/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140903.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 3, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 175 Headlines ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Trial in "Pacchia" Case in December 2014 ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Benston's Motion for Leadership Role Denied AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion Papers Due in Massachusetts Case AMGEN INC: Court Narrows Claims in Federal Securities Litigation AMGEN INC: Petition for Certiorari Granted in ERISA Litigation AMERICAN WATER: Joint Briefing on Remand Issue Completed in July AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Halling & Cayo Files ETF Class Action AMINCOR INC: Illegally Deducts Insurance Contribution, Suit Says APEX WIND: Accused of Hurting Landowners' Health and Economy APPLE HOSPITALITY: Second Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Claims APPLE HOSPITALITY: Moved to Dismiss Suits Over A7 and A8 Mergers APPLE HOSPITALITY: Moved to Dismiss or Strike "Moses" Action APPLE HOSPITALITY: Moved to Dismiss or Transfer "Wenzel" Action ARC DOCUMENT: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI: "Musser" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal BIG CITY CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay OT, "Farias" Suit Claims BOKAMPER'S SPORTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BRANDY'S OF CHICAGO: Faces "Santos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CBOE HOLDINGS: 4 Class Actions Consolidated Into Providence Case CBOE HOLDINGS: Faces "Lanier" Lawsuits Over Inferior Market Data CHEVRON CORP: Court Dismissed With Leave to Amend "Ogala" Suit CHICAGO PRIME: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Serafin" Suit Says CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces "Hardt" Suit Over Transmission Defects CIT GROUP: Files Lawsuit Against WPC for Indemnification CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Class in Train Derailment Suit Not Certified CVS CAREMARK: Appeal in Class Suit Pending Before Ala. High Court CVS CAREMARK: Additional Discovery and Briefing in Managers Case CVS CAREMARK: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Class Action DELTA APPAREL: Discovery Ongoing in California Wage and Hour Case EASTMAN KODAK: Motion to Dismiss Taken Under Advisement ELECTRONIC ARTS: Still Defending "Hart" Class Action ELECTRONIC ARTS: Still Defending Likeness Licensing Litigation ELECTRONIC ARTS: Recognized $30MM Accrual Associated With Accord ELECTRONIC ARTS: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss Battlefield Suit FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces "Mehr" Suit Over Players' Safety FEDEX GROUND: Misclassified 3,000+ Drivers, 9th Cir. Ruled FIRST SOLAR: Deadline to Complete Merits Discovery Is December 30 GARLOCK SEALING: Judge Tosses Motion to Block Asbestos Evidence GEMINI DINER: "Galicia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime GLOBAL TEL LINK: Faces "Murilla" Over Unlawful Telephone Charge GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Still Defending Against Securities Action GREEN LIGHT: Faces "Aguado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GROUPON INC: Sales Rep Overtime Class Action Can't Proceed HANOVER INSURANCE: Motion to Alter or Amend Denied HEWLETT PACKARD: Judge Casts Doubt on Autonomy Settlement HILLS BANCORPORATION: Bank Faces Class Action in Johnson County IEC ELECTRONICS: Responding to Amended Class Action Complaint IMPAX LABORATORIES: 13 Actions Transferred to Massachusetts Court IMPAX LABORATORIES: 4 Opana ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions Filed IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Proceeding in Securities Cases INDIANA MUNICIPAL POWER: High Electric Rates Blamed on Coal INTERMUNE INC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Roche Holdings INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Shareholder Seeks to Stop Infineon Deal INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Facing Securities Class Action Lawsuit JC PENNEY: Accused of Issuing False and Misleading Statements KRAFT FOODS: Recalls 7,691 American Singles Cheese Product L3 COMMUNICATIONS: Bernard M. Gross Law Firm Files Class Action LANNETT COMPANY: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act LEGGETT & PLATT: Q1 2015 Trial for Direct Purchaser Class Actions LEGGETT & PLATT: April 2015 Hearing on Motions for Certification LEGGETT & PLATT: Discovery Has Commenced in "Baker" Action LONDON METAL: Can Avert Antitrust Claim Due to Sovereign Immunity MAJOR LEAGUE: Seeks Emergency Appeal From Antitrust Suit Ruling M2 PRODUCTS: Dog Leash Product Liability Suit Settled for $1.3MM MING'S GOURMET: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act MONAVIE INC: Suit Over Deceptive Cure-All Juice Will Continue NABORS INDUSTRIES: C&J Energy Stockholders File Class Action PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Defending Class Action Over REMOXY Drug PFIZER INC: Sued Over Manipulation of Celecoxib Patent Renewal PURDUE PHARMA: Seeks to Disqualify Attorney in OxyContin Suit QBE INSURANCE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Investigation QEP RESOURCES: Defendants Asked for Review in "Gatti" Action QEP RESOURCES: Cert. Hearings in Train Derailment Case Ongoing RAWSON-NEAL PSYCHIATRIC: Bused Patients to New Cities, Suit Says REGIONS FINANCIAL: Class Actions Subject to Indemnification Pact REGIONS FINANCIAL: 11th Cir. Reviewing Class Action Certification REGIONS FINANCIAL: September 2014 Trial in E.D. Missouri Case REPUBLIC SERVICES: Judge Dismisses West Lake Landfill Class Action SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Merger-Related Suit in Delaware SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Defective Washing Machines Suit Can Proceed SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces IPO-Related Class Suit in New York SANTANDER CONSUMER: Glancy Biskow Files Class Action in New York SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Exorbitant Prison Phone Call Rates SPIRIT REALTY: Stipulation of Settlement Has Preliminary Approval SQUARE FOOT MANAGEMENT: "Buntin" Suit Seeks To Recover Unpaid OT SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: UK Arbitration to Be Reconvened in September ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO: BLFJ Postpones Filing of Class Action STATE STREET: October 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set TARGET CORP: Plaintiffs Attorney Files Amended Class Action UNIT CORPORATON: Faces Panola ISD Class Action in Oklahoma UNITED PARCEL: February 2015 Trial in Franchisees' Class Action UNITED PARCEL: Defending One Outstanding Case in Ontario UNITED PARCEL: Entered Into Agreement in Principle in June UNITED STATES: ACLU Announced Deal on New Departure Procedures UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Settles Data Breach Class Action VINTAGE PHARMA: Coordination of Birth Control Pill Suits Denied VISTEON CORPORATION: 750+ Employees File Actions in Germany VITACOST.COM INC: Faces Class Actions Over Merger With Kroger VOLVO GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Boat Engine Defects VULCAN MATERIALS: Faces Class Action Over Sinkhole WHOLE FOODS: Greek Yogurt Label Is Deceptive, Class Suit Claims WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Epstein" Class Action WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Botched TV Deal ZAGG INC: Appeal in Shareholders' Suit Pending Before 10th Cir. ZILLOW INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit in W.D. Wash. Fully Briefed ********* ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Trial in "Pacchia" Case in December 2014 ------------------------------------------------------------- Activision Blizzard, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on September 11, 2013, a Company stockholder filed a putative class action and stockholder derivative action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Hayes v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., No. 8885-VCL. The complaint names the Company's Board of Directors, Vivendi S.A., Amber Holding Subsidiary Co., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Vivendi ("New VH"), ASAC II LP ("ASAC"), the General Partner of ASAC, Davis Selected Advisers, L.P. ("Davis") and Fidelity Management & Research Co. ("FMR") as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The Company said, "The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain provisions of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation by failing to submit the matters contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement for approval by a majority of our stockholders (other than Vivendi and its controlled affiliates); that our Board of Directors committed breaches of their fiduciary duties in approving the Stock Purchase Agreement; that Vivendi violated fiduciary duties owed to other stockholders of the Company in entering into the Stock Purchase Agreement; that our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman usurped a corporate opportunity from the Company; that our Board of Directors and Vivendi have engaged in actions to entrench our Board of Directors and officers in their offices; that the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors and Vivendi; and that our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR will be unjustly enriched through the Private Sale. "The complaint seeks, among other things, the rescission of the Private Sale; an order requiring the transfer to the Company of all or part of the shares that are the subject of the Private Sale; an order implementing measures to eliminate or mitigate the alleged entrenching effects of the Private Sale; an order requiring our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR to disgorge to the Company the amounts by which they have allegedly been unjustly enriched; and alleged damages sustained by the class and the Company. "In addition, the stockholder sought a temporary restraining order preventing the defendants from consummating the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement without stockholder approval. "Following a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order, on September 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued a preliminary injunction order, enjoining the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement pending (a) the issuance of a final decision after a trial on the merits; (b) receipt of a favorable Activision Blizzard stockholder vote on the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement under Section 9.1(b) of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation or (c) modification of such preliminary injunction order by the Court of Chancery or the Delaware Supreme Court." On September 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery certified its order issuing the preliminary injunction for interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. The defendants moved the Delaware Supreme Court to accept and hear the appeal on an expedited basis. On September 23, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the Court of Chancery's decision and granted the defendant's motion to hear the appeal on an expedited basis. Following a hearing on October 10, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's order issuing a preliminary injunction, and determined that the Stock Purchase Agreement was not a merger, business combination or similar transaction that would require a vote of Activision's unaffiliated stockholders under the charter. On October 29, 2013, an amended complaint was filed. It added factual allegations but no new claims or relief. Also on October 29, 2013, Hayes filed a motion to consolidate the Hayes case with the stockholder action, Pacchia v. Kotick et al., C.A. No. 8884- VCL in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013. On December 3, 2013, the court selected Pacchia as lead plaintiff. Pacchia filed a second amended complaint on December 11, 2013 and Activision filed an answer on January 31, 2014. Also on January 31, 2014, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Robert A. Kotick, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Brian G. Kelly, Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the second amended complaint. On February 21, 2014, Pacchia filed a third amended complaint under seal. In response to Pacchia's filing of a third amended complaint, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly, Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the third amended complaint. On June 6, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied the defendants' motions to dismiss such claims, with the exception of a breach of contract claim. Subsequently, Pacchia filed a fourth amended complaint containing substantially all of his prior claims, but with the addition of new allegations gleaned from discovery in the matter. ASAC filed a motion to dismiss the re-pleaded breach of contract claim and the other defendants filed answers in response to the fourth amended complaint. Discovery in the Pacchia case is continuing. The trial is scheduled for December 2014. Activision Blizzard is a global developer and publisher of interactive entertainment. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Benston's Motion for Leadership Role Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Activision Blizzard, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Mark Benston filed on March 14, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery, captioned Benston v. Vivendi S.A. et al., No. 9447-VCL. The complaint makes claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller, but also adds J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC as defendants and a so-called Brophy claim for insider trading against certain of the defendants. Benston and his attorneys petitioned the Court of Chancery to appoint them as co-lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel, respectively, for purposes of pursuing the Brophy claim as part of the consolidated Pacchia litigation. On June 6, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied Benston's motion for a leadership role in the consolidated Pacchia litigation. As a result, Pacchia continues to serve as the lead plaintiff and his fourth amended complaint is the operative complaint for purposes of the consolidated Pacchia litigation. Activision Blizzard is a global developer and publisher of interactive entertainment. AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion Papers Due in Massachusetts Case ------------------------------------------------------------- AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported class action complaint was originally filed on March 18, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments et. al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG, and was amended on September 15, 2010 and on December 17, 2010. The Company said, "The second amended complaint, or SAC, filed on December 17, 2010 alleged that we and our former President and Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, the then- members of our Board, and certain underwriters in our January 2010 offering of common stock violated certain federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that our former President and Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer violated Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain alleged omissions in a registration statement filed in January 2010. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock pursuant to our common stock offering on or about January 21, 2010." On August 11 and 15, 2011, respectively, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On September 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 11, 2012. On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's Opinion and Order and remanded the case to the District Court. On February 19, 2013, AMAG filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was denied on March 15, 2013. On March 22, 2013, AMAG filed a Motion to Stay the Mandate remanding the case to the District Court pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court of the Court of Appeals' February 4, 2013 decision. The Court of Appeals granted the Motion to Stay the Mandate on April 8, 2013. On June 13, 2013, AMAG filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, or the Petition, with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Court of Appeal's decision and to have that decision overturned. On October 7, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Petition, resulting in the case's return to the District Court for further proceedings relative to the SAC's surviving claims. On November 6, 2013, AMAG filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss the SAC's surviving claims. On December 6, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and AMAG filed a reply brief in support of the Motion on December 27, 2013. On April 7, 2014, the District Court denied the renewed Motion to Dismiss. On May 7, 2014, the parties filed a joint status report with the District Court in advance of a status conference held on May 14, 2014. All defendants filed answers and affirmative defenses to the pending complaint on May 19, 2014. On June 6, 2014, the parties requested the District Court to stay the proceedings, which the Court allowed on June 9, 2014. Subsequently, the District Court set August 15, 2014 as the date by which all associated motion papers and other documents are to be filed. "We are currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the range of potential loss associated with this matter, if any, and have therefore not recorded any potential estimated liability as we do not believe that such a liability is probable nor do we believe that a range of loss is currently estimable," AMAG said. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company that markets Feraheme(R) (ferumoxytol) Injection for Intravenous, or IV, use to treat iron deficiency anemia, or IDA, in adult patients with chronic kidney disease, or CKD, and MuGard(R) Mucoadhesive Oral Wound Rinse for the management of oral mucositis. AMGEN INC: Court Narrows Claims in Federal Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that plaintiffs on May 5, 2014, filed an unsealed, redacted version of their second consolidated amended complaint in the Federal Securities Litigation - In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation. On May 13, 2014, Amgen and the other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint. On August 4, 2014, the court issued an order granting Amgen's and the other defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to certain of the misrepresentations alleged in the complaint and otherwise denying the motion to dismiss. Following the court's order, the complaint continues to allege that Amgen and certain of its officers and directors (the Federal Defendants) made false statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities; and (iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices. The complaint also continues to make off-label marketing allegations that, throughout the class period, the Federal Defendants improperly marketed Aranesp(R) (darbepoetin alfa) and EPOGEN(R) (epoetin alfa) for off-label uses while aware that there were alleged safety signals with these products. The named defendants have not changed and the alleged class period remains the same. Amgen Inc. is a global biotechnology pioneer that discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers innovative human therapeutics. AMGEN INC: Petition for Certiorari Granted in ERISA Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the U.S. Supreme Court granted on June 30, 2014, the petition for certiorari filed by Amgen and the other named defendants, vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit Court) and remanded this Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action case to the Ninth Circuit Court for reconsideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, decided June 25, 2014. Amgen Inc. is a global biotechnology pioneer that discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers innovative human therapeutics. AMERICAN WATER: Joint Briefing on Remand Issue Completed in July ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that to date, 58 lawsuits have been filed against West Virginia-American Water Company with respect to leakage of two substances from a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom Industries, Inc. into the Elk River near the West Virginia-American Water Company ("WVAWC") treatment plant intake in Charleston, West Virginia, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia or West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha, Boone, and Putnam counties. Fifty-two of the state court cases naming WVAWC, and one case naming both WVAWC and American Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC," and together with WVAWC and the Company, the "American Water Defendants") were removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, but are subject to motions to remand the cases back to the state courts and have been consolidated for the sole purpose of resolving venue issues. Joint briefing on the remand issue for all cases was completed on July 18, 2014. Four of the cases pending before the federal district court were consolidated for purposes of discovery and a new consolidated complaint for those cases was filed on June 20, 2014 by several plaintiffs, including, among others, individuals who allegedly suffered personal injury from the Freedom Industries spill and businesses that allegedly suffered economic harm as a result of the Freedom Industries spill, on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that suffered economic losses, property losses and non-economic losses or injuries as a result of the Freedom Industries spill. The complaint names multiple individuals and corporate entities as defendants, including the American Water Defendants. The consolidated complaint's allegations against the American Water Defendants include various forms of negligence, strict products liability, breach of warranty, breach of contract, nuisance, trespass and breach of contract as a result of, among other things, the American Water Defendants' alleged failure to address the foreseeable risk posed by the Freedom Industries facility; failure to operate WVAWC's water treatment plant according to industry standards so as to protect public health and safety; failure to implement an alternative water supply to avoid a risk of water supply contamination allegedly identified by a state agency; and failure to advise the purported class members of the nature of the contaminated water. