CEO emails between the late Steve Jobs and other leading Silicon Valley CEOs. Five cases underlying the consolidated action were filed in California Superior Court and removed to Federal Court. On August 8, 2014, Koh ruled that although "ample evidence" showed an overarching conspiracy between the defendants, the proposed settlement was "proportionally lower" -- per class member -- than that of a separate $20 million settlement with Lucasfilm, Pixar and Intuit, in 2013. "Pursuant to the terms of the instant settlement, class members who have not already opted out and who do not opt out will relinquish their rights to file suit against the remaining defendants for the claims at issue in this case," the 32-page ruling states. "In exchange, remaining defendants will pay a total of $324.5 million, of which plaintiffs' counsel may seek up to 25 percent (approximately $81 million) in attorneys' fees, $1.2 million in costs, and $80,000 per class representative in incentive payments. In addition, the settlement allows remaining defendants a pro rata reduction in the total amount they must pay if more than 4 percent of class members opt out after receiving notice. Class members would receive an average of approximately $3,750 from the instant settlement if the court were to grant all requested deductions and there were no further opt-outs." Koh repeatedly said the proposed settlement fell "below the range of reasonableness," and that the settlement at hand would need to total $380 million to match the previous amount. "This court has lived with this case for nearly three years, and during that time, the court has reviewed a significant number of documents in adjudicating not only the substantive motions, but also the voluminous sealing requests," Koh wrote. "Having done so, the court cannot conclude that the instant settlement falls within the range of reasonableness." Koh said ample evidence pointed to an overarching conspiracy between the defendants that led to "a class-wide depression of wages." "As this court stated in its summary judgment order, there is ample evidence of an overarching conspiracy between the seven defendants, including '[t]he similarities in the various agreements, the small number of intertwining high-level executives who entered into and enforced the agreements, defendants' knowledge about the other agreements, the sharing and benchmarking of confidential compensation information among defendants and even between firms that did not have bilateral anti-solicitation agreements, along with defendants' expansion and attempted expansion of the anti-solicitation agreements,'" the ruling states. "The evidence of defendants' rigid wage structures and internal equity concerns, along with statements from defendants' own executives, are likely to prove compelling in establishing the impact of the anti-solicitation agreements: a class-wide depression of wages." Koh said she was "troubled" that the proposed $324.5 million settlement, reached "a mere month" before" trial, was "proportionally lower" than settlements with the settled defendants. "This concern is magnified by the fact that the case evolved in plaintiffs' favor since those settlements. At the time those settlements were reached, defendants still could have defeated class certification before this court, defendants still could have successfully sought appellate review and reversal of any class certification, defendants still could have prevailed on summary judgment, or defendants still could have succeeded in their attempt to exclude plaintiffs' principal expert," Koh wrote. "In contrast, the instant settlement was reached a mere month before trial was set to commence and after these opportunities for defendants had evaporated. While the unpredictable nature of trial would have undoubtedly posed challenges for plaintiffs, the exposure for defendants was even more substantial, both in terms of the potential of more than $9 billion in damages and in terms of other collateral consequences, including the spotlight that would have been placed on the evidence discussed in this order and other evidence and testimony that would have been brought to light. The procedural history and proximity to trial should have increased, not decreased, plaintiffs' leverage from the time the settlements with the settled defendants were reached a year ago." Koh credited class counsel for acting as "zealous advocates" for clients against their "extraordinarily well-resourced adversaries." "The court acknowledges that class counsel have been zealous advocates for the class and have funded this litigation themselves against extraordinarily well-resourced adversaries. Moreover, there very well may be weaknesses and challenges in plaintiffs' case that counsel cannot reveal to this court," the ruling states. "Nonetheless, the court concludes that the remaining defendants should, at a minimum, pay their fair share as compared to the settled defendants, who resolved their case with plaintiffs at a stage of the litigation where defendants had much more leverage over plaintiffs." A case management conference is scheduled for September 10. The consolidated case is captioned In Re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. ADVANCE PARTNERSHIP: "Ahmed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Rawad Ahmed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advance/Newhouse Partnership d/b/a Bright House Networks, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-01885 (M.D. Fla., August 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and minimum wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Advance/Newhouse Partnership provides cable, internet, and telephone subscriptions and services in the State of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christine M. Jalbert, Esq. Sam Jones Smith, Esq. Burr & Smith, LLP Suite 300, 442 W Kennedy Blvd Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 253-2010 Facsimile: (813) 254-8391 E-mail: cjalbert@burrandsmithlaw.com ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com - and - Eric Dirks, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 Facsimile: (816) 221-8763 E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com AKOTA CORP: "Khan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- Sunjary Khan, MD Abdur Rashid, MD Mollik Shamim Reza, MD Rasel Miah, Abu Taher, Khaleda Taher, MD Zakir Hossain, and other similarly situated past and present employees v. Akota Corp. d/b/a Subway, Akota One Corp. d/b/a Subway, Akota Two Corp. d/b/a Subway, Akota Corp. 3 d/b/a Subway, Akota Four Corp. d/b/a Subway, Akota Five Corp. d/b/a Subway, Akota Six Corp. d/b/a Subway, Akota Corp 6. d/b/a Subway, Akota Seven Corp. d/b/a Subway, Akota Eight Corp. d/b/a Subway and Mohammed Z. Matin, Case No. 1:14-cv-06201 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, minimum wages, overtime compensation and spread of hours pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operated as the well-established franchise Subways, which is engaged in the service of the sale of sandwiches and other foods to the public. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andreas George Geroulakis, Esq. ROBERT J. RENNA, P.C. 26 Court Street, Suite 303 Brooklyn, NY 11242 Telephone: (718) 422-1003 Facsimile: (718) 422-1156 E-mail: ageroulakis@gmail.com ALUMINUM & VINYL: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Klimczak" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Zdzislaw Klimczak, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by Aluminum & Vinyl Product Inc., d/b/a RK Windows, and/or Mark Klich; and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by Aluminum & Vinyl Product Inc., d/b/a RK Windows, and Mark Klich, v. Aluminum & Vinyl Product Inc., d/b/a Rk Windows, and Mark Klich, and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by Aluminum & Vinyl Product Inc., d/b/a RK Windows, and Mark Klich, Case No. 1:14-cv-04675 (E.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Aluminum & Vinyl Product Inc. is New York a corporation, with its principal place of business at 215 Norman Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 11222, and is engaged in the construction business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Lee Genova, Esq. Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: agenova@vandallp.com lambinder@vandallp.com AMERICAN CARGO: Faces "Hughes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Hughes and Ismael Alvarado, both individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. Henry Osorno and Douglas Beaton, Case No. 2:14-cv-01783 (E.D. La., August 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Henry Osorno is the President of American Cargo Assurance, Inc., a Louisiana corporation headquartered in Kenner, Louisiana, which provides inspection, sampling, and inventory control for petroleum and petrochemical products. Douglas Beaton is the Director of Operations of American Cargo Assurance, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. BOHRER LAW FIRM 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: 225-231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com AMERICAN HOME: Chesley Liable for $42MM Judgment in Fen-Phen Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Kentucky judge has ruled that a once-prominent plaintiffs attorney should also be liable for the $42 million judgment against the attorneys who scammed their clients during fen-phen litigation. Boone County Circuit Court Judge James R. Schrand entered an order on July 29 that holds Stanley Chesley jointly and severally liable for the $42 million judgment entered years ago against three Lexington, Ky.-area lawyers -- Shirley Cunningham, William Gallion and Melbourne Mills Jr. Mr. Chesley, who is married to a federal judge and was once a major donor to Democratic candidates, was disbarred by the Kentucky Supreme Court, suspended by the U.S. Supreme Court for 40 days and ordered to show cause why he shouldn't be disbarred by the high court. Ms. Cunningham and Mr. Gallion were sentenced to 20 years in federal prison for their actions. In 2013, Mr. Chesley retired from the practice of law. During the fen-phen class action litigation, Mr. Chesley received $20.5 million of a $200 million settlement. "Chesley signed on as co-counsel representing the Plaintiffs in the Guard matter when he entered into his fee-division contract with Gallion, Cunningham and Mills," Judge Schrand wrote. "Chesley shared the common purpose to be carried with Gallion, Cunningham and Mills. They agreed on how they would share the work and how they would share the profits. Chesley maintained a voice in the managerial control of the enterprise. "The Court therefore finds that . . . Chesley is jointly and severally liable with Gallion, Cunningham and Mills for the damages the Plaintiffs suffered." The lawsuit at issue is Darla Guard, et al or Jonetta Moore, et al v. A.H. Robins Company, et al. The suit, filed in Boone Circuit Court in 1998, sought damages for injuries from the diet drug known as fen-phen. Mr. Chesley was one of the four attorneys involved in the 2001 settlement with American Home Products, the manufacturer of the drug. The others were Ms. Cunningham, Mr. Gallion and Mr. Mills. The lawyers received roughly 50 percent of the $200 million settlement. Their 431 clients received the rest. Mr. Chesley, himself, collected a $20.5 million fee for negotiating the settlement. The clients later sued the lawyers for allegedly breaching their duties by diverting most of the settlement money to themselves. They were awarded $42 million. In 2009, Ms. Cunningham and Mr. Gallion were sentenced to 20 years in federal prison for their roles in stealing the settlement money. Mr. Mills was acquitted of all charges. All three have lost their law licenses. Judge Joseph F. Bamberger, a senior status special judge who approved the settlement, later resigned when it was revealed he was paid $5,000 a month as a director of a phony charitable entity, The Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living, which was funded by the settlement and allegedly directed by the lawyers. Mr. Chesley, never charged in the criminal case, has maintained he was not co-counsel for the plaintiffs and was not aware that the other attorneys were deceiving their clients. He simply was brought in to negotiate the settlement, he has said. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court disbarred him in March 2013 and called his $20.5 million fee "unreasonable." Attorneys received half of the $200 million settlement. "He has shown nothing to demonstrate that he expended a great deal of time and labor on the case," Chief Justice John D. Minton Jr. wrote for the court. "The issues of liability were not particularly difficult or novel, and even if they were, Respondent did not do the heavy-lifting on that aspect of the case." In August 2013, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the $42 million judgment against the attorneys for which Mr. Chesley is now jointly and severally liable. Punitive damages could also be added. AMERICAN INT'L: Settles Securities Class Action for $970.5 Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, a lead counsel 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, on Aug. 4 disclosed that settlements totaling $970.5 million have been reached in the case. The recovery was achieved by BR&B client, the State of Michigan Retirement Systems, as the Court-appointed lead plaintiff, after six years of intense litigation, which included the completion of all fact witness discovery and full briefing, an evidentiary hearing, and argument on lead plaintiff's motion for class certification. The settlements were reached through negotiations spanning over two years, with the assistance of mediator Layn Phillips, a former U.S. District Court Judge. 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. Leonard Barrack -- lbarrack@barrack.com -- the senior partner of Barrack Rodos & Bacine, stated: "We brought this case to protect the interests of investors. We are very pleased that we were able to achieve this recovery, and look forward to presenting the settlements to the Court for its consideration." Jeffrey Golan, who served as the firm's primary counsel in the case, added: "We are honored to have served as a lead counsel for this case and to have achieved this recovery for the class. We also congratulate Michigan's State Treasurer, Attorney General and the State of Michigan Retirement Systems, who stepped up to the plate to oversee the prosecution of this important case, and encourage all members of the class to retain their records showing their purchases, sales and holdings of AIG stock and other securities within the class period, pending the Court's consideration of the settlements." According to BR&B partner, Robert Hoffman, "the proposed securities class action settlement is one of the largest ever achieved in the absence of a criminal indictment or an SEC enforcement action, and demonstrates the importance of private securities litigation as a means of recovery for injured investors." Persons with questions concerning the settlement or the case in general may contact Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 963- 0600, www.barrack.com AMERICAN SIGNATURE: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Garrick Davis and other similarly situated individuals v. American Signature, Inc., a Foreign Profit Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-22881 (S.D. Fla., August 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. American Signature, Inc. is a privately owned furniture company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com ANTHEM BLUE: Sued Over Alleged Failure to Send Insurance Card ------------------------------------------------------------- Cristin Severance, writing for ABC10News, reports that a woman called Team 10 after fighting for months to get repaid thousands of dollars by her insurance company. Laura Schove of Carlsbad said she paid out-of-pocket for a procedure to help her continue to walk and function because she was never given an insurance card. Ms. Schove has had multiple sclerosis for 20 years. She just started to need a cane to walk after what she called an episode nine months ago. She said her neurologist recommended getting a five-day infusion treatment. Ms. Schove had signed up for Anthem Blue Cross in December. They had not sent her an ID card. "I had the entire neurology office, staff, MS assistant . . . everyone was working to call the insurance company to get answers," said Mr. Schove. She said Anthem Blue Cross could not tell her what was covered or who was in-network. "The patient is left with a difficult choice: Do I pay out of pocket or do I wait?" said Jerry Flanagan, an attorney at Consumer Watchdog. The consumer advocacy group just filed a class-action lawsuit against Anthem Blue Cross claiming the company did not send ID cards and gave incorrect information about coverage. Ms. Schove paid the biofusion company $2,000 for the procedure. She said she tried for seven months to get reimbursed. "I never got to anybody that knew anything," said Ms. Schove. She finally got a letter that said they would pay $350 out of $2,000. "I mean, it got the Irish up in me," Ms. Schove said. "I was angry. How could they do this?" Mr. Flanagan is hoping to get Ms. Schove and others reimbursed through the class-action lawsuit. Anthem Blue Cross gave Team 10 this statement: "This member purchased an EPO plan, which has no out-of-network benefits. While the member saw an out-of-network provider, and as a courtesy, Anthem agreed to pay the claim as in network at the maximum allowed rate. As you know, there is great variability in what providers charge for the same treatment to different people. Unfortunately, it appears that the provider may have charged the member an amount exceeding what insurers usually pay for the same procedure." ATC FITNESS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Vogenberger, on his own behalf and all similarly situated individuals v. ATC Fitness Cape Coral, LLC, ATC Fitness Fort Myers, LLC, ATC Fitness Fort Myers 2, LLC, and 3F Management, LLC, a Florida profit corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00436 (M.D. Fla., August 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Defendants own, maintain, and run health and fitness club. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ross Frisch Morgan & Morgan, PA Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Mulls Suit Over Oakley Water Contamination -------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Burgess, writing for ABC News, reports that a law firm is gauging interest in a class action against the Australian Defence Force (ADF) over possible water contamination near a base on the Darling Downs. The ADF is investigating the possibility that chemicals used in firefighting at its Oakey Army Aviation Base entered groundwater. Peter Shannon from Shine Lawyers says although there is no evidence of harm yet, affected landholders need to consider all the legal safeguards open to them. "It's the most immediate reaction that most people have -- what are my rights, how do I go about protecting myself and what compensation am I entitled to if in fact I've suffered damage?" he said. "So it is the first thing that in our society people think of when they've been wronged civilly." Mr. Shannon says he would prefer to avoid litigation altogether. "We've got a long way to go here," he said. AUSTRALIA: Lex Wotton Leads Class Action Over Riots --------------------------------------------------- National Indigenous Times reports that Palm Islander Lex Wotton has launched a racial discrimination class action in the Federal Court against the State of Queensland and the Queensland Police Commissioner over the actions of the police leading up to and during the Palm Island riots. Mr. Wotton, who served a jail term and became the first Australian to have a gag order placed upon him, has always maintained he was targeted by police. BAROLO RISTORANTE: Faces "Chamorro" Suit over Violation of FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Barney Chamorro, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Barolo Ristorante, LLC, Case No. 9:14-cv-81019 (S.D. Fla., August 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Barolo Ristorante, LLC owns and operates a restaurant located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Markel, Esq. THE MARKEL LAW FIRM 3191 Grand Ave., #1531 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 458-1282 Facsimile: (800) 407-1718 E-mail: david.markel@markel-law.com BAY RIDGE: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald A. Stewart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bay Ridge Nissan, Inc., Bram Auto Group, Ignazio Iacono, John Iacono, and Manny Lacitra, Case No. 1:14-cv-04647 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay required minimum wage and overtime rate and made improper deductions from their pay pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate numerous automobile dealerships. The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl J. Stoecker, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KARL J. STOECKER 22 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 100 Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (646) 761-8692 Facsimile: (212) 818-9055 E-mail: kjs@kjslawfirm.com BROOKLYN FEDERAL: October 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Investors Bancorp, Inc., the holding company for Investors Bank, notifies all public record and beneficial holders of common stock of Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. at any time from August 17, 2011 (the date its merger into the Company was publicly announced) to and including January 6, 2012 (the effective date of consummation of the merger), but excluding all defendants in the consolidated action pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, encaptioned Joseph Underwood and Russ Bastin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Daniel O. Reich, Angelo J. Di Lorenzo, Gregg J. Wagner, Arthur R. Williams, Rebecca Northey, Mark Hughes, Richard A. Kielty, Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc., BFS Bancorp, MHC, Brooklyn Federal Savings Bank, Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bancorp, MHC, and Investors Savings Bank, Index No. 500690/2011 and any person, trust, corporation or other entity related to or affiliated with any of them and their successors in interest. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the pendency of the Action, which was brought by Brooklyn Federal Bancorp stockholders for themselves and on behalf of the Class against Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, the members of the Board of Directors of Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, BFS Bancorp, MHC, Brooklyn Federal Savings Bank, Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bancorp, MHC, and Investors Savings Bank. The Action has now been settled pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release dated March 6, 2013, and is subject to the approval of the Court. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WILL AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS. Your interests are being represented in the Action by counsel for the Plaintiffs who are Brian Kerr, Esq., Brower Piven, a Professional Corporation, 475 Park Avenue South, 33(rd) Floor, New York, New York 10016 and Evan J. Smith, Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 240 Mineola Boulevard, Mineola, New York 11501. This notice is only a summary of the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement and Settlement Hearing being provided to members of the Class with respect to the Action. If you are a member of the Class and have not received the Notice, you may obtain one by contacting Registrar and Transfer Company, 10 Commerce Drive, Cranford, New Jersey 07016, Telephone No. (908) 497-2300. Please note that the deadline for any objections to the settlement, class certification, or Plaintiffs' counsel's application for fees and expenses is September 23, 2014, and the hearing by the Court to consider the fairness of the settlement will be held on October 23, 2014 at the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, located at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201. Any individual or entity that is a non- New York resident falling with the definition of the Class that does not want to participate in the settlement may be excluded, solely for the purpose of pursuing potential claims for monetary damages, in the manner set forth in the Notice, no later than September 23, 2014. BP PLC: Files Petition to Enforce Claimants to Prove Fin'l Harm --------------------------------------------------------------- Collin Eaton, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that BP is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a battle over who should receive monetary damages related to the Gulf oil spill. The London oil company on Aug. 1 filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to enforce requirements for claimants to prove they can join a class-action settlement that has poured billions of dollars into Gulf Coast pockets to fix economic wreckage left by the spill. BP said the Supreme Court should reverse lower-court decisions that approved a settlement class with "vast numbers" of claimants who weren't financially harmed by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, and require claimants to show evidence that losses were due to the spill. After a defeat in a lower court, the company said in May it would look to take the legal fight to the high court. Current interpretations of the settlement, BP said, contradict class-action law as well as the Supreme Court's long-held interpretation of a section of the Constitution that requires a plaintiff to trace its injury to a defendant's actions. Those lower court rulings also depart from similar rulings adopted by several other appeals courts and deepen a circuit-court conflict over how class-action members are defined, the energy company said. The petition follows other recent moves by BP to play hard ball in the courts on oil spill compensation. In June, BP said it would seek millions of dollars in restitution for erroneous payments to Gulf cash-based businesses under an overturned accounting policy in the settlement. In 2012, BP had reached one of the largest class-action settlements in U.S. history, agreeing to resolve thousands of claims of economic losses along the Gulf Coast. It had originally estimated it would cost $7.8 billion, though the settlement was uncapped. It later said it could no longer provide a reliable estimate of those settlement costs. Prior requests denied In recent months, BP has argued that business claimants were required to show their losses were tied directly to the spill. Lower courts have denied its prior requests to throw out the settlement if the class included claimants who were not directly affected by the accident. In its petition to the high court, BP argued some Gulf Coast business have been allowed to gorge themselves on a windfall of unwarranted compensation. That, BP claimed, is largely because of a misinterpretation of the settlement that a claimant doesn't need to prove its losses were caused by the spill once it meets certain settlement criteria, such as geographic proximity to the spill. BP said more than $600 million in "illegitimate" payments have gone to claimants who reside far from the Gulf or whose losses could not have been linked to the spill. In May, the 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals denied BP a full-court rehearing on the matter, after it had upheld a district court's approval of the settlement despite some claimants that weren't affected by the spill. The accord had set up certain parameters, including geographic zones, to define some claimants in the settlement class. The appeals court's decision "greatly expands the potential for sprawling, disjointed classes, potentially jeopardizing defendants' willingness to enter into settlement agreements that could be misinterpreted to permit claims by uninjured class members," BP said in the petition, stressing that this case has ramifications beyond it. The company added: "And it does all this in the context of a dispute that itself implicates hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to claimants with no plausible cause of action against BP." 130,000 pending claims In an emailed statement, plaintiffs' co-lead counsel Steve Herman and Jim Roy said that BP "co-wrote and agreed to every word in the settlement agreement. It is not surprising that the courts have all told BP to honor its word." More than $3.96 billion in payments have been made to about 46,000 claimants, according to the claims administrator, Patrick Juneau. BP said there are around 130,000 pending claims, and the number continues to grow. It said it has made about $546 million in payments to claimants who "reside far from the Gulf Coast and are engaged in business activities that bear no logical connection to the spill." And, the company said, it has also made $76 million in payments to claimants whose losses had nothing to do with the spill, such as businesses with warehouses that had burned down before the spill. "If companies cannot have faith that class-action settlements will be enforced in accordance with these well-established principles of class-action law, then they will be more inclined to litigate than settle, resulting in years of court proceedings and delayed justice for real victims," BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an emailed statement. BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Judge Approves $6.8MM Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Blythe Bernhard, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that a $6.8 million class action settlement for residents who live closest to the smoldering Bridgeton Landfill is fair, reasonable and adequate, a federal judge has ruled. About three-quarters of residents in the 400 homes closest to the landfill agreed to the settlement reached in April for enduring foul odors from an underground fire that started more than three years ago. Judge Thomas Mummert approved the settlement on Aug. 1 in U.S. District Court to conclude a lawsuit filed against landfill owner Republic Services last year on behalf of six Bridgeton residents. After attorneys' costs, the settlement equals $26,250 per household in the Spanish Village subdivision, $15,375 in the Terrisan Reste mobile home community and about $3,900 in the Carrollton Village condominiums, all in Bridgeton. The awards will go to 947 of 1,244 eligible residents who signed participation papers. Those who did not participate had until Aug. 8 to change their minds. Anyone who accepts the settlement cannot file any further nuisance claims for property damage due to the landfill's odor. "Hopefully the landfill is being properly remediated and the underground reaction is being contained and controlled, and there won't be any need for further litigation," said plaintiffs' attorney Ted Gianaris of the Simmons Law Firm in Alton. Republic Services has spent more than $100 million on odor improvement projects, according to Russ Knocke, a company spokesman. "Still, we are the first to acknowledge that odors have been a source of considerable concern and frustration for our neighbors, and we truly regret any inconvenience they have endured," Mr. Knocke said in a statement. "We also wish to extend our sincere appreciation to our neighbors for their continued understanding and patience while we do everything within our power to rectify a complex and unfortunate situation; one which we did not create." There were 27 residents who filed objections to the settlement with the court. Most objected to the amount of the settlement and had questions regarding upcoming work on the landfill. "The chemicals being released by the landfill have not been proven to my satisfaction that they are harmless," wrote Mary Beth Sutterfield, a resident of the Carrollton condominiums, in a letter to the court. "I have experienced breathing issues since the beginning of the landfill odor issue and now cannot enjoy fair weather days and nights with my windows open." Judge Mummert overruled the objections in his final approval of the settlement. According to the agreement, plaintiffs' attorneys are entitled to 25 percent of the settlement, or about $1.2 million in fees and $250,000 in expenses. The odors are expected to get worse when construction begins on a barrier between the Bridgeton Landfill and the adjacent West Lake Landfill, where nuclear waste was dumped in the 1970s. The work to keep the fire from reaching the radioactive waste, which was supposed to start in June, has been delayed as the location for the barrier is determined by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. A spokesman for the EPA said on Aug. 4 that there are no updates on the construction schedule. "All those people that just took that settlement can't do anything about it," said Tonya Mason, who has lived in Spanish Village since 2006. "I think the smell is going to be so hideous that we aren't going to be able to live here." Some residents say they are holding out for a buyout of their homes. The EPA, which is responsible for the cleanup of West Lake under its Superfund toxic sites program, has said buyouts are not an option in part because the landfill does not pose a health risk to residents. A lawsuit filed last year by Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster against the waste management company for environmental violations related to the landfills is ongoing, and more class action suits from residents are expected. BUFFA A LLC: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Claudio Garcia, Jose Alfredo Licona, and Benito Velazquez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Buffa A LLC d/b/a Calexico, Brian Vendley, David Vendley Jesse Vendley, Peter Oleyer, Anthony Fauci, and John Does #1 jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-06196 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread hours premiums, unlawful deductions, unlawful kickbacks and statutory penalties for notice-and-record-keeping violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Buffa A LLC is a non-publicly traded New York domestic business corporation operating a restaurant at 153 Rivington Street, New York, New York 10002. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Gerald Eisner, Esq. EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 113 University Place New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 473-8700 Facsimile: (212) 473-8705 E-mail: gene@eisnerassociates.com BUFFALO BILLS: Cheerleaders' Wage Theft Class Action Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Erbacher, writing for WKBW, reports that a class action wage theft lawsuit brought by Buffalo Jills cheerleaders against the Buffalo Bills, Citadel Communications, and Stejon Productions, will proceed in New York State Supreme Court in Buffalo, after a judge's ruling to deny two attempts to dismiss the case. Attorneys for the Buffalo Bills and Citadel Communications each filed motions to dismiss the wage theft lawsuit. Bills attorneys argued the cheerleading squad was under the control of a managing company, and had no involvement in how much cheerleaders were paid. Citadel, the operators of the squad until 2012, argued that Jills cheerleaders signed on as independent contractors, and not as employees. Attorneys for the Buffalo Jills cheerleaders argue the women were misclassified as independent contractors, and were entitled to a minimum wage that their employers failed to pay. They also say they can prove the Bills organization "exerted control over the Jills." Honorable Judge Timothy J. Drury ruled in favor of the Jills in court on July 31, denying both motions to dismiss the case. Judge Drury wrote in his decision: "The minute control that Citadel and Stejon exercised over the work of the cheerleaders supports the conclusion that they were not independent contractors but employees. The Bills insisted that Citadel and Stejon obtain the agreement from each of the cheerleaders that they were independent contractors and the Bills directed that the agreements be returned promptly to them. These facts are further indication of the control the Bill exercised over the Jills cheerleaders despite the fact that they were in the nominal employment of the subcontractors." Stejon Productions was not involved in any motions to dismiss this case. Its president, Stephanie Mateczun, is shedding new light on her organization's decision to shut down Jills operations for the 2014 season. According to attorneys for the Jills, the Buffalo Bills had told Mateczun that they would supplement the wages of Jills cheerleaders this season. The Bills allegedly backed out when the class action wage theft suit was filed. As a result, the Bills first preseason home game on August 23rd will be the first time in 47 years that the team will take the field in Orchard Park without the Buffalo Jills. CA LAW ENFORCEMENT: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Retirement Law Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- William David Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. California Law Enforcement Association Long-Term Disability Benefit Plan, California Law Enforcement Association, and California Administration Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-03559 (N.D. Cal., August 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Defendants provide long-term disability benefits to disabled members of its member organizations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Teresa Renaker, Esq. LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 476-9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 E-mail: trenaker@lewisfeinberg.com CALIFORNIA: Fees May Be Paid to Counsel of Diabetic Students ------------------------------------------------------------ Fees may be available to attorneys who monitored California's compliance with a settlement for diabetic public school students, the 9th Circuit ruled on August 11, 2014, according to Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service. California headed off a proposed class action by four students and the American Diabetes Association in 2005 when it agreed to settle claims that it had failed to provide needed services for diabetics in public schools. Under the terms of the 2007 settlement, which awarded $400,000 in attorneys' fees, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney retained ancillary jurisdiction over the case in San Francisco until January 24, 2010. Nearly two years after that date had passed, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed fees motion for their work monitoring the California Department of Education's implementation of the terms of the settlement. Judge Chesney denied the move, however, saying that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue because the settlement agreement had expired. A three-judge appellate panel reversed on August 11, 2014, finding that the federal court had retained ancillary jurisdiction over attorneys' fees in the case. To find otherwise would be to defeat the purpose of ancillary jurisdiction in the first place, which is "to enable a federal court to render a judgment that resolves the entire case before it and to effectuate its judgment once it has been rendered," the panel ruled, quoting a previous decision from the 7th Circuit. "Requiring a separate lawsuit -- that hypothetically would invoke federal question jurisdiction -- not only would interfere with the district court's powers to render a judgment that resolves the entire case and to effectuate its judgment, but also would harm judicial economy and efficiency," Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote for the court. "Practically speaking, any such separate 'attorneys' fees only' lawsuit likely would be referred to the district judge who presided over the underlying lawsuit anyway." The panel remanded the question to San Francisco, leaving it to the lower court to decide "whether to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees." The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Donna Brorby, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DONNA BRORBY 315 Hugo Street San Francisco, CA 94122 Telephone: (415) 377-8285 E-mail: brorbylaw@earthlink.net - and - Arlene B. Mayerson, Esq. Larisa M. Cummings, Esq. Charlotte L. Lanvers, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND, INC. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94703 Telephone: (510) 644-2555 Facsimile: (510) 841-8645 E-mail: lcummngs@dredf.org The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: Paul E. Lacy, Esq. Amy Bisson Holloway, Esq. Edmundo Aguilar, Esq. Ava C. Yajima, Esq. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 1430 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5901 Telephone: (916) 319-0800 E-mail: eaguilar@cde.ca.gov ava.yajima@cde.ca.gov The appellate case is K.C., et al. v. Tom Torlakson, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of California, Case No. 12-16178, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District Court case is K.C., et al. v. Tom Torlakson, Case No. 3:05-cv-04077-MMC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. CANADA: Court Approves RCMP Veterans Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The Canadian Press reports that the Federal Court has approved a multimillion-dollar class-action settlement for a group of disabled RCMP veterans whose disability payments were clawed back. The case involved 1,056 Mounties whose long-term disability payments were reduced by the amount of their monthly disability benefits from the Veterans Affairs Department. The estimated value of the settlement is C$70 million. That includes C$30.6 million in retroactive payments, C$9.1 million in interest on those payments and C$30.3 million in future benefits. The proposed agreement also means the reduction would end for all RCMP veterans now receiving benefits and Mounties who are medically released in the future. The case was launched in 2008 by Gerard Buote, but was taken over by David White after Mr. Buote died from cancer the following year. One of Mr. White's lawyers said he was pleased with the Aug. 5 decision. "It ensures that the members of this class receive what they rightly deserve, and we are grateful to Gerry and David for their dedication to this cause," Dan Wallace said in a statement. The case was almost identical to one that a judge deemed harsh and unfair in a class-action lawsuit by military veterans, who were awarded a C$887.8-million settlement after a former army sergeant took the government to court in 2007. CHINA COMMERCIAL: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Dennison, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., Huichun Qin, Long Yi, Jianmin Yin, Jingeng Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, John F. Levy, Case No. 2:14-cv-04956 (D.N.J., August 6, 2014), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933. China Commercial Credit, Inc. is a financial services firm operating in the People's Republic of China. It provides direct loans and loan guarantee services to small-to-medium sized businesses, farmers and individuals in the city of Wujiang, Jiangsu Province. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com COASTAL COURIER: "Awai" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Awai, Omar Valdes, James Moreno, and other similarly- situated individuals v. Coastal Courier, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv- 61797 (S.D. Fla., August 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Coastal Courier, Inc. offers package delivery services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com DALLAS COWBOYS: Cannot Be Sued on Super Bowl XLV Seating Dispute ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Dallas Cowboys cannot be sued over the Super Bowl XLV seating debacle because they were not a contracting party to ticketing, reports David Lee at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Several lawsuits concerning the February 2011 game at AT&T Stadium in Arlington are pending. They involve claims that the temporary bleachers where hundreds of fans had been assigned to sit were not installed by game time. Some fans were allegedly completely displaced to areas outside of the stadium while others were delayed or relocated to other seats -- many with obstructed views. Joseph Greco led one class action that said the team and the National Football League knew some of the seats sold to the game in February 2011 would never be available and concealed the problem until the last possible moment on game day. He said the defendants had made settlement offers that fell short of adequately compensating fans. U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn sided with the Cowboys and dismissed the contract claims against them on August 6, 2014. A ticket to the game "is a contract only between the NFL and a ticket purchaser," the ruling states. Lynn shot down claims that the team received 5 percent of tickets to the game from the league for resale to some of the plaintiffs. "Accepting plaintiffs' version of the facts as true, the fact that the Cowboys defendants sold tickets issued by the NFL to 'one or more plaintiffs' does not alter the nature of the contract, which is between the NFL and the plaintiffs," Lynn wrote. "Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the Cowboys defendants were anything more than third-party sellers of tickets to an NFL event and, therefore, have not pleaded the existence of a contract between the Cowboys defendants and any plaintiff." The fraudulent inducement claims against the team meanwhile failed because the contract was only with the NFL, Lynn said, noting that fraudulent-inducement claims can be made only against the league. She was not persuaded with the argument that the tickets were sold with the intent not to complete construction of the temporary seating. "The NFL had nothing to gain by tricking fans into purchasing tickets for seats that it did not believe would be available," Lynn wrote. "Plaintiffs allege that the Cowboys defendants' original plan -- alleged to have been subsequently assumed by the NFL -- called for the construction of temporary seats, that a building permit was obtained, that many of the temporary seats were in fact installed, and that work on the temporary seating continued even on game day. Without alleging plausible and non- conclusory facts supporting the allegation that the NFL did not intend to have temporary seats constructed for which tickets were sold, plaintiffs cannot recover on a theory of fraudulent inducement as to temporary seats that were not completed and approved by game day." Lynn also rejected the negligence claim against the team, holding that the fans did not alleged physical harm and they "cannot recover for purely economic harm." "If the negligence claim stemmed from allegations that the temporary seating was unsafe and a plaintiff was injured, a negligence action might be available," Lynn wrote. "The gratuitous undertaking doctrine does not support the claims asserted against the Cowboys defendants." Contract claims against the NFL remain intact, however, with Lynn saying they "cannot be determined as a matter of law." Lynn also preserved claims of fraudulent inducement by omission brought by fans with obstructed views of the game. The Cowboys did not immediately respond to a request for comment on August 10, 2014. The case is Joseph Greco, et al. v. Jerral "Jerry" Wayne Jones, et al., Case No. 3:13-CV-1005-M, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. DCH AUTO GROUP: Doesn't Want to Pay Premium Wages, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Keables, Daniel DeGruchy, and Paul McCartney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited (a British Virgin Islands corporation), and DCH SIMI Valley Inc. (a California corporation), Case No. 2:14-cv-06159 (C.D. Cal., August 6, 2014), alleges that the Defendants did not want to pay premium wages to their auto dealership employees. The Defendants own and operate auto dealerships in New York, New Jersey and Southern California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq. PHILLIPS ERLEWINE & GIVEN LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3240 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-0900 Facsimile: (415) 398-0911 E-mail: nac@phillaw.com DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Hughes and Pamela Chelin, writing for The Wrap, report that Charles Paddock filed a class action lawsuit against DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. on behalf of himself and all other shareholders in the publicly-traded company, according to a document filed on Aug. 1 in the U.S. District Court in Central California. Mr. Paddock alleges that DreamWorks "made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance." The suit details the period of time surrounding the film "Turbo," which was released in the summer of 2013. After it underperformed, the company waited until February 2014 -- the suit erroneously states this date as February 2013 in multiple paces -- to take a $13.5 million write-down. It was the third write-down for the company, after disappointing returns for "Rise of the Guardians" and "Mr. Peabody & Sherman." The company's most recent release, the sequel "How to Train Your Dragon 2," has performed better, though with $167 million domestic, it is notably off from the $217 million the original earned in 2010. The lawsuit claims that the company was misleading its investors by failing to disclose that it had waited so long to take a write-down for "Turbo, leading to an overstatement of Dreamworks' net income for the 2013 fiscal year. This allegedly resulted in "materially false and misleading" financial statements. The suit further details the conference call DreamWorks held with analysts on July 29, 2014. During this call, the company stated that it was currently cooperating with an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for the "Turbo" write-down. As a result of this call, which also detailed the second quarterly loss in a row, the company's stocks fell 12 percent on July 30, according to the suit, to close at $19.98. As a result, Mr. Paddock's suit states that the company's shareholders have "suffered significant losses and damages." On behalf of the class, Mr. Paddock is seeking damages, interest, attorney's fees and associated costs. He is also demanding a jury trial in the case. Mr. Paddock is represented in the case by Lionel Z. Glancy, Michael Goldberg, and Robert V. Prongay of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., on Aug. 4 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of DreamWorks Animation securities between October 29, 2013 and July 29, 2014, inclusive. Please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, at (310) 201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. DreamWorks Animation is engaged in the development, production and exploitation of animated films and their associated characters worldwide through feature films, television, and consumer products. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: -- DreamWorks Animation failed to take a timely write-down for Turbo, a 2013 feature film about a supercharged snail. -- The Company's net income for the fiscal year of 2013 was materially overstated. -- The Company lacked adequate internal and control over financial reporting. -- The Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 29, 2014, the Company disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission has been conducting an investigation related to the Company's prior write-down of film inventory for Turbo. DreamWorks Animation also reported a larger-than-projected 2014 second-quarter loss and sales that fell short of analysts' forecasts. As a result of this news, DreamWorks Animation shares fell nearly 12 percent, or $2.68 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume, to close at $19.98 on July 30, 2014. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than September 30, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. EDAP TMS: Faces "Haddad" Suit Over Breach of Securities Law ----------------------------------------------------------- Ronnie Haddad, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. EDAP TMS S.A., Marc Oczachowski, and Eric Soyer, Case No. :14-cv-06188 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act. EDAP TMS S.A.is a French corporation with its principal executive offices located at Pare d'Activites la Poudrette-Lamartine, 4/6, rue du Dauphine, 69120 Vaulx-en-Velin, France. It markets Ablatherm for high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment of localized prostate cancer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Philip Murray, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq. Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: csadler@glancylaw.com - and - Gregory Bradley Linkh, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 77 Water Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (646) 722-4180 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com EDAP TMS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 4 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against EDAP TMS S.A. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-6069, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased EDAP securities between February 1, 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 EDAP securities during the Class Period, you have until October 3, 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. Defendant EDAP TMS S.A., through its subsidiaries, designs and manufactures medical equipment. The Company develops minimally invasive therapeutic ultrasound solutions for urology, tumor removal, localized prostate cancer, and related infectious diseases. EDAP purports to serve patients and medical professionals worldwide. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was overstating the efficacy and safety of its Ablatherm trials by using faulty statistical methods and presenting misleading data; (ii) the Company was understating the frequency of adverse events in its trials for Ablatherm including erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and urethral and bowel injury; and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 28, 2014, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration staff report was released in anticipation of a July 30, 2014 meeting of the Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel Advisory Committee meeting. In the FDA Staff Report, the FDA questioned whether EDAP's methods for testing the device were adequate. Specifically, FDA staff questioned EDAP's safety and effectiveness data because the Company compared patients in two different studies to gather evidence, rather than a head-to-head trial. EDAP relied on a registry of patients in Europe who have used Ablatherm, and compared their data to a subgroup of patients in a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs trial who underwent surgery called radical prostatectomy. Patients who used Ablatherm had a 1.1 percent risk of their cancer spreading after eight years, compared to a 1.4 percent risk for men who underwent surgery. On the news, EDAP stock fell $1.23 in unusually heavy volume, or over 25%, to close at $3.65 on July 28, 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. ELECTRONIC GAME: Discovery Stay Not Violated, 9th Cir. Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Reviving fraud claims against a defunct company that sold credit- card-size electronic games, the 9th Circuit found that investors did not violate a discovery stay, reports Tim Hull, writing for Courthouse News Service. Dalton Petrie is the lead plaintiff in the 2010 class action filed after the bankruptcy of Electronic Game Card Inc. Filed in Santa Ana, Calif., the investors claimed that executives Lee Cole and Linden Boyne had misrepresented the company's earnings and assets and hid a subsidiary agreement, among other things. The Securities and Exchange Commission filed similar claims against the executives in 2012 for "repeatedly lying to investors about the operations and financial condition" of the company. A second amended complaint in Petrie's case in 2011 led Cole to give notice that he would seek judgment on the pleadings. Cole later claimed that such notice should have triggered a stay of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). The plaintiffs nevertheless filed a third amended complaint (TAC) with more detailed allegations of concealment shortly thereafter. "The TAC also alleges the company was able to report millions of dollars in cash and cash equivalents at the end of fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008 because its financial statements were wrongfully consolidated with its subsidiary's," the 9th Circuit explained on July 30. "Allegedly, much of this cash was represented to the auditor as being held in a bank account with Credit Suisse in Gibraltar, Spain that was controlled by the company and its subsidiary." Another allegation of the TAC was that "the multi-million dollar Gibraltar account never existed," according to the 9th Circuit's ruling. Cole moved to strike these so-called "auditor discovery materials" from the amended complaint, arguing that they had been obtained in violation of the stay of discovery. U.S. District Judge David Carter agreed with Cole and struck portions of the complaint, finding that the investors should have ceased all discovery after Cole had announced plans to file his motion. The court later dismissed the amended complaint altogether and ruled for the defendants. Without the new allegations, Judge Carter found, the investors could not show falsity or knowledge of wrongdoing. A three-judge panel with the 9th Circuit reversed and sent the case back to the lower court on July 30, saying key portions of the amended complaint had been struck improperly. "The complaint at issue in this appeal, the Third Amended Complaint, was based in large part on discovery materials subpoenaed before the company's former CEO gave notice of his intent to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings," Judge Morgan Christen wrote for the court in Pasadena. "These materials were not received until after the CEO gave such notice." Auditor discovery materials can remain in the amended complaint because they were not obtained or used in violation of the PSLRA, according to the ruling. With the inclusion of such materials, the amended complaint "adequately pleads both falsity and scienter as to defendants Cole and Boyne," Christen wrote. The Appellants are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com Defendant-Appellee Lee Cole is represented by: Lawrence B. Steinberg, Esq. BUCHALTER NEMER 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2457 Telephone: (213) 891-0700 Facsimile: (213) 896-0400 E-mail: LSteinberg@buchalter.com - and - Jeffrey J. Greenbaum, Esq. Herve Gouraige, Esq. SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS The Legal Center One Riverfront Plaza Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 643-7000 Facsimile: (973) 643-6500 E-mail: jgreenbaum@sillscummis.com hgouraige@sillscummis.com Defendants-Appellees Kevin Donovan, Eugene Christiansen, Paul Farrell, Anna Houssels, Lynne Rochelle Attias, and Jonathan Steinberg are represented by: Jonathan D. Cogan, Esq. Steven G. Kobre, Esq. Andrew M. Meehan, Esq. KOBRE & KIM LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 488-1200 Facsimile: (212) 488-1220 E-mail: jonathan.cogan@kobrekim.com steven.kobre@kobrekim.com - and - Christopher Kim, Esq. Bryan Sheldon, Esq. Lisa J. Yang, Esq. LIM, RUGER & KIM 1055 West 7th Street, 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 955-9500 Facsimile: (213) 955-9511 E-mail: christopher.kim@limruger.com bryan.sheldon@limruger.com lisa.yang@limruger.com The appellate case is Dalton Petrie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, and Dr. Thomas Lee; Margaret Yu; Scott Lovell, Appellants, v. Electronic Game Card, Inc.; Lee J. Cole; Linden Boyne; Kevin Donovan; Paul Farrell; Eugene Christiansen; Anna Houssels; Lynne Rochelle Attias; Jonathan Steinberg, as Executor of the Estate of Lord Leonard Steinberg, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 12-55620, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District Court case is Dalton Petrie, et al. v. Electronic Game Card, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:10-cv-00252-DOC-RNB, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces "Davis" Suit in E.D. Wash Over SoftTest ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Davis and Catherine Booher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc., 2:14-cv-00256 (E.D. Wash., August 5, 2014), alleges that the Defendant designed, produced, and sold SoftTest and supporting systems that caused problems in taking and uploading bar exams. ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc. is in the business of distributing, and/or selling its software throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com FACEBOOK INC: Faces Data-Privacy Class Action in Austria -------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Weber, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Facebook Inc. faces a class action in Austria led by Max Schrems, a law student and data-privacy campaigner who's already had a case against the social network sent to the European Court of Justice. Mr. Schrems alleges Facebook has violated European Union law with its data policy and by supporting the U.S. National Security Agency's Prism program, under which companies turned over user data to the government. He's claiming 500 euros ($671) in damages per user and appealed on his website to people outside of the U.S. and Canada to join his lawsuit. "Our aim is to make Facebook finally operate lawfully in the area of data protection," Mr. Schrems said in a statement. "Within the framework of this class action, individuals can also make a contribution to this effort." Facebook, used by 1.32 billion people worldwide, recently came under pressure when U.K. authorities started investigating a psychological experiment in which the social network influenced what users saw in their news feeds. The case came amid a push by the EU for stronger privacy safeguards in a data- transfer deal with the U.S. Facebook's press representatives at Apco Worldwide in Berlin declined to comment on the case. Alexander Schmidt, a spokesman for the Vienna Commercial Court, confirmed that the case against Facebook Ireland was brought by Mr. Schrems on July 31. A ruling in Austria could be enforced in Ireland, from where Facebook's European operations are run, Schrems said. Because he's bringing the lawsuit as a consumer, he could file it only at his place of residence, which is Vienna. The action will be funded by a financier who'll get 20 per cent of damages if the case is won. Users can join the action without any financial risk, according to the statement. Under Austrian law, people can transfer their financial claims to a single person even as there is no typical class action. Any damages awarded would be shared. FACEBOOK INC: 17,000+ People Join Privacy Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Reuters reports that more than 17,000 people have signed up to join an Austrian law student's class action against Facebook over the social media group's alleged violations of its users' privacy, the student said on Aug. 5. Max Schrems, 26, appealed to a billion Facebook users to join a claim he filed at Vienna's commercial court as part of his campaign. Under Austrian law, a group of people may transfer their financial claims to a single person -- in this case, Mr. Schrems. Legal proceedings are then effectively run as a class action. The echo to his appeal has been "giant, much more than expected," Mr. Schrems said, adding that most people to sign up were from Europe. "The emails and feedback have been really positive and what is interesting is that many people say finally someone is doing something in this direction," he said. Mr. Schrems is claiming damages of 500 euros ($670) per user for alleged data violations by Facebook, including aiding the US National Security Agency in running its PRISM program, which mined the personal data of users of Facebook and other web services. He is also seeking injunctions under European Union (EU) data- protection law at the court in data-privacy-friendly Austria. Some of those joining his cause are donating money, he said. "It is good to see that for most people it is not a matter of (getting) money but of advancing the matter," he said. Mr. Schrems, who already has a case involving the social network pending at the European Court of Justice, invited others to join his Vienna court action at www.fbclaim.com using their Facebook login. Facebook, which has declined comment on the campaign, has come under fire before for allegedly violating data-protection laws. Most recently, Britain's data watchdog began investigating whether a 2012 experiment on unwitting users, in which it tried to alter their emotional state to see if their postings turned more positive or negative. The world's biggest social network, Facebook now has 1.32 billion users. It posted a 61 percent increase in sales in the second quarter buoyed by mobile advertising, sending its shares to a record high and valuing the company at almost $200 billion. FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Updated Conservatorship Litigation Chart ------------------------------------------------------------------ At http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201408.pdfeditors of the Troubled Company Reporter and Class Action Reporter have posted a chart, updated on Aug. 16, 2014, organizing information about the 24 lawsuits complaining about how the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Administration are handling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's conservatorship proceedings. Unaltered, this chart may be freely shared with anyone for any purpose, notwithstanding that it is copyrighted by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., and Beard Group, Inc., and all rights are reserved by the publishers. For additional information, contact Peter A. Chapman at peter@beard.com by e-mail or (215) 945-7000 by telephone. FORMIA MARBLE: Fails to Workers Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Garcia, Oscar Marquez, and Victor Rocano, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Formia Marble & Stone, Inc., and Filippo Berta. Case No. 2:14-cv-04939 (D.N.J., August 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay non- exempt employees at the statutory overtime rate and one-half for all hours works over 40 hours per week. Formia Marble & Stone, Inc. is engaged in commercial marble and granite fabrication and installation business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue--6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: j_cilenti@yahoo.com GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Nondisclosure of Adverse Facts --------------------------------------------------------------- Bradford C. Gelzayd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Galectin Therapeutics Inc., Peter G. Traber, and Jack W. Callicut, Case No. 3:14-cv-00412 (D. Nev., August 6, 2014), alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Galectin Therapeutics Inc. is a development-stage company focused on galectin science and drug development to create new therapies for fibrotic disease and cancer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com - and - David C. O'mara, Esq. THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C. 311 E. Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 323-1321 Facsimile: (775) 323-4082 E-mail: david@omaralaw.net GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 7 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Nevada, and docketed under 14-cv-01287, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Galectin securities between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 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 Galectin 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. Galectin is a development stage company engaged in the research and development of therapies for fibrotic disease and cancer. The Company's lead product candidates include GR-MD-02, a complex polysaccharide polymer for the treatment of liver fibrosis and fatty liver disease (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis or "NASH"). The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was utilizing the services of paid stock promoters to disseminate positive but misleading reports about Galectin's prospects; (2) moreover, GR-MD-02 did not provide the benefits suggested by Defendants when discussing the patent the Company was awarded or the Phase 1 clinical trial it was conducting; and (3) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 28, 2014, Bleecker Street Research published an article on SeekingAlpha.com claiming that Galectin "has strong ties to stock promoters" engaging in a misleading brand awareness campaign aimed at boosting its stock price. On July 28, 2014, Adam Feuerstein ("Feuerstein") published an article on TheStreet.com revealing that Emerging Growth Corp. ("Emerging Growth"), through its parent company TDM Financial ("TDM"), a penny-stock promotions firm, was the investor relations and marketing company Galectin was paying for misleading promotional campaigns to entice investors to buy its stock. On this news, Galectin's stock fell $8.84 per share to close at $5.70 per share on July 29, 2014, a one-day decline of nearly 61% on volume of nearly 7.7 million shares. 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. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Responds to Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Galectin Therapeutics, a developer of therapeutics that target galectin proteins to treat fibrosis and cancer, issued the following statement on Aug. 4. "We have become aware that a putative class action lawsuit has been filed against Galectin Therapeutics and certain officers of the Company alleging violations of United States federal securities laws. We dispute the allegations in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit," Galectin Therapeutics said. "Galectin Therapeutics is in the business of drug development. We are confident in our drug development program, and our preclinical and clinical trials remain as priorities," said Peter G. Traber, M.D., Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Medical Officer of Galectin Therapeutics. "We are, of course, disappointed to learn of the lawsuit that was recently filed, but we believe the claims are without merit. While we intend to vigorously defend the Company in this matter, the Company's board of directors and management team remain focused on our drug development, and we will continue to move forward with enrollment of our third cohort of patients in our Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating our galectin inhibitor GR-MD-02 in fatty liver disease (NASH) with advanced fibrosis." GEORGE AVENUE: Faces "Moya" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Erwin Zambrano Moya, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. George Avenue Subway, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01341 (D.D.C., August 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation. George Avenue Subway, Inc. owns and operates food chain business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 836 Bonifant Street Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (301) 587-9397 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces "Siriano" Suit Over Damaged Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rocco Siriano and Janet Siriano, Jason Oakley and Stephanie Oakley, Cindy Molleur, Thomas Cook and Laura Cook, Leeann Bormann, Michelle Lapread, and Andrew Bilen and Jennifer Bilen, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Goodman Manufacturing Co., L.P., Goodman Global, Inc., and Goodman Company, L.P., Case No. 2:14-cv-01131 (S.D. Ohio, August 6, 2014), is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who purchased air conditioners, air handlers and heat pumps manufactured by the Defendants since 2007, or who own or have owned a home or other structure in which the Goodman Products have been installed since 2007, and who suffered damages related to leakage of refrigerant in the Goodman Products. Goodman Manufacturing Co., L.P., Goodman Global, Inc., and Goodman Company, L.P., are in the business of engineering, manufacturing, distributing and marketing heating, ventilation and air conditioning products for residential and light commercial use. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER-GRIECO-MERRIMAN, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Stalling Defect in Santa Fe Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Reniger and Greg Battaglia, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Hyundai Motor America, a California corporation, and Hyundai Motor Company, a foreign corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-03612-LB (N.D. Cal., August 8, 2014) is brought on behalf of all persons in the United States, who purchased or leased any 2010 through 2012 Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles. The case concerns a serious safety defect in the Class Vehicles, which causes unexpected stalling that results in total loss of power, including braking and steering, posing a risk of injury or death to both passengers and pedestrians. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in an egregious breach of their duties under the law by intentionally failing to disclose the Stalling Defect for years. Hyundai Motor America is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Fountain Valley, California. Hyundai Motor Company is a South Korean corporation with its principal place of business in Seoul, South Korea. The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted and serviced the subject vehicles. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq. Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: mgreenstone@glancylaw.com lglancy@glancylaw.com IMAX CORP: Funds in Securities Suit Accord Distributed to Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a securities suit against IMAX Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York was distributed to the U.S. Class, according to the company's June 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed between August 11, 2006 and September 18, 2006, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws. These eight actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). On January 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight class action lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. On October 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The amended complaint, brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock on the NASDAQ between February 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007 (the "U.S. Class"), alleges primarily that the defendants engaged in securities fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading statements during the class period regarding the Company's revenue recognition of theater system installations, and failing to disclose material information concerning the Company's revenue recognition practices. The amended complaint also added PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's auditors, as a defendant. On April 14, 2011, the Court issued an order appointing The Merger Fund as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. On November 2, 2011, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding containing the terms and conditions of a settlement of this action. On January 26, 2012, the parties executed and filed with the Court a formal stipulation of settlement and proposed form of notice to the class, which the Court preliminarily approved on February 1, 2012. Under the terms of the settlement, members of the U.S. Class who did not opt out of the settlement will release defendants from liability for all claims that were alleged in this action or could have been alleged in this action or any other proceeding (including the action in Canada as described in (d) of this note (the "Canadian Action") relating to the purchase of IMAX securities on the NASDAQ from February 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007 or the subject matter and facts relating to this action. As part of the settlement and in exchange for the release, defendants will pay $12.0 million to a settlement fund which amount will be funded by the carriers of the Company's directors and officers insurance policy and by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. On March 26, 2012, the parties executed and filed with the Court an amended formal stipulation of settlement and proposed form of notice to the class, which the court preliminarily approved on March 28, 2012. On June 20, 2012, the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. The settlement was distributed to the U.S. Class on May 5, 2014. IMAX CORP: Settlement Order in Canadian Stock Lawsuit Stands ------------------------------------------------------------ A motion for leave to appeal an order enforcing a settlement in a Canadian securities law violation suit against Imax Corp. was dismissed, according to the company's June 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. A class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006 in the Canadian Court against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian securities laws. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between February 17, 2006 and August 9, 2006. The lawsuit seeks $210.0 million in compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs. For reasons released December 14, 2009, the Canadian Court granted leave to the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the Company and certain individuals ("the Defendants") and granted certification of the action as a class proceeding. These are procedural decisions, and do not contain any conclusions binding on a judge at trial as to the factual or legal merits of the claim. Leave to appeal those decisions was denied. In March 2013, the Defendants obtained an Order enforcing the settlement Order in the parallel class action in the United States in this Canadian class action lawsuit, with the result that the class in this case was reduced in size by approximately 85%. A motion by the Plaintiffs for leave to appeal that Order was dismissed. IMPACT ACQUISITIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Krupp" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Krupp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Impact Acquisitions LLC d/b/a Kubicheck Office Products, Case No. 2:14-cv-00950 (E.D. Wis., August 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Impact Acquisitions LLC offers software sales, installation and training, including SVC copier machines networking and web design. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Timothy P. Maynard, Esq. Summer H. Murshid, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL SC 222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com INDYMAC: Settles Securities Class Action for $340 Million --------------------------------------------------------- MJ Clark, writing for Wyoming Business Report, reports that the Wyoming State Treasurer's Office and the Wyoming Retirement System announced Aug. 4 a $340 million agreement-in-principle to settle class-action claims against six underwriters of IndyMac mortgage- backed securities (MBS). Together, the Wyoming plaintiffs represent a class of investors that will ultimately receive proportional distributions of the settlement amount. The settlement is the result of class-action claims against six underwriters of IndyMac mortgage-backed securities. IndyMac was the informal name for the Independent National Mortgage Corporation, which was the largest savings and loan association in California and the seventh largest mortgage initiator in the U.S. until it failed on July 11, 2008. The claims were initiated in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, following the financial crisis of 2008. The late State Treasurer Joe Meyer, former Wyoming Retirement System Director Thom Williams, and former Attorney General Bruce Salzburg took this action in the interest of Wyoming citizens and retirement system members. The national law firm of Berman DeValerio, which represents the Wyoming lead plaintiffs, is acting as lead counsel for the class. By taking action in this case, Wyoming was able to broaden the case to cover a number of the offerings that had not been addressed in the initial complaint and expand the scope of investors covered in the class-action. According to Elizabeth Anderson, general counsel for the State Treasurer's Office, the size of the class is still being determined and at this point, "we have no idea what [Wyoming's] proportion might be." She added that the process of determining a plan of allocation for the settlement will extend into next year. The lawsuit cited a report by the Center for Responsible Lending that claimed that IndyMac, "encouraged its employees to approve loans regardless of an individual's ability to repay." Defendants included former IndyMac Chairman and CEO John Olinski, and former Executive Vice President S. Blair Abernath. The agreement in principle to settle the case was disclosed on Aug. 4 by The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, the parent of defendant RBS Securities, Inc., in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The other underwriter defendants in the case are Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC (in its own right and as successor-in- interest to Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.), Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, and UBS Securities LLC. The class-action settlement must be approved by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who is overseeing the case. "We believe this is a good settlement. It offers a meaningful recovery to investors, including the State of Wyoming, and is a testament to the pooled efforts of the State Treasurer's Office, the Wyoming Retirement System, the Attorney General's Office and our legal team," Wyoming State Treasurer Mark Gordon said. INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Shapiro Haber Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Boston, MA law firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP on Aug. 5 disclosed that it filed a class action suit on July 31, 2014 against InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp., a Cambridge, MA company, and its former Chairman and CEO for violations of federal securities laws. The firm filed the complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, entitled Battle Construction Co., Inc. v. InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp., et al., C.A. No. 14-cv-13180. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP conducted a careful investigation before filing its Complaint, which alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements about the FDA's approval of a clinical trial and the time for completion of the trial and submission of data to the FDA. The Complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions by Defendants misrepresented and/or omitted material facts to the investing public, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The class action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased common stock of InVivo from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013. If you purchased shares of InVivo common stock during the above time period, you may move the court to appoint you as lead plaintiff no later than 60 days from August 5, 2014. The factual and legal bases for the Plaintiff's claims are set forth in greater detail in the Complaint, which is available at www.shulaw.com or can be obtained, without any obligation, from counsel for the Plaintiff, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP. More information about the law firm and its qualifications is available at www.shulaw.com If you would like more information about this case or you are interested in joining the suit, please contact the firm at the telephone numbers below or by email. Several other law firms have published notices announcing the filing of a law suit against InVivo. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is the only firm that has investigated the company and has actually filed a complaint. CONTACT: Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP Thomas G. Shapiro Seaport East Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 Tel: (800) 287-8119 (617) 439-3939 E-mail: cases@shulaw.com Web site: http://www.shulaw.com JADE RESTORATION: Faces "Cordova" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Cordova v. Jade Restoration Corp., and John O'Reilly, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-04662 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Jade Restoration Corp. and John O'Reilly are in the commercial cleaning and maintenance business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq. Jaffe Glenn Law Group, P.A. Building 2, Suite 220, 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com JOHNS HOPKINS: Levy Victims Have Until Nov. 14 to Register ---------------------------------------------------------- On July 21, 2014, the Johns Hopkins Health System disclosed that it has reached an agreement to settle the class action lawsuit filed October 24, 2013, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24-C-13-001041 MM, on behalf of thousands of women who allegedly were surreptitiously recorded during examinations by Dr. Nikita A. Levy. According to The Baltimore Sun, the $190 million settlement is one of the largest on record for a physician accused of sexual misconduct. An investigation prompted by a colleague's suspicions revealed that Dr. Levy had used cameras concealed in pens and key fobs to photograph the genitals of female patients, some of whom were minors. In an October 24, 2013letter, Johns Hopkins' President and CEO told the health system's employees, "One thing we have been reminded of throughout this difficult situation is how important it is that we foster an environment that encourages us all to speak up. Because an employee was willing to step forward, we were able to put a stop to Dr. Levy's behavior as soon as we learned of it." Baltimore personal injury lawyer Steven Heisler represents dozens of women who are members of the class of plaintiffs victimized by Levy. "While it is true that the initial investigation came about as a result of a whistleblower's actions, it is equally true that in order for justice to be served, it is necessary that women come forward in what they might view as an embarrassing situation and speak out," said Mr. Heisler. One way to do this, Mr. Heisler said, is to register as a member of the class action if they were a patient of Dr. Levy between April 26, 1988 and February 8, 2013. A Notice has been sent to all known potential class members to inform them that they have until November 14, 2014 to register and possibly share in the settlement, which will be paid by Johns Hopkins' insurance carriers. "When the class action was certified," Mr. Heisler said, "former patients of Dr. Levy were notified by the court that they could have rights under any potential settlement. But they must register with the court to protect those rights. We encourage all women and girls who may have been victims of this doctor's illegal and scandalous behavior to do so." About Steven H. Heisler, The Injury Lawyer Since his graduation from the University of Baltimore Law School in 1988, Steven H. Heisler has focused on making a difference for those who have suffered an injury in Maryland or the District of Columbia. For more information, please visit http://www.theinjurylawyermd.com/ KODIAK OIL: Being Sold at Unfair Price, "Reiter" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Leanne Reiter, Derivatively on Behalf of Kodiak Oil & Gas Corporation, and Individually on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Lynn A. Peterson, James E. Catlin, William J. Krysiak, Rodney D. Knutson, Herrick K. Lidstone, Jr., Whiting Petroleum Corporation, and 1007695 B.C. Ltd. and Kodiak Oil & Gas Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02176 (D. Colo., August 6, 2014), seeks to enjoin defendants from further breaching their fiduciary duties in their pursuit of a sale of the Company at an unfair price through an unfair process. Kodiak Oil & Gas Corporation is a Canadian company focused on the exploration, exploitation, acquisition, and production of natural gas and crude oil in the United States. Whiting Petroleum Corporation is an independent exploration and production company with an oil focused asset base. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Kodiak Oil & Gas Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian James Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com L & K RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ying Jie Zhao and Jian Jun Li, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. L & K Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Asian Wok Xiaohua Zhu a/k/a Ken Zhu and "John " Zhu, Case No. 1:14-cv-06103 (S.D.N.Y., August 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs. L & K Restaurant, Inc. operates a restaurant known as Asian Wok at 88 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10038. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Honhohn Zeiss, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: iohntroy@pllc.com tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Misrepresented Company Facts ---------------------------------------------------------- Alan Nguyen, 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-06182 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), alleges that the Defendants misrepresented material facts about the business, operations and management of the Company. L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. supplies command and control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems and products, avionics, ocean products, training devices and services, instrumentation, space, and navigation products to the United States Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, the United States government intelligence agencies, NASA, aerospace contractors and commercial telecommunications and wireless customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com LOCKHEED MARTIN: Employees' 401(K) Class Action Approved for Trial ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that a class-action lawsuit brought by employees of Lockheed Martin Corp., Bethesda, Md., has been approved for trial by a U.S. district court judge. The lawsuit, which was filed in September 2006 and has been remanded twice, now represents more than 100,000 employees and retirees questioning the fees and investments of two Lockheed Martin 401(k) plans, including a stable value fund and company stock, which the plaintiffs allege were imprudent investments. In addition to upholding the excessive fee and company stock investment claims, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Reagan in East St. Louis, Ill., also on Aug. 1 allowed the plaintiffs in Abbott vs. Lockheed Martin Corp. to proceed with their stable value fund claim, which he said "compels certification." A Dec. 1 trial date is expected to be confirmed in September. Defined contribution plan assets total $27.7 billion. Schlichter Bogard & Denton was appointed class counsel, and Mr. Reagan said he intends to appoint Lloyd Cueto, a retired St. Clair County, Ill., judge, to mediate a resolution. MACQUARIE GROUP: Class Action Lawyers Amid Compliance Breaches -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael West, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that Macquarie Group is motoring along in top gear again but it can now see John Walker, chief executive of litigation funder IMF Bentham, looming in its rear vision mirror. The class lawsuit fraternity has been tailing Macquarie, and indeed all the banks for years, but Mr. Walker has now drawn fully into view: "IMF is aware of the issues raised in the enforceable undertaking in respect of Macquarie Private Wealth and is interested in talking to more people who were clients of MPW and who may have been subject to breaches of standards for financial services," he told Fairfax he is talking to victims. The challenge for Mr. Walker is not so much getting victim numbers. These are legion, as evidenced again in the weekend story by Adele Ferguson and Ben Butler over the widespread compliance breaches at Macquarie Private Wealth (MPW). Nor is the pot of money at issue. Macquarie is a rich target, even if it fights every case tooth and nail. Rather, the conundrum for Mr. Walker is in coalescing the myriad claims for faulty financial advice and the consequent client losses into one representative action. Losses span an array of financial products and Macquarie will seek to defend each case separately, effectively taking Mr. Walker and the plaintiff law firms out of the picture. The critical question for the bank and its shareholders is the size of the liability. What is the overall exposure here? In what came as a surprise to many, the presentation to the bank's annual general meeting presentation the week before last contained a slide on the "remediation process". Out of the blue -- perhaps prompted by its own lawyers or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) which had struck an Enforceable Undertakings (EU) arrangement in 2012 with the bank to address its compliance failures -- Macquarie announced a review process with the regulator and Deloitte was under way. The slide noted the bank was writing to its clients to inform them of the MPW remediation process. The number of clients potentially affected was put at 87,000 "of which a significant number are high net worth". This may be the number now but the number of clients of Macquarie Private Wealth in 2012 when the EU was struck was 319,500 according to newspaper reports the next day. The numbers, and their divergence, are substantial issues for the bank when calculating its exposure to claims for inappropriate advice. Using an average $100,000 loss per client (losses include loss of future earnings from depleted capital), you get an exposure of $8.7 billion for 87,000 clients. On a client base of 319,500 however the exposure is almost $32 billion. Which number is right, the figure put to the ASX or the higher numbers from two years earlier when the EU was struck? Working backwards, let's say the bank reckons its overall exposure at $1 billion. That would suggest an average loss of just over $3000 per client (if the number of clients was 319,500). If the client base was 87,000, a $1 billion exposure would mean an average loss of just $11,500. Is Macquarie really saying that the average loss per client since before the global financial crisis amounts to just $11,494.25 per client? That's only a 1 per cent loss on a $1 million portfolio. The EU with ASIC came about in the wake of an internal audit conducted by a team called Adviser Solutions in 2008, which found that more than 80 per cent of advisers in the nation's largest stockbroking house were not in compliance with the industry standards prescribed in the then financial services regime. Redolent of the regulatory delays to address the compliance failures at the Commonwealth Bank, there was a three-year hiatus until ASIC announced its EU program. Incredibly, in the wake of the EU, Macquarie then shifted many of its clients from retail client status to sophisticated client status (wholesale clients are not required the same level of advice and care as retail clients). ASIC has been made aware of this mass transition but its response is as yet unknown. Whatever the outcome, it should be said that the actions against Macquarie and CBA are a response to widespread compliance failures but these sorts of failures are by no means contained to these two banks. The advisory market is similarly fraught elsewhere by client losses stemming from poor advice, excessive product leverage and commissions. It is just that Macquarie and CBA were, on the whole, more aggressive in their product sales and cultures than their rivals, and in the case of Macquarie, exacerbated by billions in sales of derivatives products and margin loans. MICHELINOS PIZZERIA: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gustavo Fajardo v. Michelinos Pizzeria, and Michael Lobrace, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-04925 (D.N.J., August 5, 2014), alleges that the Defendants did not properly compensate Plaintiff, and those similarly situated employees, for all overtime hours worked in a work week. Michelinos Pizzeria is a restaurant located in Elizabeth, Union County, New Jersey owned by Michael Lobrace. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA Building 2, Suite 220 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com MODA HEALTH PLAN: Sued Over Exclusion of ABA Therapy Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------- A.M., by and through his parents and guardians, B.M. and L.M., individually, on behalf of Vancouver Clinic Health Benefit Plan and on behalf of similarly situated individuals and plans v. Moda Health Plan, Inc., an Oregon, Case No. 2:14-cv-01191 (W.D. Wash., August 5, 2014), seeks to end the Defendant's standard practice of routinely excluding coverage of medically necessary Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy to treat autism spectrum disorder. Early and intensive provision of medically necessary Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy can dramatically improve the health and life-long wellbeing of insureds with ASD. Moda Health Plan, Inc. is an authorized health carrier engaged in the business of insurance in the State of Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER 999 Third Avenue, Ste 3650 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 223-0303 Facsimile: (206) 223-0246 E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com rspoonemore@sylaw.com NAT'L COLLEGIATE: September 19 Concussion Settlement Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Henry, writing for KFSM, reports that the NCAA has reached a preliminary settlement in a class-action lawsuit over concussions brought by former college athletes. As previously reported by CBSSports.com's Dennis Dodd, the agreement filed on July 29 calls for the NCAA to provide $70 million for concussion testing and diagnosis of current and former NCAA players to settle several claims. A Fayetteville resident and former University of Arkansas student, Angela Palacios, 21, who played soccer at Ouachita Baptist University, is one of the athletes who filed the class-action lawsuit. Ms. Palacios said she has had three concussions. She said she was told to take the field despite having a concussion. Unlike the NFL's proposed $765 million concussion settlement, the NCAA's proposed agreement covers only diagnostic medical expenses. It preserves college athletes' rights to sue their universities or the NCAA for personal-injury damages, although some opponents of the settlement say the agreement is not a good one. The NCAA settlement was filed on July 29 in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois. It still requires the approval of Judge John Z. Lee, who held a hearing on July 29 on the matter without yet issuing a ruling. The settlement establishes a 50-year medical monitoring program for all current and former college athletes in any sport, with $70 million going toward screening for long-term brain damage and $5 million going to research. The NCAA agreed not to oppose attorneys' fees up to $15 million and out-of-pocket expenses up to $750,000 out of the $75 million pot. Among the changes agreed to in the settlement: * Baseline testing in the preseason for every athlete in which he or she competes. * Requiring medical personnel who are trained in concussion diagnosis and treatment to attend all games and practices for all NCAA contact sports. The settlement defines contact sports as football, lacrosse, wrestling, ice hockey, field hockey, soccer and basketball. * Prohibiting athletes from returning to competition on the same day they are diagnosed with a concussion. * Requiring that schools provide NCAA-approved concussion training to athletes, coaches and athletic trainers prior to each season. * Implementing concussion tracking so schools will report concussions and their resolutions. "The settlement basically changes the future of college sports forever," said Joe Siprut, a lead attorney in the case. "It accomplishes for the first time in history implementation of return to play guidelines that the NCAA has never really had. That's what this case was about: the absence of those guidelines." The first concussion lawsuit was filed in September 2011 on behalf of former Eastern Illinois football player Adrian Arrington. He was joined by Ms. Palacios of Fayetteville, former Central Arkansas football player Derek Owens and former Maine hockey player Kyle Solomon in the initial lawsuit. Copycat lawsuits were filed and they were merged into one case. The settlement states Mr. Arrington, Mr. Owens, Ms. Palacios and Mr. Solomon could each apply for $5,000 from the medical monitoring fund due to their time and service. Eight other named plaintiffs could apply for $2,500. 'Fundamentally different than NFL settlement' Steve Berman, who on July 29 was named co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said the NCAA case is fundamentally different than the proposed NFL settlement. If there was billions of dollars available in an NCAA settlement, "why wouldn't I have gone for it?" Mr. Berman told Judge Lee during the July 29 hearing. "I like big-ticket cases. I've done a lot of big-ticket cases. If I could have expanded this into the billion-dollar NFL case, I would have. The NFL has 45 personal injury claims so there's a mass of people you could work with. . . . The NFL could buy peace for PR purposes. In this case, there are very few individual cases out there. There's not a groundswell suggesting even a need for a class action like in the NFL." Mr. Siprut said the settlement is a creation of a medical monitoring program that will help identify injuries on an individual basis. "If you think about the amount of money that will be necessary to pay for personal injuries of every single college athlete, it would be billions and billions of dollars," Mr. Siprut said. "That's not what we're doing with this settlement." If the medical monitoring fund is depleted before 50 years, the settlement says class members may pursue "on an individual, non-class basis claims seeking medical monitoring." If it appears the $70 million fund is going to be depleted before the expiration of the medical monitoring period, the plaintiffs' lawyers may serve the NCAA notice requiring that they meet within 30 days to consider additional funding. "In such event, the NCAA and/or its insurers may elect to deposit or cause to be deposited additional funds into the Settlement Account for the Medical Monitoring Fund but shall not be required to do so," the settlement states. Within 45 days of the preliminary approval date of the settlement, a request for proposals will be issued to medical institutions in at least 10 regionally geographic locations to provide the evaluations to class members. The medical monitoring program would start within 90 days from the effective date. Class members who want to participate must first complete a screening questionnaire to determine whether they qualify for a medical evaluation. The screening program will assess "self- reported symptoms and cognitive, mood, behavioral, and motor problems that may be associated with persistent post-concussion syndrome and/or mid- to late-life onset problems, such as Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) and related disorders," according to the settlement. A medical science committee would oversee the screening process and other aspects of the medical monitoring fund. The proposed members of the committee are NCAA chief medical officer Dr. Brian Hainline, Dr. Robert Cantu, Dr. Ruben Echemendia, and another expert still to be named. The committee would annually review the screening questionnaire and the scope of the medical evaluations. Retired federal judge Wayne Andersen would chair the committee as a tie-breaking vote. An algorithm would be designed by the committee to score responses from the questionnaire, which determines if athletes get a medical evaluation. Evidence during the questionnaire that an athlete may commit suicide may warrant immediate evaluation and possible intervention prior to a medical evaluation, the settlement states. Some of the terms of how athletes would be monitored under the program: * Athletes could complete the screening questionnaire no more than once every five years until they turn 50, and no more than once every two years after they turn 50 and before the medical monitoring period expires. * Athletes could have up to five total screening questionnaires during the 50-year period. Additional screenings could be provided on a case-by-case basis. * Athletes could qualify up to two times for a medical evaluation during the 50-year period. If an athlete seeks a third medical evaluation "and can demonstrate a showing of significant symptoms or loss of function in the areas of cognition, behavior, mood or movement," the medical science committee could determine if further evaluation is appropriate. * If an athlete does three screening questionnaires without qualifying for an examination, any further questionnaires would be sent to the medical science committee to review. The NCAA admits no wrongdoing in the settlement, which states, "The information generated through the Medical Monitoring Program, including but not limited to the evaluation of completed Screening Questionnaires, the results of Medical Evaluations, and written reports documenting the evaluation of Medical Evaluations, does not and shall not constitute an admission by the NCAA or any other Released Person." Can the settlement get approved? Now the question is whether the NCAA and the concussion plaintiffs can get the settlement approved. The NFL has met resistance from potential class members and, at one point, the judge to get its concussion settlement finalized with more than 4,500 former players. The NCAA settlement already faces opposition. Attorney Jay Edelson, who represents former San Diego State football player Andy Nichols and former Pittsburgh football player Frank Moore, said there is a "large camp" of attorneys and clients who are very concerned about the settlement and plan to oppose it. "What the case was originally about was people who suffered real injuries from concussions," Mr. Edelson said. "If you look at the NFL settlement, and I'm not taking a position whether it's good or bad, there's going to be people who gets hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash. Here nobody is getting anything. I think we lost focus of what the purpose of the case was: get cash in people's hands." Mr. Edelson said the idea that players with concussion-related symptoms can fill out a questionnaire and possibly get another medical evaluation "doesn't do them any good. Having another doctor say they have medical issues? So what?" The settlement contends that it would be "unsupportable" to get a personal-injury class certified. "Lead Plaintiffs made the strategic decision to support a $70 million Medical Monitoring Program with meaningful changes to the NCAA's return to play practices in return for waiving a virtually non-existent right to class personal injury claims," the settlement states. "In sum, Plaintiffs likely could not have achieved the same victory -- a comprehensive Medical Monitoring Program for all living NCAA athletes under 50 states' laws and significant changes to the NCAA's concussion-management and return-to-play guidelines -- on a contested basis." Mr. Berman, the plaintffs' lead attorney, said the medical treatment for players isn't being paid for because the NCAA wouldn't assume liability on a class-wide basis since injuries vary based on individual cases, and because most athletes will be covered by their insurance. "We studied that, and they're probably not paying out of pocket" for treatment after NCAA-funded medical evaluations, Mr. Berman said. At the July 29 hearing, Berman told Judge John Z. Lee this was a tradeoff that was in the best interests of the class. NCAA attorney Mark Mester said the NCAA disagrees with some of the characterizations of what the association did or didn't do, but "we know if we don't dismiss the (class action) claims, there will be incentive for other lawyers to file class action." Mr. Berman said he intentionally spelled out in documents the "playbook" for how to sue the NCAA or schools over individual claims. "I've got some clients and I'm pursuing some clients who are going to have personal injury claims," Mr. Berman said. "I think there will be more personal injury claims when this news comes out." Judge Lee questioned how the $70 million number was established for the fund. Mr. Berman said it came from medical experts and economists analyzing concussion rates in football and other sports and multiplying them over time given estimated medical injury and CTE cases. "We have some real hard numbers," Mr. Berman said. "A lot of homework went into this." Mr. Berman said there are roughly 4.2 million class members, with 700,000 who played football and 1.1 million who played other contact sports. Judge Lee emphasized he needs to determine even in a settlement whether there's an appropriate class to certify given that athletes are waiving their rights to proceed seeking personal- injury damages as a class. Lawyers for the NCAA and the plaintiffs argued past cases allow for a "hybrid settlement." Judge Lee set the next hearing for Sept. 19. The plaintiffs had until August 8 to file a memo. Mr. Edelson has until Aug. 28 to file an objection to the settlement. Union activist criticizes settlement Ramogi Huma, executive director of the National College Players Association, said the settlement has "red flags written all over it." Mr. Huma said the NCAA's "shameful handling of concussions" is the primary reason he is trying to unionize college sports. Mr. Huma said protections mentioned in the settlement for athletes moving forward would be suggested guidelines that are unenforceable. Under terms of the settlement, the NCAA executive committee would recommend that the governing bodies of Division I, II and III pass legislation requiring member schools to certify they have a concussion management plan that meets the settlement's requirements. "There's a reporting mechanism that the schools have to report to the NCAA that they're in compliance, and they have to give a yearly report on the number of concussions they treated," Mr. Berman said. "So there's real teeth in this." NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said the association is working through details on funding sources for the settlement, but they are expected to include payments from NCAA insurance carriers. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said his understanding is that more than 90 percent of the money would come from insurance carriers, with some small amount of NCAA reserve money going toward research. Mr. Delany said the proposed settlement is a good outcome by mitigating the damages claims. "Individuals can certainly pursue their own cause of action if there's a cause of action," Mr. Delany said. "I think it's a good outcome where you can settle and you can provide something that's not there now for future athletes. It makes people more aware. I think somebody noted, well, maybe Ohio State and Southern Cal are doing these things. But there's thousands and thousands of athletes at a thousand schools so this probably ups the standards for everybody." Mr. Delany said college sports leaders and health officials are attempting to do the best they can with incomplete information about concussions. "Right now we're acting a little bit in the dark because there are 38 different definitions of what concussion is," Delany said. In the short term, the NCAA and the plaintiffs' lawyers will try to sell a settlement that's already been met with some opposition. Finalizing the settlement could take several months and may not be easy. NAT'L FOOTBALL: Retired Players' Concussion Suit Nears Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Evan I Fetterman, personal injury attorney, in article for LawFuel, reports that the class action involving National Football League players is nearing the final playout. The approval of a preliminary settlement agreement is currently under the scrutiny of a federal judge. Will it mean the end of the case? A massive class action lawsuit that has put former players and the National Football League on opposing teams is in the fourth quarter of play. Approval of a preliminary settlement agreement recently under scrutiny by a federal judge is perhaps bring the case to an end. A class of over 4,500 former players filed the suit just days before professional football's regular season kick off in 2013. The most recent phase of the litigation involved months of court ordered mediation and other negotiations between the parties. Serious Injuries Alleged Retired players brought the suit after experiencing serious health conditions that they allege came from their careers on the gridiron. Among the ailments said to be linked to wear and tear on the field include Alzheimer's, depression, and dementia. Citing bad faith conduct as part of the cause of their health issues, the plaintiff's sought redress in court. At the heart of the matter is a condition known as Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE. It has come to be known that CTE can be traced to concussion-related brain damage, and can bring about diagnosis of ALS and Parkinson's disease, as well as many others. Players assert that season after season enduring concussions and heavy impact on the field brought about their present medical issues. Furthermore, plaintiff said the NFL was not forthcoming about the dangers of concussions in the long-term and would put injured players back in the game before it was safe to do so. Additionally, players claimed that the NFL promoted and exploited the violence of the game for profit. For their part, the National Football League maintained that safety was a foremost concern in the organization. Hall of Fame Plaintiffs Among the injured players bringing suit were former star quarterback Jim McMahon who brought the Chicago Bears to a Superbowl victory in 1985. Hall of Famer and Rookie of the Year Tony Dorsett, who started his career with the Cowboys, is also a class member. The family of Junior Seau, whose death by suicide has been linked to his injuries, also joined the class. The settlement, as it stands now, offers plaintiffs monetary damages paid annually over 65 years. A planned damage cap of approximately $775 million was removed by the federal judge after concerns that the necessary amount would exceed the cap. Presently, there is no maximum payout limit written into the potential agreement. Seventy-five million dollars would go to screening all retired players to see if they have suffered harm. After that, all eligible players would receive between $1.5 and $5 million for treatment and compensation for injury. However, another hearing to review the fairness of the agreement is scheduled for November. Should the final agreement be ok'd, former players would be able to register for their portion. NIPPON SEIKI: November 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- IF YOU PURCHASED INSTRUMENT PANEL CLUSTERS (ALSO KNOWN AS METERS) DIRECTLY FROM NIPPON SEIKI, DENSO, OR YAZAKI BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2001 AND MAY 16, 2014, YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH NIPPON SEIKI. A proposed $5.25 million settlement has been reached in In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL 2311, 2:12-cv-00201- MoB-MKM) (E.D. Mich.), with defendants Nippon Seiki Co. Ltd., N.S. International, Ltd., and New Sabina Industries, Inc. (collectively, "Nippon Seiki"). What is the lawsuit about? This class action is part of coordinated legal proceedings involving a number of parts used in motor vehicles. The litigation, and the proposed settlement, relate solely to Instrument Panel Clusters purchased directly from a defendant. These proceedings do not relate to, and have no effect upon cases involving any other product or purchaser. "Instrument Panel Clusters," for purposes of the settlement, are the mounted array of instruments and gauges housed in front of the driver of a motor vehicle. They are also known as meters. Plaintiff alleges that defendants entered into a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition for Instrument Panel Clusters by agreeing to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate markets and customers for Instrument Panel Clusters, in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiff further alleges that, as a result of the conspiracy, it and other direct purchasers of Instrument Panel Clusters were injured by paying more for those products than they should have paid, and seek recovery of treble damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an award of attorneys' fees. Nippon Seiki and other defendants deny plaintiff's allegations, and the Court has not issued any findings or rulings on the merits of plaintiff's claims or defendants' defenses. This is a partial settlement of the claims in the Complaint, as it is with Nippon Seiki only. The litigation is continuing against the remaining defendants. Who is included? The Class is composed of all persons or entities who purchased Instrument Panel Clusters in the United States directly from any of the following defendants (or from any of their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, or affiliates) during the period from January 1, 2001 up to and including May 16, 2014 (the "Class Period): Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd.; N.S. International, Ltd.; New Sabina Industries, Inc.; Yazaki Corporation; Yazaki North America Inc.; Denso Corporation; and Denso International America, Inc. A Notice of Proposed Settlement was mailed to potential Direct Purchaser Settlement Class members on or about July 30, 2014. The Notice describes the litigation and options available to Direct Purchaser Settlement Class members with respect to the Nippon Seiki settlement in more detail. If you did not receive the Notice you may obtain a copy on internet at www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com or by calling or writing to the following Settlement Class Counsel: Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP One City Center, P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112-9546 Telephone: (207) 791-3000 Steven A. Kanner, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Eugene A. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Settlement Class What does the settlement provide? Nippon Seiki has paid the amount of $5.25 million (the "Settlement Fund") into an escrow account and will cooper with plaintiff in the prosecution of the claims against the remaining defendants. Your rights may be affected. If you purchased Instrument Panel Clusters in the United States directly from any defendant during the Class Period, you will automatically remain a Direct Purchaser Settlement Class member as to the Nippon Seiki settlement unless you elect to be excluded. If you wish to remain in the Direct Purchaser Settlement Class, you do not need to take any action at this time and your interests will be represented by plaintiff and by Settlement Class Counsel. If you don't want to be bound by the settlement, you must submit a written request for exclusion, postmarked no later than September 13, 2014. If you validly exclude yourself from the Direct Purchaser Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any decision concerning the Nippon Seiki settlement and you may have against Nippon Seiki, but you will not be eligible to share in the Settlement Fund created by the Nippon Seiki settlement. If you stay in the Settlement Class, you have the right to object to the proposed Nippon Seiki settlement and to plaintiff's request to utilize a portion of the Settlement Fund to pay for litigation expenses. Your object must be filed no later than September 13, 2014. The Court has scheduled a hearing on November 5, 2014, to consider whether to approve the proposed settlement and plaintiff's request to utilize a portion of the Settlement Fund to pay plaintiff's litigation expenses. The hearing may be continued without further notice. If you believe you are a member of the Direct Purchaser Settlement Class, you are urged to obtain a copy of the detailed Notice, which discusses your rights regarding the Nippon Seiki settlement. If you have questions concerning this litigation, you may contact Settlement Class Counsel identified above. Do not contact the Clerk of the Court or the Judge. Dated: August 8, 2014 BY ORDER OF: The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division NEIMAN MARCUS: Accused of Deceiving Consumers in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class action accuses Neiman Marcus of deceiving consumers by labeling clothes for sale at its Last Call discount stores with tags comparing the prices to traditional Neiman Marcus stores -- though the clothes were never offered for sale there. Lead plaintiff Linda Rubenstein accuses The Neiman Marcus Group of false advertising, unfair competition and violating state consumer law, in her Aug. 7 complaint in California Superior Court. Neiman Marcus's 41 U.S. retail outlets reported more than $400 million in revenue in 2013, Rubenstein says in the lawsuit. The company also runs 35 Last Call stores, which sell clothes more cheaply. Clothing sales at such factory outlet stores rose by 17.8 percent in 2011, far faster than industry-wide clothing sales growth of 1.4 percent that year, according to the complaint. Rubinstein claims that Neiman Marcus "immersed themselves into this lucrative industry" by claiming to sell "the alleged exact same clothing after season and/or excess clothing that defendant's traditional stores once carried, but for a discounted price." She claims that Neiman Marcus "labels its Last Call clothing with a tag that shows a markedly lower price from the 'Compared to' price which corresponds to the price that appears to be used in traditional Neiman Marcus retail stores." But it's not true, Rubinstein says. "Defendant's Last Call clothing is actually not intended for sale at the traditional Neiman Marcus stores as the 'Compared to' pricing strategy suggests, but rather strictly for the Last Call store. Therefore, defendant's price tags on the Last Call clothing are labeled with arbitrary, inflated 'Compared to' prices that are purely imaginative because it was never sold at the traditional Neiman Marcus store and therefore can't be compared to any price. Thus the insinuated price is false and misleading." Rubinstein claims that the Federal Trade Commission has received complaints from "many members of Congress" about this deceptive strategy. She seeks class certification, disgorgement and restitution, an accounting, statutory and exemplary damages, and costs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather M. Baker, Esq. KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP 2041 Rosecrans Ave, Fl 3 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 536-1000 Facsimile: (310) 536-1001 E-mail: hmp@kirtlandpackard.com NELNET BUSINESS: Got Prelim. OK of Deal in Collection Calls Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nelnet can pay $1.2 million to settle claims that it recorded collection calls about student loan debts, reports Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. The case is Than Zaw v. Nelnet Business Solutions Inc.; Nelnet, Inc.; and Nelnet Servicing, LLC; and Does 1-100, Case No. C 13- 05788 RS, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. OLD WORLD BRICK: Faces "Solorzano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Marco Solorzano, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Old World Brick Paving, Inc. and Christien Calistro, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05994 (N.D. Ill., August 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Old World Brick Paving, Inc. is a brick paving contractor. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1263 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com PARTS AUTHORITY: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Don" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Don, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees v. Parts Authority, Inc., and Woodbury Automotive Warehouse Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-04663 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Parts Authority, Inc. and Woodbury Automotive Warehouse Enterprises, LLC are distributors or automotive and truck parts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Ginsberg, Esq. LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Blvd. Roslyn, NY 11578 Telephone: (516) 625-0105 Facsimile: (516) 625-0106 E-mail: lg@louisginsberglawoffices.com PAWSITIVE SERVICE: Faces Fraud Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Hubert, writing for Sacramento Bee, reports that Pawsitive Service Dog Solutions is facing a class action. Yuba County nonprofit group assured them would be highly trained to help their autistic son Sammy with his anxiety and his tendency to wander into dangerous situations. What they got in return for their investment in Bolt, a boxer mix, was a "very sweet" family pet incapable of performing the tasks needed to assist their 4-year-old son, they said. "Bolt is a very good boy," said Emily James. "He will always have a home with us. But he's not a service dog by any means." Others in California and across the country who had similar experiences with Pawsitive Service Dog Solutions are calling the corporation a fraud, and demanding refunds of money that in many cases they raised through emotional appeals to the public. Four families have filed a lawsuit against Pawsitive in Santa Clara Superior Court, alleging fraud and breach of contract, among other things. More than 20 others may join the lawsuit, said Los Altos attorney Matthew Coleman, who is representing the group. Some of the families received dogs "completely unsuited" to help their children, he said. Others deposited money with Pawsitive and received nothing in return. The nonprofit, incorporated in 2011, is in the process of filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, said Chico attorney Doug Jacobs, who is representing the company in the dissolution. Families who invested in the dogs have no guarantee that they will receive reimbursement for their losses, he said. "We're turning it all over to a bankruptcy trustee," Mr. Jacobs said. According to the lawsuit, families of children with autism and other disorders contracted with Pawsitive to obtain trained service dogs to perform tasks such as "tethering," to keep youngsters from bolting away from their parents; "scent tracking," to locate children in case they slipped away from adult supervision; and "applying pressure" to anxious youngsters to calm them. Pawsitive told prospective clients that the corporation spent about $25,000 to breed, raise and train each service dog, according to the lawsuit. Families were expected to provide about half of that cost, and dogs would be matched with children based on the individual needs of the client. Pawsitive pledged to provide "ongoing support" to families that received its service dogs. On its website, the company claimed to "train and partner healthy, reliable, exclusively bred, highly trained service dogs with individuals of all ages challenged by Autism Spectrum Disorders and other developmental disabilities, thereby providing relief, security, and a dramatically improved quality of life to the affected individual and their families." But Pawsitive and its dogs were not as advertised, according to the lawsuit. The animals the families received were unable to perform even basic tasks, the suit says, and exhibited behaviors "wholly inconsistent" with trained service animals. In one case, a dog named Curly dragged a family's young daughter "through the house by the arm and leg, as if the child were a toy," it says. The dog, supposedly trained to prevent a teenager with Down syndrome from bolting away and getting lost, is skittish, fails to come when called and "could not care less" about where the teen goes, according to the court document. Another Pawsitive dog, named Cooper, was supposed to accompany a young autistic girl to school to keep her calm. But Cooper was "unable to apply pressure to her without walking all over her" and making her cry. He grabbed food out of the hands of schoolchildren, and failed a basic "canine good citizenship" training program. A third Pawsitive dog, Java, matched with a 6-year-old autistic boy, tried to climb into a primate exhibit and dive into a flamingo pond during a school trip, and did not respond to basic commands, the suit says. The suit alleges that Pawsitive does not raise its service dogs from puppies, as it claims; fails to train dogs in accordance with industry standards; and overcharges clients. The corporation also has failed to maintain proper financial records and engages in false advertising, the court document claims. Carmel Mooney, executive director of Pawsitive, did not return messages seeking comment about the lawsuit, nor did her attorney, Gina Gingery. Mr. Jacobs, the bankruptcy lawyer, blamed Pawsitive's downfall on "one disgruntled person" who launched a campaign on the Internet that quickly snowballed and sent the corporation into a free fall. "Unfortunately, this is the society that we live in," said Mr. Jacobs. "Based on the words of one disgruntled person, clients started to jump off. No one was interested in fulfilling their contractual agreements. The money stopped coming in, and the coffers were drained. It's a horrible statement when things just blow up, and people choose to believe evil things rather than good ones." Emily James has a far different take on the situation. She said Pawsitive callously preyed on families desperate for help for their children. Her son Sammy has a tendency to break away from the grasp of his parents and "do things that are inherently dangerous," including running into streets and parking lots, Ms. James said. The family tried electronic tracking devices, among other techniques, but found them to be unreliable. "We were having a very hard time finding something to help us," she said. After seeing a documentary about service dogs and autistic kids, the family contacted Pawsitive and "they assured us they could help," said Ms. James. The family hosted bake sales and rummage sales, solicited help from its church congregation and posted a video online to attract donations to pay for a service dog. In April, they sent $12,500 to the Yuba County nonprofit. They later sent another $1,500 for an unanticipated "placement fee," Emily James said. Soon after learning they had been matched with a dog they named Bolt, the family attended a session hosted by a Pawsitive trainer. They were surprised to find that "the dog was not trained for tracking at all," Ms. James said. "Sam would hide. The trainer would give the dog a command for finding Sam, and Bolt just sat down. He was also bad at very basic stuff. He refused to sit unless you said it six or eight times." Last month, as the dog was still "in training," Ms. James said, she learned that Pawsitive would be filing for bankruptcy protection and would no longer be placing dogs with clients. Ms. James and her husband demanded the dog that they had paid for, and got him. But they still feel bilked. "He didn't come with papers, a vaccination schedule, a health history, or anything like that," she said. "He was just a naked dog. He didn't even have a collar." The family plans to pay for further training for Bolt, but "we're not sure he'll ever be a service dog," Ms. James said. She and her husband intend to join the lawsuit against Pawsitive, which was filed in May. The suit asks for an injunction preventing Pawsitive from misrepresentations to the public, a mandate that the company turn over its financial records, restitution for "ill-gotten gains" by the corporation and unspecified monetary damages. Coleman, the lawyer who filed the claim, said he and the families he represents will appeal to the California attorney general, which oversees charitable organizations, to intervene and recover funds "squandered" by Pawsitive. They also are calling for state regulatory oversight of the service dog industry "so that families with developmentally disabled children, who already are stressed, don't fall prey to unscrupulous or incompetent 'service dog mills' such as what we've seen here." PELLA CORPORATION: Sued Over Latent Defects in Clad Windows ----------------------------------------------------------- Richard Crampton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pella Corporation, an Iowa corporation, and Pella Windows and Doors, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-06013 (N.D. Ill., August 5, 2014), alleges that the Defendants' aluminum-clad windows contain a latent defect that allows water to penetrate and leak behind the aluminum cladding, resulting in premature wood rot and other physical damage to both the window and main structure. The Defendants manufacture and sell Pella windows with its principal place of business in Pella, Iowa. The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Shannon Marie McNulty, Esq. Robert A. Clifford, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES 120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899-9090 E-mail: smm@cliffordlaw.com rac@cliffordlaw.com PENN WEST: Sued in N.Y. Over Manipulation of Financial Report ------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Vollbeer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penn West Petroleum, Ltd., David E. Roberts, Todd H. Takeyasu, Murray R. Nunns and Jeffrey Curran, Case No. 1:14-cv- 06203 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), alleges that the Defendants used accounting sleight of hand in order to artificially manipulate operating costs, royalty expenses and capital expenditures in a manner designed to fraudulently inflate the Company's bottom line and "funds flow." Penn West Petroleum, Ltd. is a senior exploration and production company and is one of the largest conventional oil and natural gas producers in Canada. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Penn West Petroleum, Ltd. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave., 10th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile:(212)545-4653 E-mail: Nespole@whafh.com Kaufman@whafh.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Jason M. Leviton, Esq. Mark A. Delaney, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Telephone: (617)398-5600 Facsimile: (617)507-6020 E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com Jason@blockesq.com Mark@blockesq.com PENN WEST: Wolf Popper Law Firm Files Class Action in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Popper LLP on Aug. 4 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Penn West Petroleum, Ltd., and certain of its current and former officers, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of Penn West common stock on the New York Stock Exchange during the period May 1, 2012 through July 29, 2014, and were damaged thereby. This action alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later than October 3, 2014 to be appointed a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Investors who purchased Penn West on the NYSE during the Class Period and suffered losses are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their rights. The Complaint charges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, including that the Company was understating operating costs and overstating capital expenditures and royalty expenses; and the Company's improper accounting practices were causing Penn West to be at risk of non-compliance with certain of its debt covenants. On July 29, 2014, the Company disclosed that its Audit Committee was conducting an internal review of certain of its accounting practices. Thus far, the Audit Committee has concluded that the Company improperly reclassified approximately $181 million in operating expenses as capital expenditures, and had "incorrectly reclassified" approximately $200 million in additional operating expenses as royalty expenses for 2012 and 2013. The Company will restate its past financial statements for years 2012 and 2013 and certain interim periods, and consequently, may not be in compliance with certain of its debt covenants. On this news, Penn West shares declined $1.30 per share or 14% on July 30, 2014. For more information, please contact: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Tel: (877) 370-7703 Fax: (877) 370-7704 E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com PENN WEST: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Aug. 5 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Penn West securities between May 4, 2012 and July 29, 2014, inclusive, seeking to recover damages for violations of the federal securities laws. To join the Penn West class action, visit the firm's website http://rosenlegal.com/cases-320.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. The class action alleges the Company issued materially false and misleading financial statements to investors. Specifically that: (a) Penn West improperly classified operating expenses as property, plant and equipment without documentary support, resulting in an overstatement of capital expenditures; (b) Penn West incorrectly classified certain operating expenses as royalty expenses; (c) Penn West lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; (d) Penn West was not in compliance with certain of its covenants under its unsecured, revolving syndicated bank facility; and (e) as a result of the foregoing, Penn West's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When these adverse facts entered the market, the price of Penn West securities dropped, damaging investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 3, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com. You may also visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-320.html The Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. PFIZER INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Patent Protection -------------------------------------------------------------- Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Pfizer, Inc., G.D. Searle LLC, and Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Case No. 2:14-cv-00396 (E.D. Va., August 5, 2014), alleges that the Defendants implemented a scheme to unlawfully prolong patent protection for celecoxib to avoid the consequences of the Federal Circuit ruling invalidating the '068 patent and allowing earlier generic competition into the market for Celebrex. Pfizer, Inc. is engaged in the worldwide marketing, production, and distribution of pharmaceutical products, including in this district. G.D. Searle LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York, 10017. It is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. is a Singapore private limited company, with its principal place of business at 31 Tuas South Avenue 6, Singapore 637578. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Steven Glasser, Esq. Kip Andrew Harbison, Esq. Marc Christian Greco, Esq. Melissa Marie Watson Goode, Esq. Michael Andrew Glasser, Esq. William Hanes Monroe Jr., Esq. GLASSER & GLASSER PLC 580 E Main St., Suite 600 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 625-6787 Facsimile: (757) 625-5959 E-mail: richardg@glasserlaw.com kip@glasslaw.com marcg@glasserlaw.com mgoode@glasserlaw.com michael@glasserlaw.com bill@glasserlaw.com - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. Zachary D. Caplan, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215)875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net zcaplan@bm.net QR ENERGY: Faces "Taylor" Action Over Sale to Brietburn Energy -------------------------------------------------------------- Harry J. Taylor, as grantee for Roy E. Toler, Michelle Burt, Michael Taylor, and Jennifer Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alan Smith, John Campbell, Jr., Donald Wolf, Stephen Thorington, Donald Powell, Richard Herbert, Toby Neugebauer, S. Wil Vanloh, Jr., QR Energy LP, and QRE GP, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-02243 (S.D. Tex., August 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to sell the Partnership to Breitburn Energy Partners L.P., Breitburn GP, LLC, and Boom Merger Sub, LLC by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price. The Company Defendants are engaged in oil and natural gas production. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of QR Energy LP, and QRE GP, LLC. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. THE BILEK LAW FIRM LLP 700 Louisiana, Ste 3950 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 227-7720 Facsimile: (713) 227-9404 E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com ROYAL CARRIBEAN: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal and denied plaintiff's petition for re-hearing and re-hearing en banc of a lawsuit by stateroom attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean International cruise vessels, according to Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.'s June 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. A class action complaint was filed in June 2011 against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a purported class of stateroom attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean International cruise vessels. The complaint alleges that the stateroom attendants were required to pay other crew members to help with their duties and that certain stateroom attendants were required to work back of house assignments without the ability to earn gratuities, in each case in violation of the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act. Plaintiffs seek judgments for damages, wage penalties and interest in an indeterminate amount. In May 2012, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the applicable collective bargaining agreement requires any such claims to be arbitrated. The United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal and denied Plaintiff's petition for re-hearing and re-hearing en banc. SANDFORD OIL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Hernandez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Sandford Oil Company, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00839 (E.D. Tex., August 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Sandford Oil Company, Inc. specializes in providing fuel distribution and transportation services to various oilfield installations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jimmy Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL LLP 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Faces Personal Injury Suit Over Lead in Paint --------------------------------------------------------------- The Sherwin-Williams Company is a defendant in a number of legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from alleged personal injuries as a result of ingestion of lead pigment or lead-containing paint, according to the company's June 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. The Company and other companies are defendants in a number of legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from alleged personal injuries. These proceedings include claims by children allegedly injured from ingestion of lead pigment or lead- containing paint and claims for damages allegedly incurred by the children's parents or guardians. These proceedings generally seek compensatory and punitive damages, and seek other relief including medical monitoring costs. These proceedings include purported claims by individuals, groups of individuals and class actions. SOUTH AFRICA: Class Action v. EC Education Department Postponed --------------------------------------------------------------- Malibongwe Dayimani, writing for Grocotts' Mail, reports that the class action court case led by the Grahamstown-based Legal Resources Centre (LRC) on behalf of 32 Eastern Cape schools against the EC Department of Education, has been postponed. The case deals with the appointment of teachers to vacant posts and reimbursement to schools that paid teachers from their own reserves instead of the government. Sarah Shepton of the LRC told Grocott's Mail on Aug. 4 that the case was postponed to allow the new acting Education Head Ray Tywakadi time to bring himself up to speed with the case's details. The LRC is representing the School Governing Body (SGB) of Linkside High School in Port Elizabeth and the SGBs of 31 other affected schools in the Eastern Cape. The involved parties appeared briefly in the Grahamstown Magistrates Court on July 31 where Judge Clive Pasket postponed it until October 30, 2014. According to the LRC website, the number of teachers involved in the class action currently stands at 150 and they are owed up to R25 million. In January the two parties came to an agreement requiring the Department of Basic Education to reimburse schools within 30 days of the court order. So far, no school has been reimbursed. George Dickerson Primary School Principal Melville Meiring told Grocotts the department owes his school around R80 000. He said the school was paying four teachers from their own reserves, through school fees. STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Pennsylvania woman has filed seven class action lawsuits against various companies she claims have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sarah Heinzl named Zamagias Properties, WP Realty Inc., CVS Caremark Corporation, Starbucks Corporation, Boston Market Corporation, Kamin Realty Company and Quality Foods Corporation in the seven class action lawsuits, claiming the companies deny full access to their facilities for those with mobility disabilities, according to seven class action complaints filed July 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Ms. Heinzl claims in June and July, and at other times, she visited the defendants' properties and experienced unnecessary difficulty and risk due to excessive slopes in purportedly accessible parking spaces and access aisles and along routes to the buildings' entrances. As a result of the defendants' non-compliance with the ADA, Ms. Heinzl's ability to access and use the defendants' facilities has been significantly impeded, according to the suits. "Though defendant has centralized policies regarding the management and operation of its facilities, defendant has never had a plan or policy that is reasonably calculated to make its facilities fully accessible to, and independently usable by individuals with mobility disabilities," one of the complaints states. Ms. Heinzl claims as an individual with a mobility disability who is dependent on a wheelchair, she has a keen interest in whether public accommodations have architectural barriers that impede full accessibility to those accommodations by individuals with mobility impairments. The plaintiff intends to return to the defendants' facilities to shop and to ascertain whether those facilities remain in violation of the ADA, according to the suits. "However, so long as the numerous architectural barriers at defendant's facilities continue to exist, plaintiff will be deterred from returning to defendant's facilities," one of the complaints states. Ms. Heinzl claims she brings the class actions on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all wheelchair users who have attempted, or will attempt, to access the defendants' facilities. "The class described . . . is so numerous that joinder of all individual members in one action would be impracticable," one of the complaints states. "The disposition of the individual claims of the respective class members through this class action will benefit both the parties and this Court." Ms. Heinzl's claims are typical of the claims of the members of the class. The claims of the plaintiff and members of the class are based on the same legal theories and arise from the same unlawful conduct. The plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class because her interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the class, according to the suits. "Plaintiff will fairly, adequately and vigorously represent and protect the interests of the members of the class and has no interests antagonistic to the members of the class," one of the complaints states. "Plaintiff has retained counsel who are competent and experienced in the prosecution of class action litigation, generally, and who possess specific expertise in the context of class litigation under the ADA." Ms. Heinzl is seeking class certification and permanent injunctions requiring the defendants to bring their properties into compliance with the ADA. She is represented by R. Bruce Carlson, Stephanie Goldin and Carlos R. Diaz of Carlson Lynch Ltd. The cases have been assigned to district judges Joy Flowers Conti, David S. Cercone, Cathy Bissoon and Robert C. Mitchell. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case numbers: 2:14-cv-00891, 2:14-cv-00963, 2:14-cv-00979, 2:14-cv- 00989, 2:14-cv-00997, 2:14-cv-01003, 2:14-cv-01010 STARDUST DINERS: "Rosa" Suit in Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jhonatan Rosa and Luis Osorio, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Stardust Diners, Inc. doing business as: Colony Diner, George Strifas, Peter Strifas, and Thomas Strifas, Case No. 2:14-cv-04645 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a restaurant known as Colony Diner located in East Meadow, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Tilton, Esq. ERIC S. TILTON, P.L.L.C. 193 East Main Street Babylon, NY 11702 Telephone: (631) 629-5291 Facsimile: (516) 324-3170 E-mail: erictiltonlaw@gmail.com SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces RICO Act Violation Suit in Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. continues to face a lawsuit alleging violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to the company's June 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 14, 2014. In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. SUPERVALU INC: Seeks Review of Judgment in Suit Over C&S Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. filed a petition for en banc review by the Eighth Circuit on the reversal of the summary judgment decision and specific issues in a lawsuit over a 2003 transaction with C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., according to the company's June 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 14, 2014. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non- compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non- arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the 8th Circuit denied the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation which was not successful in resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Company, and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution center. On June 18, 2014, the Company filed a petition for en banc review by the 8th Circuit on the reversal of the summary judgment decision and specific issues raised thereunder. SUPERVALU INC: Seeks Final Approval of FWW Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Final approval is being sought in a settlement reached in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in the District of Connecticut by former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-Lot over the fluctuating work week method of pay ("FWW"), according to the company's June 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 14, 2014. In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A- Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week method of pay ("FWW") in the United States District Court in the District of Connecticut. FWW is a method of compensation whereby employees are paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during a week plus additional compensation at one-half the regular rate for overtime hours. Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful or, if lawful, that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method of pay, including in situations involving paid time off, holiday pay, and bonus payments. In March 2013, the United States District Court granted conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue of whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot's motion for summary judgment on the same issue. This FWW practice is permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in the case. The same plaintiffs' attorneys representing Kiefer filed two additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU. Shortly before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases filed by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011, the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot determining FWW was a legal practice in Connecticut. In March 2013, another Save- A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano) filed an FWW class claim against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania state law in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas relating to overtime payment. In all three cases, which the Company was defending vigorously, plaintiffs were seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees. On August 20, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the matters on a nationwide basis in a settlement that will cap the Company's aggregate obligation, including with respect to settlement funds, plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs and settlement administration costs. The settlement is subject to the applicable courts' preliminary and final approval. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 13, 2014. Final resolution is subject to the court's approval, which the parties will seek in July 2014. The Company recorded a litigation settlement charge of $5 million before tax ($3 million after tax) in the second quarter of fiscal 2014 in connection with the expected settlement of this matter. The Company funded $5 million into a qualified settlement fund on February 28, 2014. TEREX CORP: Motions to Dismiss Securities, ERISA Lawsuits Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Motions by Terex Corporation to dismiss a securities lawsuit and a lawsuit alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act are pending before a court, according to the company's June 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. The Company has received complaints seeking certification of class action lawsuits in an ERISA lawsuit, a securities lawsuit and a stockholder derivative lawsuit as follows: (i) A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on September 20, 2010 and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA Litigation. (ii) A consolidated class action complaint for violations of securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al. (iii) A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April 12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and Terex Corporation. These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements. The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in its favor. The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with federal securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these matters. Accordingly, on November 19, 2010 the Company filed a motion to dismiss the ERISA lawsuit and on January 18, 2011 the Company filed a motion to dismiss the securities lawsuit. These motions are currently pending before the court. The plaintiff in the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in connection with the securities lawsuit. TIRE SHOP: Faces "Ferrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Wilson Ferrera v. Tire Shop Center, and Leomares Luna, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-04657 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Tire Shop Center distributes and sells tires with principal place of business located at 112 Jamaica Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11207. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq. Jaffe Glenn Law Group, P.A. Building 2, Suite 220 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com TK RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Reyes" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Celso Reyes, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TK Restaurant Corp. (d/b/a SQUARE DINER), Theodore Karoumos and John Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-06211 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation. TK Restaurant Corp. is a Restaurant owned by Theodore Karoumos located at 33 Leonard Street, New York, NY 10013. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com TOLEDO MUDLOGGING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Bradley McCown, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Toledo Mudlogging Services, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-00121 (E.D. Tex., August 5, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Toledo Mudlogging Services, Inc. provides providing mud logging services in various areas of the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com TRANSNET: Pensioners' Class Action to Hit Expansion Program ----------------------------------------------------------- The Citizen reports that warnings that an R80 billion class action law suit against Transnet and its pension funds will "significantly impact" its ability to raise loans has become a reality, with the courts opening the way for pensioners. Former Public Enterprises Minister Malusi Gigaba issued the warning in Parliament last year as he detailed the utility's R300 billion expansion program. The North Gauteng High Court granted an application by two Transnet pensioners to institute an R80 billion class action suit against Transnet and its pension funds. The action will be brought on behalf of 26, 000 impoverished pensioners in an attempt to recover close to R80 billion in assets and interest and is expected to be instituted within 60 days. The pensioners have accused Transnet of stripping the Transnet Pension Fund and Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund (TSBF) of its assets and mismanaging them to such an extent the funds were unable to meet their obligations to members. Increases to pensions have been limited to 2% for much of the past decade, reducing most of them to poverty. Newly appointed Minister of Public Enterprises Lynne Brown on Aug. 1 did not want to comment on the impact, saying she was studying the ruling. This was echoed by Transnet. Charl Kocks, principal of Ratings Afrika, said lenders had over many years been wary of financing Transnet and its debt had therefore been priced higher than that of other state-owned companies. "It remains to be seen, if successful, who will be held responsible. Will it be limited to the pension funds and its trustees, or will it include Transnet itself?" However, if the facts are not contested, the case may progress rather quickly to the stage of quantifying damages, he said. As soon as the action was instituted, Transnet would be compelled to raise a contingent liability, Mr. Kocks said. At first, a mere note informing stakeholders of the pending case would suffice, but as soon as there was reasonable certainty about the facts and the amount, Transnet would have to make provision for the amount in its financial statements, Mr. Kocks said. That would be expensed through the income statement and shown as a liability on its balance sheet. In the year that it would be done, it would seriously affect Transnet's results. The company's revenue in FY2014 amounted to R56.6 billion, with a R5.2 billion profit for the year. Its gearing was at 45.9% with borrowings at R90.4 billion, up 23.7% from the previous year. Mr. Kocks said lenders' appetite to fund Transnet was to a large extent based on Transnet's ability to generate cash. In 2014 it generated R25.3 billion in cash from operations after working capital changes. Alberts, who has long been trying to address the fate of pensioners, told Business he would personally write to all Transnet's funders to bring the July 31 court ruling and the associated risk to their attention. Wynanda Coetzee, the attorney acting on behalf of the pensioners, has publicly appealed to Transnet to sit around the table with her clients and discuss a settlement. She has also stated there "is no political involvement or affiliation in this litigation and same will not be tolerated". TRULIA INC: Being Sold to Zillow for Too Little, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Collier, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Trulia, Inc., Erik Bardman, Peter Flint, Theresia Gouw, Daniel Stephen Hafner, Samiinkinen, Robert Moles, Gregory Waldorf, Zillow, Inc., and Zebra Holdco, Inc., Case No. CGC 14- 540985 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., August 7, 2014) accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with Zillow's proposed acquisition of all the outstanding stock of Trulia. Trulia is incorporated in Delaware with its principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California. Trulia operates innovative mobile and Web products that provide home buyers, sellers, renters, and real estate professionals with valuable tools and information for use in the home search process. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Zillow is a Washington corporation headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Zillow operates real estate and home-related information marketplaces via mobile applications and the Web, with a complementary portfolio of brands and products that help people find vital information about homes and connect with local real estate professionals. HoldCo is a Washington corporation that was created for purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction. In another story, Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Trulia too cheaply through an unfair process to Zillow, in a stock swap valued at $3.5 billion, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court. Plaintiff Robert Collier is represented by: David E. Bower, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. James Wilson, Jr., Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com mschreiner@faruqilaw.com UNITED REFINING: Sued in Pa. Over Violation of Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Refining Company and Kwik-Fill Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00205 (W.D. Pa., August 6, 2014), alleges violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. United Refining Company and Kwik-Fill Corporation operate an oil refinery in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Stephanie Goldin, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD. 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com bsweet@carlsonlynch.com sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com UNITED STATES: Black Secret Service Agents' Bias Suit Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Zajac, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that black U.S. Secret Service agents may pursue claims of racial discrimination in promotions as a group, a federal appeals court said, dismissing a government challenge to giving the complaint class-action status. The ruling means that about 120 current and former agents can pursue their claims that they were denied promotion to senior positions because of their race. A three-judge panel in Washington on Aug. 1 upheld a finding by a lower court that "the interests of efficiency and uniformity supported resolving the question of discrimination in one stroke rather than requiring the same question to be answered separately for each individual," according to an opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg. The original complaint underlying the ruling was filed in 2000 and the class affirmed on Aug. 1 includes black agents who sought promotions to the GS-14 or GS-15 level from 1995 to 2005. The Secret Service employs about 3,000 special agents. Established in 1865 during the U.S. Civil War to suppress counterfeit currency, it's best known for providing security for the U.S. president, other national leaders and visiting foreign heads of state. Recent Scandals In recent years, the agency has been roiled by scandal. At least nine employees left after allegations that they hired prostitutes while setting up security for a presidential visit to Cartagena, Colombia, in April 2012. Three agents were sent home from Amsterdam in March on the eve of a visit by President Barack Obama for violating a rule that bans drinking within 10 hours of going on duty. Brian Leary, a spokesman for the Secret Service, didn't immediately respond to a voice-mail message requesting comment on the appeals court decision. The ruling did away with arguments "largely erected as roadblocks to a trial," said Catherine Stetson, an attorney for the agents. "We're looking forward to discussing next steps with the government." Stetson said she didn't know how many members of the class still are on duty with the agency. The case is In re: Jeh Johnson, 13-8002, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia (Washington). VISA INC: Consumer Interchange Litigation Transferred to MDL 1720 ----------------------------------------------------------------- A 2013 a putative class action of Visa Inc. cardholders alleging that certain financial institutions conspired to fix interchange fees, was transferred to MDL 1720, according to the company's July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On December 16, 2013, a putative class action was filed in federal district court in California against certain financial institutions alleging that they conspired to fix interchange fees and imposed other alleged restraints on competition. The complaint was filed on behalf of four named plaintiffs and an alleged class of all Visa and MasterCard payment cardholders in the United States since January 1, 2000. Although no Visa entity is named as a defendant, the complaint identifies Visa U.S.A., MasterCard, and certain non-defendant financial institutions as co-conspirators, and plaintiffs assert that they may seek leave to amend the complaint to add the co-conspirators as defendants. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and treble damages allegedly to compensate the purported class for more than $54.0 billion dollars in purported overcharges imposed on them each year by defendants and their alleged co-conspirators. On March 28, 2014, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. After the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation declined to transfer the case to MDL 1720, defendants filed a motion with the Panel seeking transfer of the case to MDL 1720. On June 4, 2014, the motion was granted, and the case was transferred to MDL 1720. VISA INC: Plaintiffs Pursue Bid to Amend U.S. ATM Access Fee Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the National ATM Council lawsuit and the consumer lawsuits filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit against a district court's refusal to allow them to file amended complaints, according to Visa Inc.'s July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On December 19, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied plaintiffs' motions for leave to file amended complaints in the National ATM Council class action and the consumer class actions, and denied plaintiffs' motions for an order altering or amending the court's February 13, 2013 judgment. On January 10, 2014, plaintiffs in the National ATM Council class action and the consumer class actions filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. VISA INC: Wants to Separate Data Breach Suit From Case v. Target ---------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. filed a motion to separate and remand data breach claims against it after the action was transferred to In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2522, according to Visa Inc.'s July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On March 3, 2014, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah against Target, Visa and MasterCard alleging, among other things, violations of Utah unfair competition law, invasion of privacy, negligence and breach of contract as a result of unauthorized access in November and December 2013 to certain personal information and payment card data stored by Target. The complaint also alleges that Visa and MasterCard unlawfully failed to implement chip technology in the United States. The complaint seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On April 4, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order conditionally transferring the action to an existing MDL related to the Target data breach where Visa has not been a party in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2522. On April 23, 2014, Visa and MasterCard filed a motion to separate and remand the claims against them, or alternatively, to remand the action in its entirety. The case has otherwise been stayed pending the outcome of the motion, which Target and the plaintiffs have opposed. VISA INC: Provides Updates on Merchant Litigations in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------ Visa Inc. provides updates on several Canadian Competition Proceedings in its July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. In the British Columbia lawsuit, a hearing on class certification commenced on April 22, 2013 and concluded on May 1, 2013. The lawsuits in Quebec and Ontario are being held in abeyance pending further proceedings in the British Columbia lawsuit. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, applications for a stay of proceedings and carriage of the lawsuits have been filed. In Saskatchewan, on April 25, 2014, a separate action was filed against Visa Canada Corporation and Visa Inc., two MasterCard entities, and a number of smaller Canadian issuing banks that are not named as defendants in any of the existing proceedings. On March 26, 2014, the British Columbia Supreme Court, in Watson v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., granted the plaintiffs' application for class certification in part, allowing plaintiffs to proceed as a class on, among other claims, claims for price fixing under Canada's Competition Act. Both plaintiff and defendants are appealing aspects of the certification decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The pending Canada Merchant Litigation lawsuits largely seek unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief, but some allege substantial damages. WCS SERVICES: "Hicks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Torrey Hicks, and Tyra Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WCS Services, LLC, Wardlaw Claims Service, LLP, WCCA, Inc., Wardlaw Claims Training Center, LLC, Wardlaw Auto Claims Solutions, LLC, Wardlaw Claims Service, Inc., Wardlaw Consulting Services, Inc., Custom Data Systems, Inc., William F. Wardlaw, Michael Wardlaw, and Rebecca Meadows, Case No. 6:14-cv-00337 (W.D. Tex., August 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The Defendants are Texas companies that provide claims management services to insurance companies through a work force of claims adjusters. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Starzyk, Esq. April L. Walter, Esq. STARZYK & ASSOCIATES PC 10200 Grogan's Mill Rd., Suite 300 The Woodlands, TX 77380 Telephone: (713) 364-7261 Facsimile: (713) 364-7533 E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com awalter@starzyklaw.com WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over False Marketing of Yogurt -------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Whole Foods Market after class members claim its 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt was falsely marketed at having only two grams of sugar per serving when it actually contained six times the labeled amount. Tracey M. Knox claims Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt, which expressly states on the label that it contains two grams of sugar per serving, was falsely marketed, according to a complaint filed Aug. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. "In fact, in six recent tests conducted by the venerable consumer publication Consumer Reports, the Yogurt had 11.4 grams of sugar per serving on average -- nearly six times the stated amount," the complaint states. "The claimed amount of sugar raised eyebrows because it is much lower than competitors, which generally range between five and 10 grams of sugar per serving." As a result of the defendant's materially false statements concerning the sugar content in the yogurt, the plaintiff and the proposed class have been harmed and have suffered damages, according to the suit. "One of the mottos of Whole Foods is 'Health Starts Here.' Defendant markets itself and its 365 brand products as a healthier alternative to other stores and brands," the complaint states. "Defendant advertises and warrants the statements on its label and as they pertain to the Yogurt the statements are demonstrably false." Ms. Knox claims the yogurt market in the United States is enormous by any standard -- it tops $7 billon dollars per year. Greek yogurt in particular comprises a major portion of the overall yogurt market, due in large measure to its high protein content and perceived health value over traditional yogurt. "Among health conscious consumers, yogurt can be and is an important component of a healthy diet," the complaint states. "For those with health conditions, such as diabetes, the accuracy of sugar content in products is extremely important. Defendant has a duty to provide accurate information on its product label and has failed to do so." The defendant is responsible and liable for, among other things, providing notice to consumers of accurate information concerning the sugar content of the yogurt and repayment of its ill-gotten gains, as well as other related consequential damages that resulted from the defendant's provision of false and misleading information concerning the yogurt, according to the suit. Ms. Knox claims on multiple times during the last several years, she has purchased the yogurt because of its purported health benefits, including the low sugar content. Although the plaintiff was unaware of the Consumer Reports information concerning the false information the defendant provided about the yogurt at the time of the purchase, the plaintiff's purchase occurred after the defendant was made aware of the discrepancies demonstrated by Consumer Reports' testing, according to the suit. "Despite notice of the discrepancy Defendant has not removed the yogurt from the shelves or provided any corrective notice to purchasers, like [the] plaintiff," the complaint states. Ms. Knox is seeking class certification and compensatory and punitive damages. She is being represented by Erica C. Mirabella of Mirabella Law; Matthew E. Miller and William H. Anderson of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP; and Jon Herskowitz of Baron & Herskowitz. The case has been assigned to District Judge Richard G. Stearns. U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts case number: 1:14-cv-13185 YELP INC: Faces "Curry" Suit Over Misleading Financial Report ------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Curry, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Yelp Inc., Jeremy Stoppelman, Robert J. Krolik and Geoffrey Donaker, Case No. 3:14-cv-03547 (N.D. Cal., August 6, alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's true business and financial condition. Yelp Inc. describes itself generally as an online networking platform that connects people with great local businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Darren Jay Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center, One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com - and - David Conrad Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com ********* 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 * * *