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for alleged personal injury, property damage, and financial losses, and certain equitable relief, including the establishment of a medical monitoring program to protect the purported class members from latent, dreaded disease. On July 20, 2014, WVAWC, AWWSC and the Company each filed a separate Answer to the complaint. Each Answer denied liability to any of the plaintiffs for damages of any kind and asserted a number of affirmative defenses. Also on July 20, 2014, WVAWC and AWWSC together, and the Company separately, filed motions to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including, in the case of the Company, the lack of jurisdiction over the Company. On May 21, 2014, the Public Service Commission of West Virginia issued an Order initiating a General Investigation into certain issues relating to WVAWC's response to the Elk River Chemical Spill. WVAWC is subject to discovery from Commission staff and intervenors as part of the General Investigation. The Commission has scheduled a hearing for October 7-9, 2014. American Water Works Company, Inc. is the largest investor-owned United States water and wastewater utility company, as measured both by operating revenue and population served. The primary business involves the ownership of water and wastewater utilities that provide water and wastewater services to residential, commercial, industrial and other customers. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Halling & Cayo Files ETF Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit, case 14-cv-00966, captioned William Bourbonnais et al. v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. et al. has been filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay division by Attorney Sean M. Sweeney of Halling & Cayo with co- counsel of Charles J. Crueger and Erin K. Dickinson of HRDC. The Class includes all retail investors, whose accounts were not approved for speculative investing, and who purchased non- traditional leveraged or inverse exchange-traded-funds with trading sessions of one day or less from the Defendants Ameriprise or SII Investments in which those investments were held for 21 days or more as an intermediate or long-term investment. There are also two sub-classes regarding those that worked with registered representative, Paul Renard. The Claims for relief include Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (10(b) Claim) on behalf of the Class, and Negligence, Wisconsin Uniform Securities Law (WUSL), and Wisconsin's Organized Crime Control Act (WOCCA) claims on behalf of the sub-Classes. The Class period is defined as the time period beginning on the date established by the Court's determination of any applicable statute of limitations, after consideration of any tolling and accrual issues, and ending on the date of entry of judgment. Absent any tolling or accrual issues, the Claims would apply to any Class or sub-Class member who purchased or held these investments beginning August 8, 2009 for the Federal 10(b) claims and the WUSL claims, and August 8, 2008 for the Negligence and WOCCA claims. It is possible that these time frames will be found to be different by the Court. If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than October 26, 2014, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class, though you must meet certain legal requirements to do so. To be a member of the plaintiff 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 plaintiff class. Contact: Halling & Cayo, S.C., Milwaukee Sean M. Sweeney, Esq. 414-271-3400 E-mail: sms@hallingcayo.com Web site: http://www.hallingcayo.com AMINCOR INC: Illegally Deducts Insurance Contribution, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Healey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and George Smith, individually v. Amincor, Inc., Tyree Holdings Corp., Tyree Service Corp., Tyree Enviromental Corp., John R. Rice III, Joseph F. Ingrassia, Robert L. Olson, and Stephen J. Tyree, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-05104 (E.D.N.Y., August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by failing to officially notify employees that their health insurance was terminated and continuously deducts contribution from their wages. The Defendants own and operate a multi-dimensional petroleum services and environmental firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marijana F. Matura, Esq. Troy L. Kessler, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Facsimile: (631) 499-9120 E-mail: mm@shulmankessler.com tk@shulmankessler.com APEX WIND: Accused of Hurting Landowners' Health and Economy ------------------------------------------------------------ Terra Walker, Cheyenne Ward, Julie Harris, Janelle Grellner, Elise Kay Kochenower, Karri Parson and Cindy Shelley, Individually and as representatives for those similarly situated v. Apex Wind Construction LLC, Apex Clean Energy Inc., Apex Clean Energy Holdings LLC, Kingfisher Wind LLC, Kingfisher Wind Land Holdings LLC, Kingfisher Transmission LLC, Campbell Creek Wind LLC and Campbell Creek Wind Transmission LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00914-L (W.D. Oklahoma., August 27, 2014) is a Torts to Land case brought as a proposed class action. Courthouse News Service reports that the federal class action against Apex Wind Construction, et al., claims industrial wind turbines hurt the health and economy of nearby landowners, through noise, "shadow flicker" and sleep disturbance. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dallas L. Dale Strimple, Esq. AAMODT LAW FIRM 1723 E 15th Street, Suite 100 Tulsa, OK 74104 Telephone: (918) 347-6169 Facsimile: (918) 398-0514 E-mail: dallas@aamodt.biz APPLE HOSPITALITY: Second Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") on April 23, 2014, entered a summary order in the consolidated class action referred to in the Company's prior filings as the In re Apple REITs Litigation matter. In the summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "District Court") of the plaintiffs' state and federal securities law claims and the unjust enrichment claim. The Second Circuit also noted that the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' remaining state common law claims based on its finding that the complaint did not allege any losses suffered by the plaintiff class, and held that, to the extent that the District Court relied on this rationale, its dismissal of the plaintiffs' state law breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence claims is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the summary order. Following remand, on June 6, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' remaining claims. The Company will defend against the claims remanded to the District Court vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss due to these proceedings, if any. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., formerly known as Apple REIT Nine, Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries (the "Company"), is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for federal income tax purposes. The Company is a self-advised REIT that invests in income- producing real estate in the United States. As of June 30, 2014, the Company owned 188 hotels with an aggregate of 23,489 rooms located in 33 states. Effective March 1, 2014, the Company completed its mergers with Apple REIT Seven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. ("Apple Eight") (the "A7 and A8 mergers"). Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into on August 7, 2013, as amended (the "Merger Agreement"), Apple Seven and Apple Eight merged with and into Apple Seven Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Seven Acquisition Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and Apple Eight Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Eight Acquisition Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, respectively. Seven Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub were formed solely for engaging in the A7 and A8 mergers and have not conducted any prior activities. Upon completion of the A7 and A8 mergers, the separate corporate existence of Apple Seven and Apple Eight ceased and Seven Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub are the surviving corporations. Immediately following the effective time of the A7 and A8 mergers, the name of Seven Acquisition Sub was changed to Apple REIT Seven, Inc. and the name of Eight Acquisition Sub was changed to Apple REIT Eight, Inc. In addition, effective with the mergers, the Company's name changed from Apple REIT Nine, Inc. to Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. APPLE HOSPITALITY: Moved to Dismiss Suits Over A7 and A8 Mergers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on January 31, 2014, two shareholders of the Company commenced a purported class action against the Company and its directors ("the Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (DCG&T, et al. v. Knight, et al., No. 3:14cv67, E.D. Va.). An amended complaint was filed on March 24, 2014. The amended complaint alleges (i) that the A7 and A8 mergers are unfair to the Company's shareholders, (ii) various breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's directors in connection with the A7 and A8 mergers, (iii) that the A7 and A8 mergers provide a financial windfall to insiders, and (iv) that the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus mailed to the Company's shareholders in connection with the A7 and A8 mergers contains false and misleading disclosures about certain matters, and adds as parties certain Company management employees. The amended complaint demands (i) an order stating that the action may be maintained as a class action, certifying plaintiffs as class representatives, and that the action may be maintained as a derivative action, (ii) that the merger and the conversion of common and preferred shares be rescinded, (iii) an award of damages, and (iv) reimbursement of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and other costs. On May 5, 2014, the Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and filed an answer. The Company believes that plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends to defend these cases vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss due to these proceedings, if any. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., formerly known as Apple REIT Nine, Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries (the "Company"), is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for federal income tax purposes. The Company is a self-advised REIT that invests in income- producing real estate in the United States. As of June 30, 2014, the Company owned 188 hotels with an aggregate of 23,489 rooms located in 33 states. Effective March 1, 2014, the Company completed its mergers with Apple REIT Seven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. ("Apple Eight") (the "A7 and A8 mergers"). Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into on August 7, 2013, as amended (the "Merger Agreement"), Apple Seven and Apple Eight merged with and into Apple Seven Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Seven Acquisition Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and Apple Eight Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Eight Acquisition Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, respectively. Seven Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub were formed solely for engaging in the A7 and A8 mergers and have not conducted any prior activities. Upon completion of the A7 and A8 mergers, the separate corporate existence of Apple Seven and Apple Eight ceased and Seven Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub are the surviving corporations. Immediately following the effective time of the A7 and A8 mergers, the name of Seven Acquisition Sub was changed to Apple REIT Seven, Inc. and the name of Eight Acquisition Sub was changed to Apple REIT Eight, Inc. In addition, effective with the mergers, the Company's name changed from Apple REIT Nine, Inc. to Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. APPLE HOSPITALITY: Moved to Dismiss or Strike "Moses" Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on April 22, 2014, Plaintiff Susan Moses, purportedly a shareholder of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the Company, filed a class action against the Company and several individual directors on behalf of all then-existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the Company, who purchased additional shares under the Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment Plans ("DRIP") between July 17, 2007 and February 12, 2014 (Susan Moses, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al., No. 503487/2014, N.Y. Sup. (Kings County)). Plaintiff brought suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Kings County (Brooklyn) and alleged claims under Virginia law for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual directors, and constructive trust and unjust enrichment claims against the Company. Plaintiff alleges that the prices at which Plaintiff and the purported class members purchased additional shares through the DRIP were artificially inflated and not indicative of the true value of units in Apple Seven and Apple Eight. On May 19, 2014, defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Following the filing of defendants' motion to dismiss and strike on June 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 27, 2014 adding a claim for breach of contract. On July 14, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss and strike Plaintiff's amended complaint. The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and intends to defend this case vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss due to these proceedings, if any. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., formerly known as Apple REIT Nine, Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries (the "Company"), is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for federal income tax purposes. The Company is a self-advised REIT that invests in income- producing real estate in the United States. As of June 30, 2014, the Company owned 188 hotels with an aggregate of 23,489 rooms located in 33 states. Effective March 1, 2014, the Company completed its mergers with Apple REIT Seven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. ("Apple Eight") (the "A7 and A8 mergers"). Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into on August 7, 2013, as amended (the "Merger Agreement"), Apple Seven and Apple Eight merged with and into Apple Seven Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Seven Acquisition Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and Apple Eight Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Eight Acquisition Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, respectively. Seven Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub were formed solely for engaging in the A7 and A8 mergers and have not conducted any prior activities. Upon completion of the A7 and A8 mergers, the separate corporate existence of Apple Seven and Apple Eight ceased and Seven Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub are the surviving corporations. Immediately following the effective time of the A7 and A8 mergers, the name of Seven Acquisition Sub was changed to Apple REIT Seven, Inc. and the name of Eight Acquisition Sub was changed to Apple REIT Eight, Inc. In addition, effective with the mergers, the Company's name changed from Apple REIT Nine, Inc. to Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. APPLE HOSPITALITY: Moved to Dismiss or Transfer "Wenzel" Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on June 16, 2014, Plaintiff Dorothy Wenzel, purportedly a shareholder of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the Company, filed a class action against Apple Seven Advisors, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., AFM and several officers and directors of the Company on behalf of all then-existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the Company, who purchased additional shares under the Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment Plans ("DRIP") between July 17, 2007 and June 30, 2013 (Wenzel v. Knight, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00432-REP, E.D. Va.). Plaintiff brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and alleged claims under Virginia law for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual directors, as well as aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and negligence against Apple Seven Advisors, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., and AFM. Plaintiff alleges that the prices at which Plaintiff and the purported class members purchased additional shares through the DRIP were artificially inflated and not indicative of the true value of units in Apple Seven and Apple Eight. On July 18, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or to transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York to be consolidated with the Moses action. The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and intends to defend this case vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss due to these proceedings, if any. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., formerly known as Apple REIT Nine, Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries (the "Company"), is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for federal income tax purposes. The Company is a self-advised REIT that invests in income- producing real estate in the United States. As of June 30, 2014, the Company owned 188 hotels with an aggregate of 23,489 rooms located in 33 states. Effective March 1, 2014, the Company completed its mergers with Apple REIT Seven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. ("Apple Eight") (the "A7 and A8 mergers"). Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into on August 7, 2013, as amended (the "Merger Agreement"), Apple Seven and Apple Eight merged with and into Apple Seven Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Seven Acquisition Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and Apple Eight Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Eight Acquisition Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, respectively. Seven Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub were formed solely for engaging in the A7 and A8 mergers and have not conducted any prior activities. Upon completion of the A7 and A8 mergers, the separate corporate existence of Apple Seven and Apple Eight ceased and Seven Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub are the surviving corporations. Immediately following the effective time of the A7 and A8 mergers, the name of Seven Acquisition Sub was changed to Apple REIT Seven, Inc. and the name of Eight Acquisition Sub was changed to Apple REIT Eight, Inc. In addition, effective with the mergers, the Company's name changed from Apple REIT Nine, Inc. to Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. ARC DOCUMENT: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- ARC Document Solutions, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a former employee, individually and on behalf of a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees who work or worked for American Reprographics Company, L.L.C. and American Reprographics Company in the State of California at any time from October 21, 2006 through the present, filed on October 21, 2010, an action against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to (i) provide meal and rest periods, or compensation in lieu thereof, (ii) timely pay wages due at termination, and (iii) that those practices also violate the California Business and Professions Code. The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court deems proper. On March 15, 2013, the Company participated in a private mediation session with claimants' counsel which did not result in resolution of the claim. Subsequent to the mediation session, the mediator issued a proposal that was accepted by both parties. The Company has received preliminary court approval of the settlement, and awaits final court approval. The Company recorded a liability of $0.9 million as of June 30, 2014 related to the claim, which represents management's best estimate based on information available. ARC Document Solutions, Inc. is the nation's leading document solutions provider for the architectural, engineering and construction ("AEC") industry while also providing document solutions to businesses of all types. ARC offers a variety of services including: Onsite Services, Digital Services, Color Services, and Traditional Reprographics Services. In addition, ARC also sells Equipment and Supplies. The Company conducts its operations through its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, American Reprographics Company, L.L.C., a California limited liability company, and its subsidiaries. ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI: "Musser" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Musser, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. The Archdiocese of Miami, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation other d/b/u St. Maximilian Kolbe Catholic Church, Case No. 0:14- cv-61963 (S.D. Fla., August 27, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional amount as liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Archdiocese of Miami, Inc. is a non-profit corporation doing business in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Frantz K. Vital, Esq. KANE & VITAL 6190 NW 11th Street Sunrise, FL 33313 Telephone: (954) 523-5123 Facsimile: (954) 885-7375 E-mail: fvital@kanevital.com ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------ Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of its common stock. The Company said, "The complaints were brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that we and certain of our current and former employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief." On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On November 5, 2013, the Court dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action with prejudice. On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. "Due to the stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses relating to these claims," the Company said. Arena Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing and commercializing novel drugs that target G protein-coupled receptors to address unmet medical needs. The Company's US operations are located in San Diego, California, and its operations outside of the United States, including its commercial manufacturing facility, are located in Zofingen, Switzerland. BIG CITY CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay OT, "Farias" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Modesto Farias, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Big City Construction, Inc., and Adam Kopec, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06623 (N.D. Ill., August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Big City Construction, Inc. and Adam Kopec own and operate a construction company within the State of Illinois. 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 BOKAMPER'S SPORTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Lee Khan on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. P.D.K.N P-4 OP, LLC d/b/a Bokamper's Sports Bar & Grill, Case No. 0:14-cv-61967 (S.D. Fla., August 27, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. P.D.K.N P-4 OP, LLC owns and operates the Bokamper's Sports Bar & Grill, a restaurant in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Behren, Esq. BEHREN LAW FIRM 2893 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110 Weston, FL 33331 Telephone: (954) 636-3802 Facsimile: (772) 252-3365 E-mail: scott@behrenlaw.com BRANDY'S OF CHICAGO: Faces "Santos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Santos, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Brandy's of Chicago, Inc., and Savvas Stolidakis, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06615 (N.D. Ill., August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Brandy's of Chicago, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant within the State of Illinois. 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 CBOE HOLDINGS: 4 Class Actions Consolidated Into Providence Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBOE Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on April 18, 2014, the City of Providence sued CBOE and C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBOE Holdings, in federal court in New York City on behalf of a proposed class of all public investors who bought or sold stock, at any time since April 18, 2009 (the "class period"), that was listed on a U.S.- based exchange or alternate trading venue. Also named as defendants are other securities exchanges and a proposed defendant class of all firms that, during the class period, placed bids or offers or trades in stocks on behalf of public investors, operated alternate trading venues for placing bids, offers or trades in stocks, or engaged in high frequency trading ("HFT") in stocks (the "Firm Defendants"). As applicable to CBOE and C2 and the other exchange defendants, the complaint alleges that the exchanges (i) participated in a scheme by which HFT firms allegedly defrauded U.S. public investors and manipulated the prices of stocks and (ii) failed to operate their stock markets in accordance with their duties under the Exchange Act. In addition to injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, the complaint seeks unspecified amounts representing damages resulting from defendants' alleged wrongdoing, restitution of monies paid by the plaintiff class, disgorgement of defendants' gains resulting from their alleged wrongdoing, and forfeiture of fees and compensation paid by the plaintiff class to defendants. American European Insurance Company, James Flynn and Dominic Morelli filed three substantially similar lawsuits against CBOE and C2, along with other securities exchanges and a similar group of Firm Defendants, on behalf of a proposed class of public investors. On July 2, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the four separate class actions into the Providence case and appointed the City of Providence and several other institutional investors as lead plaintiffs for the putative class. CBOE Holdings, Inc. is the holding company for Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated and other subsidiaries. The primary business of the Company is the operation of markets for the trading of listed, or exchange-traded, derivatives contracts on four broad product categories: 1) options on various market indexes (index options), 2) futures on the VIX Index and other products, 3) options on the stocks of individual corporations (equity options) and 4) options on other exchange-traded products (ETP options), such as exchange-traded funds (ETF options) and exchange-traded notes (ETN options). CBOE HOLDINGS: Faces "Lanier" Lawsuits Over Inferior Market Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBOE Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on May 23, 2014, Harold R. Lanier sued CBOE, as well as 13 other securities exchanges, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of himself and a putative class consisting of all persons in the United States who entered into contracts to receive market data through certain data plans at any time since May 19, 2008 to the present. The complaint alleges that the market data provided under the Consolidated Quotation ("CQ") and Consolidated Tape Association ("CTA") Plans was inferior to the data that the exchanges provided to those that directly receive other data from the exchanges, which the plaintiffs allege is a breach of their "subscriber contracts" and a violation of the exchanges' obligations under the CQ and CTA Plans. The plaintiffs seek monetary and injunctive relief. On May 30, 2014, Mr. Lanier filed two additional suits in the same Court, alleging substantially the same claims and requesting for the same types of relief against the exchanges who participate in the UTP and the OPRA data plans. CBOE is a defendant in each of these suits, while C2 is only a defendant in the suit regarding the OPRA Plan. CBOE Holdings, Inc. is the holding company for Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated and other subsidiaries. The primary business of the Company is the operation of markets for the trading of listed, or exchange-traded, derivatives contracts on four broad product categories: 1) options on various market indexes (index options), 2) futures on the VIX Index and other products, 3) options on the stocks of individual corporations (equity options) and 4) options on other exchange-traded products (ETP options), such as exchange-traded funds (ETF options) and exchange-traded notes (ETN options). CHEVRON CORP: Court Dismissed With Leave to Amend "Ogala" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Slamming a group of Nigerians for copying their $5 billion lawsuit against Chevron over a weeks-long oil blaze "almost verbatim from the original complaint," a federal judge warned that he may dismiss the case with prejudice, reports Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service. Dr. Foster Ogala and others, on behalf of an estimated 65,000 residents of the Niger Delta region of southern Nigeria, sued the energy giant in San Francisco earlier this year. They claimed the KS Endeavor, an offshore natural-gas rig drilling in North Apoi Field, exploded on Jan. 16, 2012, igniting a fire that burned for 46 days. Ogala and others said they were "directly affected by, interested in and having claims arising out of the incident," and suffered "losses to their livelihood, environmental damage, and health problems as a result of the explosion and fire," according to a summary of the case by U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti. They said KS Drilling negligently operated the KS Endeavor under the management of Chevron Nigeria Ltd. Chevron Corp., Chevron Investments and Chevron U.S.A. were named as defendants in the lawsuit, but not Chevron Nigeria Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron Investments. Conti dismissed the original action in May, however, over a failure to state claims against the defendant companies as alter egos of Chevron Nigeria Ltd. Tossing claims on behalf of unnamed nonparties, Conti also said that the plaintiffs failed to "claim anywhere in the complaint to represent a class." He said the plaintiffs failed to cite property damage and personal injury specifics, as well, or show how their alleged injuries resulted from the defendants' conduct. "There is no discussion whatsoever of how a fire on an offshore rig damaged the businesses, livelihoods, property, or health of Dr. Ogala or any of the other plaintiffs in this case," Conti wrote. "Plaintiffs make claims about damage to fish, livestock, contamination of water and soil, and 'general health breakdown.' But there are no allegations that the damaged livestock belonged to plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs' livelihoods depended on fisheries, that the contaminated water or soil harmed them or their property, or that the 'general health breakdown' affected them. As for the claims of property damage and physical injury, there are no allegations that the fire ever spread from the KS Endeavor. Plaintiffs need to allege facts that make their damages claims plausible; in this case, they need facts that indicate how the fire actually harmed them." Dismissing the first amended complaint, or FAC, on August 21, 2014, Conti again found that the plaintiffs failed to state injury specifics. "Plaintiffs 'must allege and show that they personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent,'" Conti wrote. "Plaintiffs appear to be aware of that requirement. But their FAC includes only allegations of injury to unidentified class members. Nowhere does the FAC ever describe any injury to any of the named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs must describe a specific injury to each of the named plaintiffs. Because they fail to do so, their FAC is insufficient to establish standing for their negligence claims." In alleging that they "suffered: losses to their livelihood; environmental disaster impacting upon food and water supplies; health problems all arising out of the gross negligence of the defendant," the plaintiffs "copied almost verbatim from the original complaint," according to the 15-page decision. Conti declined to strike or dismiss the class allegations, and dismissed the lawsuit with leave to amend. Failure to properly amend their claims by Aug. 28 "may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice," Conti warned. Joining Ogola as named plaintiffs are Elder Endure Humphrey Fisei, Mr. Fresh Talent, Matthew Kingdom Mieseigha, Chris Wilfred Itonyo and Natto Iyela Gbarabe. "To establish standing, plaintiffs must explain specifically how each of these people was injured," the 15-page ruling states. "Plaintiffs 'must allege and show that they personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent.'" The case is Foster Ogola, et al. v. Chevron Corporation, Case No. 14-cv-173-SC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. CHICAGO PRIME: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Serafin" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Serafin, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Chicago Prime Meats LLC and Skender Agojci, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06603 (N.D. Ill., August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Chicago Prime Meats LLC is a supplier of premium meat and seafood within the State of Illinois. 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 CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces "Hardt" Suit Over Transmission Defects ------------------------------------------------------------ Joshua Hardt and Marta Hardt, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Chrysler Group LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 8:14-cv-01375 (C.D. Cal., August 27, 2014), alleges that the Manual Transmission of 2013 Dodge Dart and 2014 Dodge Dart contains design and manufacturing defects that cause, the clutch pedal to go soft and remain depressed to the floor, the transmission to fail to engage or disengage, the gear shift to burn out, the clutch and transmission to burn out, and stalling, and failure to accelerate or decelerate. These defects causes unsafe conditions such as; inability to shift gears, thereby rendering the vehicle, unable to speed up or slow down, often while the vehicle is already in motion. Chrysler Group LLC designs and manufactures motor vehicles, parts, and other products for sale in the United States and throughout the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Robert Friedl, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1840 Century Park East Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com CIT GROUP: Files Lawsuit Against WPC for Indemnification -------------------------------------------------------- On July 6, 2013, a freight train including five locomotives and seventy-two tank cars carrying crude oil derailed in the town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec. Nine of the tank cars were owned by The CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. ("CIT/EF") (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company) and leased to Western Petroleum Company ("WPC"), a subsidiary of World Fuel Services Corp. ("WFS"). Two of the locomotives are owned by CIT/EF and were leased to Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, Ltd. ("MMA"), the railroad operating the freight train at the time of the derailment, a subsidiary of Rail World, Inc. The derailment was followed by explosions and fire, which resulted in the deaths of over forty people and an unknown number of injuries, the destruction of more than thirty buildings in Lac- Megantic, and the release of crude oil on land and into the ChaudiŠgere River. The extent of the property and environmental damage has not yet been determined. Twenty lawsuits have been filed in Illinois by representatives of the deceased in connection with the derailment. The Company is named as a defendant in seven of the Illinois lawsuits, together with 13 other defendants, including WPC, MMA (who has since been dismissed without prejudice as a result of its chapter 11 bankruptcy filing on August 7, 2013), and the lessors of the other locomotives and tank cars. CIT Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that liability could be joint and several among some or all of the defendants. All but two of these cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois and transferred to the U.S. District Court in Maine. The Company has been named as an additional defendant in a pending class action in the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada. Other cases may be filed in U.S. and Canadian courts. The plaintiffs in the pending U.S. and Canadian actions assert claims of negligence and strict liability based upon alleged design defect against the Company in connection with the CIT/EF tank cars. The Company has rights of indemnification and defense against its lessees, WPC and MMA (a debtor in bankruptcy), and also has rights as an additional insured under liability coverage maintained by the lessees. On July 28, 2014, the Company commenced a lawsuit against WPC in the U.S. District Court in the District of Minnesota to enforce its rights of indemnification and defense. In addition to its indemnification and insurance rights against its lessees, the Company and its subsidiaries maintain contingent and general liability insurance for claims of this nature, and the Company and its insurers are working cooperatively with respect to these claims. CIT Group provides financing, leasing and advisory services principally to middle market companies in a wide variety of industries primarily in North America, and equipment financing and leasing solutions to the transportation industry worldwide. CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Class in Train Derailment Suit Not Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge refused to certify a class of people who say they lost income when a freight train dumped 25,000 gallons of dangerous chemicals into a New Jersey creek, according to Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service. The accident occurred on the morning of Nov. 30, 2012, when the East Jefferson Street railroad bridge in Paulsboro, N.J., allegedly failed to lock back into place for a freight train to cross after swinging open to let water flow along the creek. Despite a red signal warning that the rails were not properly positioned that day, the train tried to cross and derailed. Four of its cars plunged into Mantua Creek below, flooding the air and water with 25,000 gallons of vinyl chloride, which locals call a potent carcinogen. While nearly 600 residents were evacuated from the area for about a week, the borough told those living outside the danger zone to stay indoors until the spill was cleaned up. Residents and local businesses later sued Consolidated Rail, Norfolk Southern Railway and CSX Transportation for their allegedly negligent train operation and bridge maintenance. In addition to expenses or lost income, some residents say that the evacuation or other orders left them with mental or physical harm including coughing fits. The cases were ultimately consolidated in New Jersey, where Donald Wilson, individually and dba Don's Barbershop, and Tracy Lee now serve as lead plaintiffs. U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler declined to strike class allegations this past April but followed that order up in August with one that refused to certify the alleged "hundreds, if not thousands" of class members. "While for the class representative, a barbershop, it is intuitive that the business relies upon a physical presence to generate revenue, it is not so clear that all 381 businesses with mailing addresses in the shelter-in-place zone have a similar business model," Kugler wrote. "The court cannot simply assume that each business organization with an address in a specified geographic area suffered income loss as a result of not being able to have its doors open to the public or to employees for a period of three days. It is not clear that many of the businesses on the preliminary list generate any income at all through operations in the affected area. A number of the listings appear to simply be the names of individual persons, which would appear to leave open the question of how they generate income, and whether they suffered income loss merely due to having an address in the affected area." The defendants have shown they settled with 486 evacuees, the unpublished ruling states. "Not only have plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence showing how many of the remaining residents meet the class definition, but evidence exists suggesting that some remaining residents would not be class members," Kugler wrote. "Defendants established an assistance center in Paulsboro, where evacuees could obtain reimbursement for expenses as well as gift cards for future expenses, without signing releases." In fact, Wilson and Lee received more than $4,000 and $2,000, respectively, the ruling states. "Finally, with annual revenue ranging from less than $50,000 to over $3,000,000, the potential 'disparities among class members'' damages is great, which weighs against a finding of predominance," the judge added. The court also granted the defendants' unopposed motion to seal some documents that were submitted in opposition to the motion for class certification. CVS CAREMARK: Appeal in Class Suit Pending Before Ala. High Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Caremark Corporation or its subsidiaries was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants include insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed. A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants Caremark, several insurance companies, attorneys and law firms involved in the 1999 settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello action. Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1). In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order appointed class representatives and class counsel. "The defendants' appeal and plaintiffs' cross-appeal are pending before the Alabama Supreme Court. The proceedings in the trial court are stayed by statute pending a decision on the appeal and cross-appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court," CVS Caremark said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. CVS Caremark, together with its subsidiaries, is the largest pharmacy health care provider in the United States with integrated offerings across the entire spectrum of pharmacy care. CVS CAREMARK: Additional Discovery and Briefing in Managers Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Caremark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans. In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark and two PBM competitors, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. The North Jackson Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark entities named as defendants was transferred to Illinois federal court, and the case against a separate Caremark entity was sent to arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy court case. In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel, including cases against other PBMs. Caremark appealed the decision which vacated an order compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling arbitration of the Bellevue case. Following remand, plaintiffs in the Bellevue case sought dismissal of their complaint to permit an immediate appeal of the reinstated order compelling arbitration and pursued an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2012, the Third Circuit Court reversed the district court ruling and directed the parties to proceed in federal court. Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy case, remain pending, and the court has permitted certain additional class discovery and briefing. The consolidated action is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation. CVS Caremark, together with its subsidiaries, is the largest pharmacy health care provider in the United States with integrated offerings across the entire spectrum of pharmacy care. CVS CAREMARK: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- CVS Caremark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the lawsuit to allege a class period beginning October 30, 2008. The lawsuit names the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures made by the Company concerning the PBM business and allegations of insider trading. In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in December 2009 in the same court against the directors and certain officers of the Company. This lawsuit, which was stayed pending developments in the related securities class action, includes allegations of, among other things, securities fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase program. In January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In June 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities class action. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. In May 2013, the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the prior ruling and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. In December 2013, the district court denied the Company's renewed motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The derivative lawsuit is presently stayed pending further developments in the class action. CVS Caremark, together with its subsidiaries, is the largest pharmacy health care provider in the United States with integrated offerings across the entire spectrum of pharmacy care. DELTA APPAREL: Discovery Ongoing in California Wage and Hour Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Delta Apparel, Inc. was served with a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or about March 13, 2013, by a former employee of the Company's Delta Activewear business unit at the Company's Santa Fe Springs, California distribution facility alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and unfair business practices with respect to meal and rest periods, compensation and wage statements, and related claims (the "Complaint"). The Complaint is brought as a class action and seeks to include all of the Company's Delta Activewear business unit's current and certain former employees within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint also names as defendants Junkfood, Soffe, an independent contractor of Soffe, and a former employee, and seeks to include all current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe and the Soffe independent contractor within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, monetary damages and compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment interest. Delta Apparel said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that the discovery process in this matter is ongoing and the issue of class certification remains pending. "While we will continue to vigorously defend this action and believe we have a number of meritorious defenses to the claims alleged, we believe a risk of loss is probable," the Company said. "Based upon current information, we believe there is a range of likely outcomes between approximately $15,000 and $975,000. During the quarter ended September 28, 2013, we recorded a liability for the most likely outcome within this range. However, depending upon the scope and size of any certified class and whether any of the claims alleged ultimately prevail at trial, we could be required to pay amounts exceeding $975,000." EASTMAN KODAK: Motion to Dismiss Taken Under Advisement ------------------------------------------------------- Eastman Kodak Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that subsequent to the Company's bankruptcy filing, between January 27, 2012 and March 22, 2012, several putative class action suits were filed in federal court in the Western District of New York against the committees of the Company's Stock Ownership Plan ("SOP") and Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP"), and certain former and current executives of the Company. The suits have been consolidated into a single action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), styled as In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation. The allegations concern the decline in the Company's stock price and its alleged impact on SOP and SIP. Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to the applicable plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an independent fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation was heard on May 23, 2013 and has been taken under advisement. On behalf of the defendants in this case, the Company believes that the case is without merit and will vigorously defend the defendants on their behalf. Kodak is a technology company that provides commercial imaging products and services built on a foundation of materials science, digital imaging science, and deposition processes. Kodak's portfolio of products and services is designed to meet needs of customers in different sectors and cycles of the commercial imaging and printing markets, including prepress and digital printing, and functional and packaging printing. Kodak also offers brand licensing and intellectual property opportunities, and products and services in entertainment imaging (motion pictures) and other commercial films, and it maintains a presence in the sales of ink for its existing installed consumer inkjet printer base. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Still Defending "Hart" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company is defending a putative class action lawsuit brought by Ryan Hart, a former college football player, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in June 2009, which alleges that EA misappropriated his likeness in its college-themed football game. In September 2011, the district court granted EA's motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 21, 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case back to the district court. Electronic Arts develops, markets, publishes and distributes game software content and services that can be played by consumers on a variety of platforms, including video game consoles (such as PlayStation 3 and 4 from Sony and Xbox 360 and Xbox One from Microsoft), personal computers, mobile phones and tablets. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Still Defending Likeness Licensing Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the In re NCAA Student- Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involves two groups of common claims brought by several different former collegiate student-athletes in 2009. These various actions were consolidated into one action in February 2010. EA said, "The first group of claims is a class action against us, the NCAA and the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) alleging that our college-themed video games misappropriated the likenesses of collegiate student-athletes without their authorization. On July 31, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of our motion to strike the complaint. The second group of claims is a federal antitrust class action against us, the NCAA and the CLC that challenges NCAA/CLC licensing practices and the NCAA By-Laws and regulations." Electronic Arts develops, markets, publishes and distributes game software content and services that can be played by consumers on a variety of platforms, including video game consoles (such as PlayStation 3 and 4 from Sony and Xbox 360 and Xbox One from Microsoft), personal computers, mobile phones and tablets. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Recognized $30MM Accrual Associated With Accord ---------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in September 2013, EA reached an agreement to settle all actions brought by college athletes. EA said, "On May 30, 2014, counsel for plaintiffs filed a motion for the court to approve the settlement of all actions. The court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs' motion. We recognized a $30 million accrual during the second quarter of fiscal 2014 associated with the anticipated settlement." EA also said that on November 4, 2013, the NCAA filed a complaint against the Company and CLC in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia that alleged that the Company is contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the NCAA against claims asserted in In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing concerning the alleged misappropriation of student-athletes' publicity rights in EA's collegiate video games. On June 9, 2014, the NCAA dismissed its complaint without prejudice. Electronic Arts develops, markets, publishes and distributes game software content and services that can be played by consumers on a variety of platforms, including video game consoles (such as PlayStation 3 and 4 from Sony and Xbox 360 and Xbox One from Microsoft), personal computers, mobile phones and tablets. ELECTRONIC ARTS: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss Battlefield Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on December 17, 2013, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers by an individual purporting to represent a class of purchasers of EA common stock. A second purported shareholder class action lawsuit alleging substantially similar claims was subsequently filed in the same court. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one action. The lawsuits, which assert claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, allege, among other things, that the Company and certain of its officers issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the rollout of the Company's Battlefield 4 game. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, which have not been quantified. "On June 9, 2014, we filed a motion asking the court to dismiss all claims. The court has not yet ruled on our motion," EA said. Electronic Arts develops, markets, publishes and distributes game software content and services that can be played by consumers on a variety of platforms, including video game consoles (such as PlayStation 3 and 4 from Sony and Xbox 360 and Xbox One from Microsoft), personal computers, mobile phones and tablets. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces "Mehr" Suit Over Players' Safety ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Mehr, Beata Ivanauskiene, as parent of minor R.K.I. Jr., Sarah Aranda, as parent of minors B.A., D.A., and I.A.; Kira Akka- Seidel, Karen Christine O'Donoghue, as parent of minor L.L.M., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Federation Internationale De Football Association a/k/a "Fifa;", The United States Soccer Federation, Inc., US Youth Soccer Association, Inc., American Youth Soccer Organization, National Association of Competitive Soccer Clubs, Inc. d/b/a/ US Club Soccer, and California Youth Soccer Association, Case No. 4:14-cv- 03879 (N.D. Cal., August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to take appropriate actions in regards to protecting the safety of their soccer players. The Defendants are members of the soccer association in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Jon T. King, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com jonk@hbsslaw.com - and - Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1144 W. Lake Street, Suite 400 Oak Park, IL 60301 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 Facsimile: 708.628.4950 E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com toma@hbsslaw.com - and - Jack W. Lee, Esq. Derek G. Howard, Esq. Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq. MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP 360 Post St., 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415)788-9000 E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com dhoward@minamitamaki.com seant@minamitamaki.com FEDEX GROUND: Misclassified 3,000+ Drivers, 9th Cir. Ruled ---------------------------------------------------------- FedEx misclassified more than 3,000 delivery drivers in California and Oregon as independent contractors rather than employees, reports Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service, citing a 9th Circuit ruling entered on August 27, 2014. The decision upends a finding from a multidistrict litigation court in Indiana against three separate class actions on behalf of 2,300 California-based drivers for FedEx Ground and FedEx Home Delivery and 363 in Oregon that were consolidated with similar complaints from 40 states. In both the California and Oregon cases, the drivers claimed that, between about 1999 and 2009, FedEx forced drivers to purchase company-approved trucks, uniforms and other equipment as if they were independent contractors, while controlling minute details of their appearance and behavior, right down to their body odor. FedEx argued that the operating agreement at issue offered drivers entrepreneurial opportunities beyond those available to employees, and said that it controlled the drivers only to a point -- noting that, among other things, it did not require them to follow specific routes or deliver packages in order. The Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) court granted FedEx summary judgment in most of the cases, including those from California and Oregon. It found that the drivers were independent contractors as a matter law because of their "class-wide ability to own and operate distinct businesses, own multiple routes, and profit accordingly." Reversing the MDL court in separate opinions on August 27, 2014, a three-judge panel with the 9th Circuit returned the two cases to their respective district courts for summary judgment in the drivers' favor. FedEx's operating agreement, which controlled "drivers' clothing from their hats down to their shoes and socks" and required that they be "clean shaven, hair neat and trimmed, [and] free of body odor," failed the "right-of-control" test in both states, the unanimous panel found. "The drivers must wear FedEx uniforms, drive FedEx-approved vehicles, and groom themselves according to FedEx's appearance standards," Judge William Fletcher wrote in both rulings. "FedEx tells its drivers what packages to deliver, on what days, and at what times. Although drivers may operate multiple delivery routes and hire third parties to help perform their work, they may do so only with FedEx's consent." "Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to FedEx, the OA grants FedEx a broad right to control the manner in which its drivers' perform their work," Fletcher added. "The most important factor of the right-to-control test thus strongly favors employee status." FedEx said on August 27, 2014, that it no longer uses the same operating agreement at issue in the cases. "Since 2011, FedEx Ground has only contracted with incorporated businesses, which treat their drivers as their employees," the company said in a statement. FedEx added that it plans to "transition to new independent service provider agreements in the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada." Nevertheless, the company will file a petition for review of the ruling by a full, 11-judge panel of the appellate court, FedEx said. "We fundamentally disagree with these rulings, which run counter to more than 100 state and federal findings . . . upholding our contractual relationships with thousands of independent businesses," said Cary Blancett, FedEx Ground's senior vice president and general counsel, in a statement. "The operating agreement on which these rulings are based has been significantly strengthened in recent years, and we look forward to continuing to work with service providers across our network to provide customers the industry's most reliable service." The drivers' attorney, Beth Ross of Leonard Carder, said in statement that "FedEx Ground built its business on the backs of individuals it labeled as independent contractors, promising them the entrepreneurial American Dream." "Nationally, thousands of FedEx Ground drivers must pay for the privilege of working for FedEx 55 hours a week, 52 weeks a year," Ross added. "Today, these workers were granted rights and benefits entitled to employees under California law. To be clear, the Ninth Circuit exposed FedEx Ground's independent contractor model as unlawful." The Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees are represented by: Mark A. Friel, Esq. Steve Douglas Larson, Esq. Scott Alden Shorr, Esq. STOLL BERNE 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OREGON 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: mfriel@stollberne.com slarson@stollberne.com sshorr@stollberne.com The Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant is represented by: Jonathan Hacker, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 383-5285 Facsimile: (202) 383-5414 E-mail: jhacker@omm.com - and - Anton Metlitsky, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 E-mail: ametlitsky@omm.com - and - Robert Schwartz, Esq. Scott Voelz, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 E-mail: rschwartz@omm.com svoelz@omm.com Amicus Curiae American Trucking Associations, Inc., and Oregon Trucking Associations, Inc., are represented by: Richard Pianka, Esq. ATA LITIGATION CENTER AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. 950 N. Glebe Road Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 838-1889 Facsimile: (703) 838-1705 E-mail: rpianka@trucking.org The appellate cases are Edward Slayman, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., dba Fedex Home Delivery, Inc., Case Nos. 12- 35525 and 12-35559, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District Court cases are Edward Slayman, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., dba Fedex Home Delivery, Inc., Case Nos. 3:05-cv-01127-HZ and 3:07-cv-00818-HZ, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. FIRST SOLAR: Deadline to Complete Merits Discovery Is December 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- First Solar Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against the Company and certain of our current and former directors and officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between April 30, 2008, and February 28, 2012. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The action includes claims for damages, and an award of costs and expenses to the putative class, including attorneys' fees. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend this action. On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order appointing as lead plaintiffs in the class action the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme (collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On December 17, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss. On February 26, 2013, the court directed the parties to begin class certification discovery, and ordered a further scheduling conference to set the merit discovery schedule after the issue of class certification has been decided. On June 21, 2013, the Pension Schemes filed a motion for class certification. On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension Schemes' motion for class certification. The deadline to complete merits discovery is December 30, 2014. The deadline to file motion(s) for summary judgment is January 20, 2015. Merits discovery is continuing. "We are not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on our financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any," First Solar said. GARLOCK SEALING: Judge Tosses Motion to Block Asbestos Evidence --------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a judge has overruled an emergency motion seeking to block a gasket-maker going through bankruptcy from releasing information subpoenaed by Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western District of North Carolina said the names of people who sued Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC before it filed for bankruptcy and who cast creditors' ballots in the In re Flintkote Co. bankruptcy can be disclosed to Imperial Tobacco. Other information that can be disclosed includes the type of diseases the plaintiffs claim stem from their exposure to asbestos, the plaintiffs' law firms and other bankruptcy cases in which they filed ballots. Imperial Tobacco has agreed to keep the data confidential and only to use it in litigation regarding Flintkote. A group of asbestos claimants filed the emergency motion seeking to block the gasket-maker from releasing the information. Garlock said that complying with Imperial Tobacco's subpoena would not violate a protocol established to allow people and companies to object to the unsealing of evidence of alleged misrepresentation by asbestos plaintiffs lawyers. Judge Hodges has set out the protocol to govern public access to evidence of misrepresentation by plaintiffs' lawyers in several cases that Garlock settled in the past or in which Garlock lost jury verdicts. That alleged evidence of misrepresentation led him to estimate that Garlock likely owes $125 million to asbestos plaintiffs, not around $1 billion to $1.3 billion as the plaintiffs alleged. The official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants said that Garlock and related debtors intended "to release sealed information that is subject to the public-access protocol prior to any affected person having an opportunity to seal it as contemplated by that order." GEMINI DINER: "Galicia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Sergio Galicia, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Gemini Diner Inc. and Konstantine Kassimis, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-06990 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Gemini Diner Inc. owns and operates a full-service restaurant located at 641 Second Avenue, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com GLOBAL TEL LINK: Faces "Murilla" Over Unlawful Telephone Charge --------------------------------------------------------------- Dustin Murilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Global Tel Link, Case No. 0:14-cv-03275 (D. Minn., August 27, 2014), seeks to recover damages for the unjust, unreasonable, and unfair rates they charged for telephone calls by the inmates in prison serviced in violation of the Federal Communications Act. Global Tel Link is a private telephone company based in Reston, Virginia, it provides telephone service to approximately 50 percent of all inmates in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina Borrelli, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Mpls, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. Charles J. Kocher, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com ckocher@smbb.com - and - Donald Perelman, Esq. Roberta Liebenberg, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Facsimile: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: dperelman@finekaplan.com rliebenberg@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com - and - Todd. A. Seaver, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6282 E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com - and - Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Still Defending Against Securities Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on March 19, 2013, the Company and three of its current and former executives were sued in a securities class action in the Northern District of Illinois captioned United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02115. The lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities between August 7, 2012 and March 14, 2013, primarily alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition segment and with regard to the Company's internal control over financial reporting. This suit was filed following the Company's announcement on March 14, 2013 that it would restate its second and third quarter 2012 financial statements. Two additional, similar lawsuits captioned Boozer v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02339, and Connors v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02450, were filed in the Northern District of Illinois on March 28, 2013, and April 2, 2013, respectively. These three actions were consolidated and recaptioned In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-02115, on June 10, 2013. The plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on August 9, 2013, which the defendants moved to dismiss on October 8, 2013. The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company is the largest provider of dredging services in the United States. GREEN LIGHT: Faces "Aguado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Benito Aguado, Ivan Alfonso, Angel Barrios, Alexei Beiro, Jesus Cobas, Gonzalo Gutierrez, Jorge Hernandez, Moises Hernandez, Guillermo Molina, Alexis Montoya, Carlos Navarro, Luis E. Perez, Heriberto Puerto, Ruben Quesada, Enrique Quintero, Chester Rivera, Alberto Rodriguez, Guillermo Rojas, Jose Val, Onay Valdes, Sergio Viera, Individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Green Light Electric Systems, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Abel Demien, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-23156 (S.D. Fla., August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are licensed electrical contractor doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Eichenbaum, Esq. LAW FIRM OF ALAN EICHENBAUM 10059 NW 1st Court Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: 916-1232 E-mail: alanlaw@bellsouth.net - and - Robert D. Soloff, Esq. ROBERT D. SOLOFF PA 7805 SW 6th Court Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 472-0002 Facsimile: 472-0052 E-mail: soloffpa@bellsouth.net GROUPON INC: Sales Rep Overtime Class Action Can't Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a Chicago federal judge on Aug. 27 said Groupon Inc. sales representatives cannot pursue a class-action lawsuit over the Internet commerce company's failure to pay for overtime before and after its 2011 initial public offering. U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang said the roughly 1,500 representatives' claims, job duties and alleged injuries were too disparate to justify letting them sue as a group over allegations that Groupon violated Illinois' minimum wage law. Judge Chang noted that Groupon did eventually adopt more uniform management policies, and that these could "serve as markers" for the plaintiffs to pursue a smaller class action. He gave the plaintiffs until Sept. 23 to propose a narrower class, or else pursue their claims on an individual basis. More than 100 Groupon sales representatives are pursuing related claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Douglas Werman -- dwerman@flsalaw.com -- a partner at Werman Salas representing the plaintiffs, said: "We're disappointed in the court's decision, and believe it is factually and legally flawed. We are currently evaluating our options." Groupon spokesman Bill Roberts said the Chicago-based company is pleased with the decision. Class actions can enable plaintiffs to pursue larger recoveries at lower cost than if they sued individually. A 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which Chang cited, made it harder for many plaintiffs to pursue such cases. According to the decision, the Groupon lawsuit sought class certification covering the periods Aug. 19, 2008 to March 19, 2011, and Aug. 23, 2011 to the present, when Groupon paid no overtime. The lawsuit also sought certification for the interim five-month period when Groupon paid overtime, but allegedly less than it was supposed to pay. Known for its "daily deals," Groupon has under Chief Executive Eric Lefkofsky been trying to evolve into an e-commerce retailer better able to compete with rivals such as Amazon.com Inc. Groupon went public at $20 per share on Nov. 4, 2011, but have not traded that high since February 2012. The case is Dailey et al v. Groupon Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 11-05685. HANOVER INSURANCE: Motion to Alter or Amend Denied -------------------------------------------------- A putative class action suit captioned Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed on March 12, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The named plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the time of her termination, claims that she and others similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company and the Plan understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The plaintiff claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and those of similarly situated participants by failing to pay an additional so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value of an estimate of future interest credits from the date of the lump sum distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65. The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. In response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30, 2010. In addition to the pending claim challenging the calculation of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint included: (a) a claim that the Plan failed to calculate participants' account balances and lump sum payments properly because interest credits were based solely upon the performance of each participant's selection from among various hypothetical investment options (as the Plan provided) rather than crediting the greater of that performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b) a claim that the 2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest crediting for all participants from the performance of participant's investment selections to the 30 year Treasury rate, reduced benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for participants who had account balances as of the amendment date by not continuing to provide them performance-based interest crediting on those balances; and (c) claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice requirements arising from the various interest crediting and lump sum distribution matters of which plaintiffs complain. On March 31, 2011, the District Court granted the Company and the Plan's Motion to Dismiss on statute of limitations grounds the additional claims set forth in (a) and (b) above, however, in response to a motion for reconsideration, the Court allowed the new breach of fiduciary duty claim to stand, but only as to plaintiffs' "whipsaw" claim that remained in the case. On June 22, 2012, the Company and the Plan filed a Partial Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss the "whipsaw" claim of one of the named plaintiffs who received his lump sum distribution after December 31, 2003. On October 2, 2013, the Court granted the Company and the Plan's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed with prejudice the "whipsaw" claim of the named plaintiff who received a lump sum distribution after December 31, 2003 and the similar claims of the putative class members he sought to represent. On December 17, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying a class to bring "whipsaw" and related breach of fiduciary duty claims consisting of all persons who received a lump sum distribution between March 1, 1997 and December 31, 2003, and a subclass to bring such claims consisting of all persons who received lump sum distributions between March 1, 1997 and March 12, 2002. On December 17, 2013, the Court also granted plaintiffs' motion for entry of a final order allowing an immediate appeal by the two named plaintiffs added in the Amended Complaint of their dismissed claims that the 2004 Plan amendment reduced benefits in violation of ERISA, and for one of them, that his post-2003 lump sum distribution should have been greater. On January 14, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's December 17, 2013 Order requesting that the Court reverse its order making the dismissed claims final and appealable or, in the alternative, stay merits discovery on the claims remaining in the district court pending resolution of the dismissed plaintiffs' appeal. The Court denied this motion on April 30, 2014, Hanover said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. "At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability if the outcome of the suit is unfavorable. The extent to which any of the plaintiffs' multiple theories of liability, some of which are overlapping and others of which are quite complex and novel, are accepted and upheld on appeal will significantly affect the Plan's or the Company's potential liability. The statute of limitations applicable to the class has not yet been finally determined and the extent of potential liability, if any, will depend on this final determination. In addition, assuming for these purposes that the plaintiffs prevail with respect to claims that benefits accrued or payable under the Plan were understated, then there are numerous possible theories and other variables upon which any revised calculation of benefits as requested under plaintiffs' claims could be based. Any adverse judgment in this case against the Plan would be expected to create a liability for the Plan, with resulting effects on the Plan's assets available to pay benefits. The Company's future required funding of the Plan could also be impacted by such a liability," the Company said. Hanover Insurance's business operations consist of four operating segments: Commercial Lines, Personal Lines, Chaucer and Other. HEWLETT PACKARD: Judge Casts Doubt on Autonomy Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that a U.S. judge cast doubt on Aug. 25 over a proposed agreement struck between Hewlett Packard Co and plaintiff shareholders to settle a lawsuit over the computing giant's botched acquisition of Autonomy Plc. At a hearing on Aug. 25 in San Francisco, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said the settlement contained a "potentially fatal" provision, under which HP would hire shareholder attorneys to pursue claims against ex-Autonomy executives. He said that provision may prevent his approving the deal. Judge Breyer said he would not approve the proposed fees for shareholder lawyers. "That's out," he said. Additionally, Judge Breyer said that in order to approve the remainder of the deal, the judge may have to conduct a separate inquiry into the merits of dismissing claims against HP officers, including current Chief Executive Officer Meg Whitman. HP announced an $8.8 billion writedown in November 2012, just over one year after buying Autonomy, and linked more than $5 billion to accounting fraud and inflated financials by Autonomy executives. The British company and its executives have denied any wrongdoing. Under the terms of the settlement reached in June, shareholder attorneys agreed to drop all claims against HP's current and former executives, including Ms. Whitman, board members and advisers to the company. HP, in turn, agreed to team up with the shareholder attorneys to bring claims against former Autonomy executives, including Chief Executive Michael Lynch. The shareholder attorneys stand to recoup millions in fees. Multiple parties objected to the deal. Former Autonomy Chief Financial Officer Sushovan Hussain said in a court filing that the "collusive and unfair" settlement, if approved by Judge Breyer, would let HP "forever bury from disclosure the real reason for its 2012 writedown of Autonomy: HP's own destruction of Autonomy's success after the acquisition." The case is In re: Hewlett-Packard Co Shareholder Derivative Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 12-06003. HILLS BANCORPORATION: Bank Faces Class Action in Johnson County --------------------------------------------------------------- Hills Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a suit was filed on April 24 , 2014, against Hills Bank and Trust Company in the Iowa District Court for Johnson County by a customer alleging that the fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in connection with its debit and ATM cards constitute unlawful interest in violation of Iowa's usury laws and that the collection of such interest violates the Iowa Debt Collection Practices Act. The suit seeks class-action status for Bank customers who have paid overdraft fees arising from debit or ATM card transactions on their consumer accounts. The Bank has filed a motion to dismiss, and litigation is ongoing. At this stage of the litigation, it is not possible for management of the Bank to determine the probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss, the Company said. IEC ELECTRONICS: Responding to Amended Class Action Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- IEC Electronics Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2014, that, in connection with the restatement of consolidated financial statements, the Audit Committee conducted an independent review of the underlying facts and circumstances, and the Company is responding to a formal investigation by the staff of the SEC relating to the restatement and other matters and an amended complaint in a consolidated shareholder class action originally filed June 28, 2013 in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company and its CEO and former CFO seeking unspecified compensatory damages. While the Company believes the complaint is without merit, it is too early to determine the potential outcome. IEC Electronics Corp. specializes in the custom manufacture of high reliability, complex circuit boards and system-level assemblies; a wide array of cable and wire harness assemblies capable of withstanding extreme environments; and precision metal components. It primarily serves the aerospace & defense (previously discussed as military & aerospace), medical, industrial and communications markets. IMPAX LABORATORIES: 13 Actions Transferred to Massachusetts Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that from July to October 2013, thirteen class action complaints were filed against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company. On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. In each case, the complaints allege that Medicis engaged in an overarching anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, filing frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a technology-based, specialty pharmaceutical company. IMPAX LABORATORIES: 4 Opana ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that from June to July 2014, four class action complaints were filed against manufacturers of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re- filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. In each case, the complaints allege that Endo Pharmaceuticals engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a technology-based, specialty pharmaceutical company. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Proceeding in Securities Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on March 7, 2013 and April 8, 2013, two class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Denis Mulligan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and Haverhill Retirement System, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, respectively ("Securities Class Actions"), alleging that the Company and those named officers and directors violated the federal securities law by making materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts to the public in connection with manufacturing deficiencies at the Hayward, California manufacturing facility, including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies would have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA for the Company's branded product candidate, RYTARY(TM) and its generic version of Concerta(R). These two Securities Class Actions have subsequently been consolidated, assigned to the same judge, and lead plaintiff has been chosen. The plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2013. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on November 14, 2013. On April 18, 2014, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. Discovery is proceeding, and a trial date has not been set. On March 19, 2013, Virender Singh, derivatively on behalf of the Company, filed a state court action against certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Santa Clara, asserting similar allegations as those in the Securities Class Actions. That action has been stayed pending resolution of the Securities Class Actions. In addition, the Company is aware of two letters from stockholders demanding action by the Company's board of directors, including to: (i) undertake an independent internal investigation into management's alleged violations of Delaware and/or federal law; (ii) commence a civil action against members of management to recover damages sustained as a result of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties; and/or (iii) spearhead meaningful corporate reform to address alleged internal control inadequacies. Each letter further states that if such action is not commenced within a reasonable period of time, the stockholder will commence a stockholder's derivative action on behalf of the Company. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a technology-based, specialty pharmaceutical company. INDIANA MUNICIPAL POWER: High Electric Rates Blamed on Coal ----------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that in a class action, residents of a far west Chicago suburb claim they are overcharged for electricity because a slew of utility companies and agencies misrepresented the problems of producing power with polluting, high-sulfur coal. Lead plaintiff Joe Marconi, on behalf of the residents of Batavia, sued the Indiana Municipal Power Agency, IMPA Services Corp., CEO Rajeshwar Rao, and Sargent & Lundy and Skelly and Loy, consulting firms, in Kane County Court. Eighteen other companies and agencies, including Peabody Energy, Bechtel Corp., Science Applications International Corp., and Batavia are named as respondents in discovery in the tangled, 37- page lawsuit. "Beginning in the 1990s and continuing into the 2000s, Peabody mines in southern Illinois began exporting high-sulfur coal, which was unsaleable in the United States, to China and other Asian countries," the complaint states. "In 2001, Peabody announced plans to construct a mine-mouth, pulverized-coal-fueled power generating facility with two unites adjacent to its existing high-sulfur coal reserves in southern Illinois called the Prairie State Energy Campus (PSEC). The construction of PSEC was part of a scheme by Peabody to create a market for its high-sulfur, high-ash coal reserves in Southern Illinois." Peabody marketed the project as an affordable, long-term source of electricity, prompting the Indiana Municipal Power Authority (IMPA) to acquire a partial ownership in facility, the complaint states. Batavia then hired IMPA to suggest electric supply options for the city, and IMPA recommended participating in the PSEC project -- allegedly without disclosing its own stake in the plant. At IMPA's suggestion, Batavia signed an agreement obligating it "to purchase from NIMPA [Northern Illinois Municipal Power Authority] 50 megawatts of electric capacity and energy which was to be generated by the to-be-built PSEC. . . . "Under this agreement, Batavia ratepayers are charged for Batavia's pro-rata costs of PSEC and related debt whether PSEC produces power or not. "Under this agreement, if PSEC is not providing NIMPA its entitlement share of electricity. NIMPA must purchase additional power from a separate source, and Batavia is required to pay for that additional power in addition to its pro rata share of PSEC costs and debt payments. "Under this agreement, if Batavia does not need all of its entitlement share of electricity, it must sell it. If Batavia is forced to sell electricity from PSEC, it generally must do so at a loss, as the cost of the electricity from PSEC is more expensive than the price at which Batavia can sell that electricity in the wholesale market at any given time," according to the complaint. By 2006, Batavia had spent $1.8 million on the project, and could not withdraw without all losing its money, the residents say. They claim the price of power generated by the plant is significantly more than the $46/megawatt-hour represented to the city when it entered the contract, and that the price for building the plant escalated drastically over a 10-year period. "The estimated total coast of construction for PSEC has increased from $2.754 billion in 2004 to $4.095 billion in 2007, to $4.933 billion in 2010, and to $5.1 billion as of 2013. The current estimated cost of construction for PSEC is unknown," the lawsuit states. "These increased reflect the industry-wide experience where, starting in the years before 2005, the costs of constructing new coal-fired power plants began to increase significantly, and was thus known to defendants in 2007 when defendants were pressuring Batavia to finalize its commitment to the PSEC project. "Specifically, during 2007, while defendants were pressuring Batavia to finalize its commitment to the PSEC project, several major industry reports warns of the skyrocketing construction costs of coal plants. While these reports were no doubt closely watched by industry insiders, defendants did not provide this information to Batavia." PSEC has never achieved full capacity, and operated a net 60 percent capacity in 2013, the class claims. "Additional capacity for storage of the coal ash wastes produced by PSEC will also be required. The cost of acquiring this additional ashfill capacity will be passed on to Batavia's ratepayers and will mean further increases in the cost of power from PSEC," the residents claim. "Contrary to what Batavia was told, it was known to defendants that the poor quality of the high sulfur, high ash, unwashed coal would lead to shutdowns and reduced operational efficiency. On information and belief, the poor quality of the high sulfur, high ash, unwashed coal has indeed led to such shutdowns and reduced operational capacity." Plaintiffs seek class certification and punitive damages for negligent misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Childress, Esq. CHILDRESS DUFFY 500 N. Dearborn, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 494-0200 Facsimile: (312) 494-0202 E-mail: mchildress@childresslawyers.com INTERMUNE INC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Roche Holdings -------------------------------------------------------------- Directors are selling InterMune too cheaply through an unfair process to Roche Holdings, for $74 a share or $8.3 billion, shareholders claim in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Shiva Y. Stein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. International Rectifier Corporation, Robert S. Attiyeh, Mary B. Cranston, Richard J. Dahl, Dwight W. Decker, Didier Hirsch, Oleg Khaykin, Thomas Lacey, James D. Plummer, Barbara L. Rambo, Rochus E. Vogt, Infineon Technologies AG, and Surf Merger Sub Inc, Case No. BC556149 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 28, 2014) alleges that Infineon is attempting to shortchange the Company's shareholders by acquiring International Rectifier for inadequate consideration just as the Company is poised for substantial growth. International Rectifier Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in El Segundo, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. IRC is a world leader in power management technology. IRC's analog, digital, and mixed signal integrated circuits, and other advanced power management products, enable high performance computing and save energy in a wide variety of business and consumer applications. Infineon Technologies AG is a stock company organized and existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany with its principal executive offices located in Neubiberg/Munich, Germany. Infineon offers semiconductor and system solutions addressing energy efficiency, mobility, and security. Surf Merger Sub Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Infineon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Shareholder Seeks to Stop Infineon Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Heron, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. International Rectifier Corporation, Oleg Khaykin, Richard J. Dahl, Rochus E. Vogt, James D. Plummer, Robert S. Attiyeh, Thomas Lacey, Mary B. Cranston, Dwight W. Decker, Barbara L. Rambo, 24 Didierhirsch, Infineon Technologies AG, and Surf Merger Sub Inc., Case No. BC556078 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 27, 2014) seeks to enjoin the merger of Merger Sub with and into IRC, with IRC surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Infineon. International Rectifier Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in El Segundo, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. IRC is a world leader in power management technology. IRC's analog, digital, and mixed signal integrated circuits, and other advanced power management products, enable high performance computing and save energy in a wide variety of business and consumer applications. Infineon Technologies AG is a stock company organized and existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany with its principal executive offices located in Neubiberg/Munich, Germany. Infineon offers semiconductor and system solutions addressing energy efficiency, mobility, and security. Surf Merger Sub Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Infineon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP 505 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 231-4313 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com - and - Michael Swick, Esq. Michael J. Palestina, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville, LA 70447 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: michael.swick@ksfcounsel.com michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Facing Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed July 31, 2014, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and Francis Reynolds, its former Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. "We have not yet been served with process in this matter. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements related to the timing and completion of the clinical study of our scaffold product. The plaintiff seeks class certification for purchasers of our common stock during the period from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013 and unspecified damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit," the Company said. InVivo Therapeutics is a pioneering biomaterials and biotechnology company with a focus on the treatment of spinal cord injuries. JC PENNEY: Accused of Issuing False and Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan P. Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J. C. Penney Company, Inc., Myron E. Ullman, III, and Kenneth H. Hannah, Case No. 6:14-cv-00722 (E.D. Tex., August 26, 2014) arises out of a series of false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts allegedly made by the Defendants regarding the Company's liquidity, business operations, and financial condition, which the Defendants used to inflate and falsify the Company's true prospects and financial results. J. C. Penney Company, Inc., is a holding company whose principal operating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. The Company describes itself as "one of the largest department store and e-commerce retailers in the United States." The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Marvin L. Frank, Esq. Benjamin D. Bianco, Esq. Bridget V. Hamill, Esq. FRANK & BIANCO LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 705 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 628-1853 Facsimile: (212) 682-1892 E-mail: mfrank@frankandbianco.com bbianco@frankandbianco.com bhamill@frankandbianco.com KRAFT FOODS: Recalls 7,691 American Singles Cheese Product ---------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Kraft voluntarily recalled 7,691 cases of its American Singles cheese product on Aug. 29 because an ingredient was stored improperly by a supplier. The food maker said that, while unlikely, the product may spoil prematurely or cause a food borne illness. Kraft Foods Group Inc., which is based in Northfield, Illinois, said the suppler didn't keep the ingredient stored in accordance with its temperature standards. The recalled products come in four varieties with "Best When Used By" dates of Feb. 20, 2015, and Feb. 21, 2015. Kraft said customers can return the products to the store they bought them from for a refund or an exchange. Customers can also call Kraft at 800-396-5512. L3 COMMUNICATIONS: Bernard M. Gross Law Firm Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. on Aug. 26 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 14cv06939, on behalf of purchasers of common stock of L3 Communications between January 30, 2014 and July 30, 2014, inclusive, pursuing remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This matter is pending before the Honorable Richard Berman. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by September 30, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross at 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 or via email at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com The firm has expertise in prosecuting class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Any person who purchased the common stock of L3 Communications during the Class Period may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of his choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) L-3 Communications' financial statements contained errors related to the improper deferral of cost overruns on a fixed-price maintenance and logistics support contract resulting in overstatement of operating income; (2) net sales with respect to the fixed-price maintenance and logistics support contract were overstated; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Noteworthy is that defendant, Michael T. Strianese, CEO sold over 100,000 shares of L3 common stock during the Class Period. On July 31, 2014, L-3 Communications reported preliminary second quarter 2014 financial results. Therein, the Company noted that the results were "preliminary because the Company is currently conducting an internal review that could result in increases to the preliminary adjustments included in this release," but in light of the review, it expects to incur a charge of $84 million "against operating income and a related reduction in net sales of approximately $43 million." Additionally, the Company disclosed that it believed that "the amounts associated with these adjustments are the result of misconduct and accounting errors at the Aerospace Systems segment," and that it had terminated a number of employees in the Aerospace Segment. On this news, shares of L-3 Communications fell $14.68 per share, or more than 12 percent, to close at $104.96 on July 31, 2014. To discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice with respect to these matters, PLEASE CONTACT: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Susan R. Gross, Esq. Deborah R. Gross, Esq. Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600 E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com LANNETT COMPANY: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act --------------------------------------------------------------- David Schaefer, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Lannett Company, Inc., Arthur P. Bedrosian, Martin P. Galvan, and G. Michael Landis, Case No. 2:14-cv-05008 (E.D. Pa., August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes generic versions of branded pharmaceutical products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Donovan, Esq. DONOVAN AXLER LLC 1845 Walnut St Ste 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 732-6067 Facsimile: (215) 732-8060 E-mail: mdonovan@donovanaxler.com LEGGETT & PLATT: Q1 2015 Trial for Direct Purchaser Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against over 20 defendants alleging that competitors of the Company's carpet underlay business unit and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. and Canadian antitrust laws. A number of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, most without prejudice. The Company said that, of the U.S. cases remaining, it has been named as a defendant in (a) three direct purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) and a consolidated amended class action complaint filed on February 28, 2011 on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products; (b) an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21, 2011; and an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011; (c) 38 individual direct purchaser cases filed between March 22, 2011 and October 16, 2013; and (d) two individual cases alleging direct and indirect purchaser claims under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, one filed on November 29, 2012 and the other on April 11, 2013. All of the pending U.S. federal cases in which the Company has been named as a defendant, have been filed in or have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. In the U.S. actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations. The Company said, "On April 15 and May 6, 2011, we filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser and indirect purchaser class actions in the consolidated case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July 19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. "Discovery is underway in the U.S. actions. Motions for class certification have been filed on behalf of both direct and indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motions was held January 15, 2014. "On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the direct and indirect purchaser classes. We filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 23, 2014. This petition to appeal is pending. The Court ordered all parties to attend non- binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing. "The trial date for the direct purchaser class cases is expected to take place in the first quarter of 2015." Leggett & Platt has four operating segments that supply a wide range of products: Residential Furnishings -- components for bedding, furniture and other furnishings, as well as related consumer products; Commercial Fixturing & Components -- retail store fixtures, and components for office and institutional furnishings; Industrial Materials -- drawn steel wire, specialty wire products, titanium and nickel tubing for the aerospace industry and welded steel tubing; and Specialized Products -- automotive seating components, specialized machinery and equipment, and commercial vehicle interiors. LEGGETT & PLATT: April 2015 Hearing on Motions for Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that, "We have been named in two Canadian class action cases (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products), both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164 (amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30, 2011)." "In each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 13 defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged, general and special damages in the amount of $100 [million], punitive damages of $10 [million], pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and the costs of the investigation and the action. The first issued class action is on behalf of a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam. The second issued class action is on behalf of purchasers of carpet underlay. "We are not yet required to file our defenses in these or any other Canadian actions. "In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products) styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et. al. in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended motion for authorization seeking to add us and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case, which was granted. This action has a pending motion for certification which is to be heard in January 2015. "We also were notified in June 2014 of two motions to add us as parties to two class proceedings in British Columbia. Those proceedings are similar to the Ontario proceedings in that one proposes a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam (Majestic Mattress Mfg. Ltd. v. Vitafoam Products et al., No. VLC-S-S-106362 Vancouver Registry) and one proposes a class of purchasers of carpet underlay (Trillium Project Management Ltd. v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company et al., No.S106213 Vancouver Registry). "The motion to add us as parties to these actions has been scheduled to be heard with the motions for certification in the two actions in April 2015. "The British Columbia actions involve British Columbia purchasers only whereas the Ontario actions propose classes of Canadian purchasers. No certification motions will be brought in the Ontario actions until after the British Columbia motions for certification have been determined." Leggett & Platt has four operating segments that supply a wide range of products: Residential Furnishings -- components for bedding, furniture and other furnishings, as well as related consumer products; Commercial Fixturing & Components -- retail store fixtures, and components for office and institutional furnishings; Industrial Materials -- drawn steel wire, specialty wire products, titanium and nickel tubing for the aerospace industry and welded steel tubing; and Specialized Products -- automotive seating components, specialized machinery and equipment, and commercial vehicle interiors. LEGGETT & PLATT: Discovery Has Commenced in "Baker" Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on June 22, 2012, the Company was made party to a lawsuit brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption "Dennis Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated." "The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri, alleged that we violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon our alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane foam products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages, punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. We filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied on November 5, 2012," the Company said. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification. The parties' briefing is completed, and a hearing on the motion was held on February 20, 2014. "We deny all of the allegations," the Company said. Leggett & Platt has four operating segments that supply a wide range of products: Residential Furnishings -- components for bedding, furniture and other furnishings, as well as related consumer products; Commercial Fixturing & Components -- retail store fixtures, and components for office and institutional furnishings; Industrial Materials -- drawn steel wire, specialty wire products, titanium and nickel tubing for the aerospace industry and welded steel tubing; and Specialized Products -- automotive seating components, specialized machinery and equipment, and commercial vehicle interiors. LONDON METAL: Can Avert Antitrust Claim Due to Sovereign Immunity ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that when the New York Times reported last year on warehousing practices that drive up the cost of aluminum, plaintiffs lawyers might have thought a winning case fell into their laps. But the resulting litigation lost a bit of its firepower last week, thanks to a daring and novel argument by Latham & Watkins on behalf of the London Metal Exchange Ltd. In a 31-page ruling issued on Aug. 25, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan ruled that LME is an "organ" of the U.K. government, and therefore is shielded by sovereign immunity from claims that it conspired with Goldman Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and others to restrain aluminum supplies and drive up prices. Judge Forrest acknowledged that her conclusion might seem "surprising and counterintuitive" because LME is a privately held for-profit company. Beginning in 2010, Goldman and JPMorgan acquired companies involved in owning and operating metal warehouses. The hoarding of aluminum allegedly inflates its price, because storage costs are added to aluminum prices. LME is the world's leading metals exchange and oversees warehouses around the world. After it adopted rules that allowed banks to stockpile much more metal than they were selling, the warehouses became cash cows for Goldman and JPMorgan. (The Times didn't specify how much money they made, stating only that it was "many millions.") The banks have recently sought to exit the warehousing business amid mounting regulatory scrutiny, according to The Wall Street Journal. The Times reported in July 2013 that wait times for aluminum orders had increased dramatically, forcing companies that rely heavily on aluminum, such as the Coca-Cola Company, to raise their prices. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission later opened investigations into these practices. The Times report also triggered the filing of 26 lawsuits on behalf of direct purchasers and end-users, which have been consolidated before Judge Forrest. Plaintiffs lawyers sued LME, arguing that it profited from conspiring with warehouse owners and metal traders, and that until recently it was controlled by representatives from warehousing companies. In April LME's lawyers at Latham, led by Margaret Zwisler -- margaret.zwisler@lw.com -- argued that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act barred these claims. They noted that the U.K. Government has tasked their client with regulating the metals market, which is a public function. Judge Forrest sided with Latham. While LME is privately owned, it is actively supervised by the government and clearly serves as a market regulator, she wrote. Christopher Lovell of Lovell Stewart Halebian & Jacobson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, didn't immediately return a call seeking comment. In addition to Lovell Stewart, the firms appointed to serve as lead counsel for various plaintiffs include Grant & Eisenhofer, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca. MAJOR LEAGUE: Seeks Emergency Appeal From Antitrust Suit Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Divito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Major League Baseball asked the federal judge who ruled in August that it must face antitrust charges for limiting broadcasts to grant it an emergency appeal before the trial starts, because it is confident that the judgment against it will be overturned. U.S. District Judge Shira Sheindlin ruled on Aug. 4 that two class action antitrust lawsuits filed by fans in 2012 could proceed, and that the league's antitrust exemption on the books does not protect it from antitrust claims for restricting out-of-market games. In his request for immediate appeal, MLB attorney Bradley I. Ruskin, with Proskauer Rose, wrote that there is a "'substantial ground for difference of opinion' concerning the Court's interpretation of the exemption and its ruling that the exemption is inapplicable here." Ruskin said he sought to stem the costs of defending MLB against a trial that, if it found baseball culpable of antitrust violations, would be reversed on appeal. "If the 2nd Circuit must wait until after a costly and time- consuming trial to determine that this court does not even have jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims, the court and the parties will have already incurred significant trial costs and resources, as well as the costs related to the appeal of merits issues," Ruskin wrote. "Certification may prevent these unnecessary expenditures." Scheindlin has the final decision on whether to grant the emergency appeal before the matter goes to trial. Baseball fans filed two lawsuits in Manhattan Federal Court in 2012, arguing that MLB and the National Hockey League conspired with Comcast and DirecTV to black out games, to prevent them from watching their favorite teams, or force them to pay more to watch "out-of-market" games. MLB claimed that it was shielded from antitrust laws because of an exemption in the Sports Broadcasting Act, which was passed by Congress in 1961. Scheindlin disagreed, saying she would "decline to apply the exemption to a subject that is not central to the business of baseball, and that Congress did not intend to exempt -- namely baseball's contracts for television broadcast rights." In his letter seeking emergency appeal, Ruskin said that the Supreme Court has at least six times upheld the exemption, while the 2nd Circuit has "expressly concluded that the broadcasting of baseball is the business of baseball." He urged a "quick resolution of the issue" by the 2nd Circuit to "prevent additional improper litigation from which, the Supreme Court has held, MLB must be protected." The Yankees' attorney, Jonathan D. Schiller with Boies, Schiller & Flexner, late on August 27, 2014, asked the judge to allow it to file a separate brief for emergency appeal by Sept. 3. But the fans' attorney, Edward Diver, with Langer Grogan & Diver, also wrote a letter on August 27, 2014, urging Scheindlin to disallow the Yankees' appeal as "untimely and duplicative." "The MLB defendants have now moved for interlocutory appeal with a memorandum of law that is twice as long as their summary judgment briefing on baseball's asserted antitrust exemption," Diver wrote. "That the Yankees should add to this with another eight pages covering the same ground is unjustifiable." The consolidated lawsuits accuse the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball and various baseball and hockey teams, several sports networks, and Comcast and DirecTV of conspiring to eliminate competition over the airwaves and on the Internet, to restrict programming and hang onto their regional monopolies. In her ruling, Scheindlin said the broadcasting structure allows baseball "to avoid competition." The Defendants are represented by: Bradley I. Ruskin, Esq. Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq. Colin Kass, Esq. Jordan B. Leader, Esq. Stephen Ahron, Esq. Joelle Milov, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036-8299 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: bruskin@proskauer.com jscullion@proskauer.com ckass@proskauer.com jleader@proskauer.com sahron@proskauer.com jmilov@proskauer.com - and - Thomas J. Ostertag, Esq. Senior Vice President and General Counsel OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL 245 Park Avenue New York, NY 10167 Telephone: (212) 931-7855 Facsimile: (212) 949-5653 E-mail: tom.ostertag@mlb.com The case is Fernanda Garber, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-03704-SAS-MHD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. M2 PRODUCTS: Dog Leash Product Liability Suit Settled for $1.3MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Stapleton, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that a building contractor who lost the vision in one eye after a retractable dog leash recoiled and struck his face has settled his product liability lawsuit against a Connecticut company for $1.3 million. On Feb. 5, 2010, Michael Slugg was walking his dog near his home in Fairfax, Va., using a retractable leash called a Hip Hugger, which was manufactured by a Chinese supplier for M2 Products Inc. of New Canaan. His dog, a 40-pound bluetick coonhound named Sally, was wearing a collar, which was attached to a short leash, which was in turn clipped to the Hip Hugger leash. Mr. Slugg was holding the hand- held spool mechanism of the Hip Hugger, and using the device's spool locking button to retract or release the leash as the dog moved ahead of him. At one point during the walk, the "dog took off at a dead run," according to Mr. Slugg's lawyer, Brenden Leydon, of Tooher Wocl & Leydon in Stamford. "The side-release buckle on the Hip Hugger leash unfastened, separating the short training leash from the rest of the retractable leash. The retractable leash recoiled back and struck Slugg in the left eye, while the dog took off with the short training leash." Mr. Slugg, 54, suffered a rupture injury to his eye. He was rushed to the hospital, where he underwent emergency surgery, but he lost most of his vision in the eye. Two subsequent surgeries to restore additional vision were unsuccessful. "He is now able to count fingers and make out basic shapes, but he has no useful sight in the eye," Mr. Leydon said. "His past medical expenses totaled about $71,600, and his future medical expenses were estimated at about $56,000." Mr. Slugg sued M2 Products, in Superior Court in Stamford, alleging that the leash was defectively designed in that the side- release buckle that provided a connection to the smaller side leash was unnecessary. The lawsuit also alleged that the buckle was prone to unfasten, which could cause it to snap back and strike the user in the face. Along with his losses for medical expenses, Mr. Slugg sought recovery of lost wages and diminished earnings. He was a self- employed building contractor, and claimed that the vision loss and resulting lack of depth perception negatively affected his return to work. Mr. Slugg claimed that his business had declined because of his inability to perform work at his previous level of proficiency. He said he was also unable to bid on projects that were more than one story tall because he could not safely function in high places due to his compromised eyesight. Further, Mr. Slugg claimed his ability to obtain employment in a related field had diminished due to his work restrictions and physical limitations. Mr. Leydon said his client was prepared to present deposition testimony from M2's corporate owner admitting that the leash was defective as originally designed; that two other users sustained eye injuries when the side-release buckle housing broke; and that the leash had been redesigned since the accident to eliminate the short leash and side-release buckle. The owner of M2 Products, Mark Morrison, also admitted that he had no formal design training and had relied on a Chinese manufacturer to design and test the leash, Mr. Leydon said. Additionally, Mr. Slugg retained an engineering test firm, Technology Associates, which performed tests on four Hip Hugger leashes that were purchased online. According to Mr. Leydon, "although the manufacturer claimed the leash was suitable for a 100-pound dog," each of the four leashes tested failed at less than 100 pounds. M2 Products was represented by James Mahar -- jamahar@ryandelucalaw.com -- of Ryan, Ryan Deluca in Stamford. Mr. Mahar argued that his clients had discontinued the sale of the leash, and that the leash in question was produced by a "knock- off" manufacturer. The defendants also disputed the amount of Mr. Slugg's lost earnings and economic losses. The case was scheduled to go to trial in May, but the two sides agreed to a mediation session before James Robertson -- jrobertson@carmodylaw.com -- of Carmody TorranceSandak & Henneseey in Waterbury. At the mediation, the two sides agreed to settle the case for $1.3 million, to be paid by the defendant's insurer. MING'S GOURMET: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Wang Qin Zheng, Wen Qing Chen, Xiaoqian Zhu, Qiao Ling Zheng, Bi Yu Li, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ming's Gourmet Garden LLC d/b/a Hibachi Grill & Supreme Buffet, Ming Zhu Zhang, Li Zhong Chen, Hibachi Grill Supreme Buffet Cinnaminson Inc., and Shu Ying Chen, Case No. 1:14-cv-05396 (D.N.J., August 27, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a chain of buffet restaurants serving Chinese and Japanese cuisine under the trade name of Hibachi Grill & Supreme Buffet. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bin Xue, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN B. XUE, P.C. 401 Broadway, Suite 1009 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 219-2275 Facsimile: (212) 219-2276 E-mail: bbxlaw@gmail.com MONAVIE INC: Suit Over Deceptive Cure-All Juice Will Continue ------------------------------------------------------------- A recidivist scammer must face a class action alleging it falsely advertises a pricey "super juice" as a cure for cancer, Alzheimer's and heart disease, reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Lisa Pontrelli filed a putative class action against MonaVie Inc. and MonaVie LLC in New Jersey last year, alleging that they cannot deliver the promised curative results after charging "outrageously inflated" prices for their exotic fruit juices. The Utah-based manufacturers allegedly advertise that the acai berry can prevent blood clots, arteriosclerosis and Alzheimer's, while improving circulation, mental focus, stamina, sleep, digestion and sexual function, in addition to the outstanding healing properties imbued in 17 other fruity ingredients. One testimonial allegedly says less than a full bottle the Acai Active Blend totally relieved pain in a customer suffering with degenerative arthritis for 20 years. And after undergoing "major surgery to repair a completely crushed pelvis," another customer "stopped all my medications and replaced them with Acai Active Blend . . . before three weeks had gone by all of my pain had vanished," MonaVie allegedly advertised. MonaVie also posted a YouTube video in which a purported MD said the product can ease cancer pain and even reverse the disease in some cases, according to the complaint, which goes on to allege that the company Web site says the juice can manage diabetes and headaches, and prevent morning sickness. But MonaVie's chief science officer and the purported creator of the juice, Ralph Carson, cautioned that the drink was "expensive flavored water," and that "any claims made are purely hypothetical, unsubstantiated and, quite frankly, bogus," according to the complaint. MonaVie CEO and cofounder Dallin Larsen meanwhile admitted that the products do not cure any diseases, the consumers claim. Carson and Larsen are not defendants in the case. The complaint claims that MonaVie tries to avoid liability for the outlandish claims by paying "independent" distributors who lack training in science or nutrition to sell the juices. Larson used the same multilevel marketing scheme for another "superfood" health drink called Royal Tongan Limu, according to the complaint. Consumers claim that the FDA ordered his company, Dynamic Essentials, to cease manufacturing that drink after finding no proof for the product's therapeutic benefits. Pontrelli seeks to represent all those who purchased MonaVie juice products from 2007 to present, typically in 25-ounce bottles individually priced at $40 or more. She seeks an injunction and punitive damages for fraud, consumer fraud and unjust enrichment. U.S. District Judge William Martini has refused to dismiss the first amended complaint, saying the claims have been plausibly alleged. The case is Lisa Pontrelli v. Monavie, Inc., Monavie, LLC, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:13-cv-04649-WJM-MF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. NABORS INDUSTRIES: C&J Energy Stockholders File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 30, 2014, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Nabors Red Lion Limited ("Red Lion"), along with C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("CJES"), and the members of the board of directors of CJES, including its management directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class action by the stockholders of CJES. The case is styled City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, et al. v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al.; C.A. No. 9980; In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges that the CJES directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction between CJES, Nabors and Red Lion, and that Nabors and Red Lion aided and abetted these alleged violations. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including an injunction against the consummation of the transactions, together with attorney's fees and costs. "We believe that the case is without merit and intend to vigorously defend it," the Company said. In June 2014, the Company signed a definitive agreement to merge its completion and production services businesses with C&J Energy Services, Inc. (NYSE: CJES), an independent oilfield services and manufacturing company. Following the completion of this transaction, the Company will own approximately 53 percent of the combined company. Nabors has grown from a land drilling business centered in the United States and Canada to a global business aimed at optimizing the entire well life cycle, with operations on land and offshore in most of the major oil and gas markets in the world. PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Defending Class Action Over REMOXY Drug ---------------------------------------------------------- Pain Therapeutics, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that, "We are involved in a class action filed against us and our officers that is expensive and time consuming, and, in the event of an adverse outcome, could harm our business, financial condition or results of operations." "On December 2, 2011, a purported class action was filed against us and our executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This complaint alleges, among other things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of allegedly untrue or misleading statements of material facts made by us regarding REMOXY's development and regulatory status during the purported class period, February 3, 2011 through June 23, 2011. The complaint states that monetary damages are being sought, but no amounts are specified. On June 3, 2013, the Court certified a class consisting of all purchasers of our common stock and a class period of December 27, 2010 through June 26, 2011," the Company said. Pain Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company that develops novel drugs. Its lead drug candidate, REMOXY(R) (oxycodone) Extended-Release Capsules CII, is an extended-release oral formulation of oxycodone for the management of moderate-to-severe pain when a continuous, around-the-clock opioid analgesic is needed for an extended period of time. REMOXY is being developed pursuant to the collaboration agreement and license agreement, or the Pfizer Agreements, between the Company and King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc., or Pfizer. PFIZER INC: Sued Over Manipulation of Celecoxib Patent Renewal -------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Stanley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pfizer, Inc., G.D. Searle LLC, and Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Case No. 2:14-cv-00442 (E.D. Va., August 27, 2014), alleges that the Defendants implemented a scheme to unlawfully prolong patent protection for celecoxib to avoid the consequences of the Federal Circuit ruling. The Defendants are engaged in the worldwide marketing, production, and distribution of pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wyatt B. Durrette Jr., Esq. DURRETTECRUMP PLC 1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-6900 Facsimile: (804) 775-6911 E-mail: wdurrette@durrettecrump.com - and - Barrett Erskine Pope, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER G. HILL, PC 4870 Sadler Road, Suite 300 Glen Allen, VA 23060 Telephone: (804) 775-6900 Facsimile: (804) 775-6911 PURDUE PHARMA: Seeks to Disqualify Attorney in OxyContin Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Purdue Pharma L.P. and two affiliated companies are seeking to disqualify a former District of Columbia attorney general from representing the city of Chicago in its lawsuit against several drugmakers for allegedly seeking to misinform the public about the risks and benefits of opium-like pain medications. According to Purdue, attorney Linda Singer and her law firm law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll should be disqualified because Singer served as attorney general between Jan. 2, 2007, and Jan. 5, 2008. The District and 26 other jurisdictions reached a $19.5 million settlement with Purdue over the marketing of OxyContin on May 8, 2007, the drugmakers said. "Those responding to government inquiries should not be left to 'wonder whether the agency attorney investigating his case will one day turn out to represent the plaintiff' in a lawsuit concerning the same issues," the defendants said, citing the D.C. Court of Appeals' 1982 decision in Kessenich v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Now Ms. Singer and her law firm have been retained on a contingent basis to represent the city against the Purdue defendants regarding the marketing of OxyContin during the same time period as was covered by the 2007 case, the drugmakers said. According to Purdue, Ms. Singer's representation of Chicago violates Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1, which bars a former government attorney from representing a "client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee." Singer personally and substantially participated in the older lawsuit by approving the consent judgment, the defendants argued. She was briefed on the settlement more than a month before any court filings were made; edited the proposed press release about the consent judgment; and lobbied to increase the statutory caps on D.C.'s consumer protection fund to accommodate the $950,000 the District recovered in the lawsuit, the pharmaceutical companies said. Singer also has entered a contingent-fee agreement with Santa Clara and Orange counties in California to pursue a similar lawsuit. Patrick Fitzgerald and R. Ryan Stoll -- ryan.stoll@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom in Chicago filed Purdue's motion. QBE INSURANCE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Investigation ----------------------------------------------------------- The Insurance Insider reports that Australian insurance giant QBE Insurance Group Limited is facing a shareholder class action investigation over allegations that it misled the market ahead of a profit warning issued on December 9. 2013, the company confirmed on Aug. 19. In its half-year results presentation, the carrier confirmed that a law firm is investigating a possible class action suit in relation to the disclosure of its 2013 annual results. QEP RESOURCES: Defendants Asked for Review in "Gatti" Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Gatti et al v. State of Louisiana et al, 589,350, 19th JDC, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana is a putative class action arising out of the unitization practices and orders of the Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation (Commissioner). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all Haynesville Shale mineral owners (alleged to be over 50,000 in number) against the Commissioner and all Haynesville Shale unit operators. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 8, 2010, and claim that the Commissioner exceeded his statutory authority in creating and perpetuating units larger than the area that can be efficiently and economically drained by a single well. They seek declaratory relief that would nullify all such improper orders, along with an unspecified amount of monetary damages from the unit operators sufficient to compensate the putative class members for the alleged dilution of their true interest in unit production as a result of "oversized" units and the "cloud on title" caused by having excessive and improperly sized units purport to hold their mineral leases via unit operations. All defendants filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' petition on the primary ground that plaintiffs had failed to comply with the exclusive statutory judicial review procedure (Louisiana Revised Statutes 30:12), which the trial court granted, dismissing the action in its entirety. On January 15, 2014, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed and reinstated plaintiffs' claims. Defendants have asked for review of the Louisiana Supreme Court, which review is discretionary, QEP Resources said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. QEP Resources, Inc. is a holding company with three major lines of business: oil and gas exploration and production; midstream field services; and energy marketing. QEP RESOURCES: Cert. Hearings in Train Derailment Case Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Yannick Gagne and others similarly situated v. QEP Resources, Inc., No. 480-06-1-132, Superior Court, Province of Quebec, Canada, seeks to represent a class of all persons who sustained damages as a result of the July 6, 2013 train derailment in Lac- Megantic, Quebec, which resulted in substantial loss of life and property. The fourth amended motion to authorize the bringing of a class action was filed on February 19, 2014, and names numerous defendants. The plaintiffs contend that QEP, and other producer defendants, sold Bakken crude oil to third-party purchasers in North Dakota, who resold the oil and transported it on the derailed train. Plaintiffs alleged that QEP and the producer defendants, among other things, failed to ensure that the oil was adequately processed to remove volatile gases and vapors, knowingly added volatile light end petroleum liquids and/or vapors or blended the crude with condensate, failed to conduct adequate well site testing to determine the proper hazard classification of the oil, failed to properly classify the shipping requirements for the oil, failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the oil was properly labeled and shipped, failed to identify the risk of the train derailment and take action to prevent it, and failed to adopt, implement and enforce rules and procedures pertaining to the safe shipment of the oil. The plaintiffs seek damages, but specific monetary damages are not asserted. Class certification hearings are ongoing, QEP Resources said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. QEP Resources, Inc. is a holding company with three major lines of business: oil and gas exploration and production; midstream field services; and energy marketing. RAWSON-NEAL PSYCHIATRIC: Bused Patients to New Cities, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Often drugged and disoriented, patients at a Las Vegas psychiatric hospital found themselves involuntarily discharged, bused to a new city and left with no means to continue treatment or even live, according to a class action lawsuit, reports Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff James Flavy Coy Brown claims officials at the state-run Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas booted out patients and sent them to out-of-state destinations, where hospital officials knew the patients "would be unable to obtain proper treatment, care and housing." Brown claims that says he and other patients "were medicated before their discharge and required to leave the facility under the influence of powerful anti-psychotic/tranquilizing medication." He claims that he and others "were in a drugged and sometime psychotic state and incompetent to give informed consent" when hospital staff "physically escorted them from the facility to waiting taxis bound for the Greyhound bus station in Las Vegas. They were then directed and required to travel on pre-paid tickets which had been previously ordered and paid for by Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services." Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services, lead defendant in the lawsuit in Clark County Court, runs the Rawson-Neal hospital, which opened in August 2006 and has about 190 beds for patients. Brown says he was admitted to the hospital on Feb. 9, 2013, and was involuntarily discharged and sent on a Greyhound bus to Sacramento two days later. Before sending him to Sacramento, Brown says, the defendants gave him "three days of powerful anti-psychotic medications and bottles of Ensure for the 15-hour bus ride." Upon arrival, Brown says, he was "homeless, confused and anxious" and was taken by local police to a homeless service center that could not provide housing, treatment or transportation. Staff at the University of California at Davis Medical Center eventually got him into the Heritage Oaks psychiatric hospital, which placed him in a group home. Brown's lawsuit, filed on August 25, 2014, claims that the Sacramento Bee investigated his dumping in Sacramento and reported that the hospital had dumped some 1,500 patients in locations across the nation since 2008, "all with minimum provisions to sustain them during the protracted bus rides." The complaint claims that a random survey of 30 cases conducted by the Nevada Bureau of Health Care Quality and Compliance showed many violations of state and federal laws, and indicated that no steps were taken to ensure that discharged patients could continue obtaining help or treatment when they arrived at various destinations. Brown filed a similar class action in Federal Court in June 2013. U.S. District Judge James Mahan dismissed that complaint in February this year, ruling that mentally ill patients are capable of giving informed consent to being sent out of town, and that Nevada was merely allocating resources by giving them the rides. But a state investigation resulted in two hospital employees being fired while several others faced lesser punishments for their roles in discharging patients in recent years, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. Brown seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, an injunction and punitive damages for professional negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, negligent hiring, supervision and training, and breach of fiduciary duty. Also named as defendants are hospital administrator Chelsea Szklany, Nevada Health and Human Services Director Mike Willden and Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health Administrator Richard Whitley, hospital Associate Medical Director Leon Ravin, Dr. Anurag Gupta, Nevada Bureau of Health Care Quality and Compliance Chief Kyle Devine and Nevada Psychiatric Medical Director Linda J. White. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Lichtenstein, Esq. GENERAL COUNSEL, ACLU OF NEVADA 601 S Rancho Dr. #11 Las Vegas, NV 89106 Telephone: (702) 366-1226 REGIONS FINANCIAL: Class Actions Subject to Indemnification Pact ---------------------------------------------------------------- Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that beginning in December 2007, Regions and certain of its affiliates were named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds (the "Funds") and stockholders of Regions. These cases have been consolidated into class-actions and stockholder derivative actions for the open-end and closed-end Funds. The Funds were formerly managed by Regions Investment Management, Inc. ("Regions Investment Management"). Regions Investment Management no longer manages these Funds, which were transferred to Hyperion Brookfield Asset Management ("Hyperion") in 2008. Certain of the Funds have since been terminated by Hyperion. The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to the activities of the Funds. Plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages. Settlement discussions are ongoing in certain cases, and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee has granted final approval of a settlement in the closed-end Funds class- action and shareholder derivative case as well as preliminary approval of a settlement in a consolidated class action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. Certain of the shareholders in these Funds and other interested parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class actions. These lawsuits and proceedings are subject to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James Financial Inc. Regions Financial provides a full range of banking and bank- related services to individual and corporate customers through its subsidiaries and branch offices located primarily in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. REGIONS FINANCIAL: 11th Cir. Reviewing Class Action Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in October 2010, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by Regions' stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against Regions and certain former officers of Regions (the "2010 Claim"). The 2010 Claim alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including allegations that materially false and misleading statements were included in filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages. In June 2011, the trial court denied Regions' motion to dismiss the 2010 Claim. In June 2012, the trial court granted class certification. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing the trial court's grant of class-action certification. The case is now stayed pending that review. Regions Financial provides a full range of banking and bank- related services to individual and corporate customers through its subsidiaries and branch offices located primarily in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. REGIONS FINANCIAL: September 2014 Trial in E.D. Missouri Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the SEC and states of Missouri and Texas are investigating alleged securities law violations by Morgan Keegan in the underwriting and sale of certain municipal bonds. An enforcement action brought by the Missouri Secretary of State in April 2013, seeking monetary penalties and other relief, was dismissed and refiled in November 2013. A civil action was brought by institutional investors of the bonds in March 2012, seeking a return of their investment and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Trial of this case is currently set for January 2015 in the Circuit Court for Cole County, Missouri. A class action was brought on behalf of retail purchasers of the bonds in September 2012, seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Certification of the class action is currently before the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri with a trial date set for September 2014. Other individual investors and investor groups have also filed arbitration claims or separate civil claims, which are pending in various stages. These matters are subject to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James. Regions Financial provides a full range of banking and bank- related services to individual and corporate customers through its subsidiaries and branch offices located primarily in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. REPUBLIC SERVICES: Judge Dismisses West Lake Landfill Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Millitzer, writing for KTVI, reports that a judge dismisses a class action lawsuit, filed by Bridgeton residents, against Republic Services. The federal suit claimed radiation from the West Lake Landfill had contaminated nearby homes and businesses. Subsequent testing did not show contamination levels high enough to a reach federal standards for damages. A spokesperson for the landfill operator says it is a shame that ball games were cancelled, local businesses lost revenue, and a community was scared for four months. SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Merger-Related Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that in a move to get cheaper tax rates in Ireland, directors are merging Salix Pharmaceuticals with Cosmo Technologies, in an inadequate deal for Salix shareholders, a class action claims in Delaware Chancery Court. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Defective Washing Machines Suit Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for Law.com, reports that separate putative class actions against Samsung over allegedly defective washing machines and refrigerators were pared down to varying degrees but were ultimately allowed to proceed in a pair of rulings posted by a federal judge in Newark on Aug. 26. U.S. District Judge William Martini of the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the two actions, Durso v. Samsung Electronics America and Weske v. Samsung Electronics America. The cases were filed in Newark because defendant Samsung Electronics America, a subsidiary of South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co., is headquartered in Ridgefield Park, N.J. In Durso, three plaintiffs, one from New Jersey and two from Texas, claim that their front-loading Samsung washing machines, despite being marketed as "super capacity," are unable to handle large items such as king-sized comforters and leave laundry unclean and smelling of mildew. In addition, the washers shake violently and don't drain properly; rubber components disintegrate prematurely, resulting in leaks; scraps of metal collect in the drain hose; and the machines suffer from premature pump failure, the complaint said. Frequent service calls are required but often fail to correct the problems, according to the plaintiffs, who seek to represent a nationwide class -- with New Jersey and Texas subclasses -- of individuals who own or have owned Samsung washing machines with similar defects. They estimate in court documents that class members number in the thousands, if not the tens of thousands. Durso was filed in 2012 and Judge Martini's Aug. 26 ruling decided a motion to dismiss directed to the third version of the complaint, which has six counts alleging violations of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and common-law claims for fraudulent concealment/nondisclosure, breach of express and implied warranties and negligent misrepresentation. Last November, U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh of the District of New Jersey, who had the case until he retired at the end of January, dismissed without prejudice all but the negligent misrepresentation count of the second amended complaint, leading plaintiffs to amend it a third time last December. Every count survived Judge Martini's ruling, though not every plaintiff's claims were allowed to proceed. Judge Martini also differed with Judge Cavanaugh on several issues. Judge Cavanaugh held that Robert Durso's New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim did not properly plead the element of ascertainable loss because, although he alleged he paid almost $550 for his washer, he failed to allege how much comparable washers by Samsung competitors cost at the time. Mr. Durso, of Colts Neck, N.J., had tried to remedy this by pleading that a Frigidaire High Efficiency model cost $799 and that he paid to have his comforters laundered when the Samsung machine failed to work as advertised. Judge Martini said Judge Cavanaugh "applied a standard that too rigorously required Mr. Durso to actually quantify his loss." Mr. Durso only had to allege that the loss is quantifiable and it sufficed to say he paid about $550 for a washer that did not wash as promised, and he thus received "less than what was promised," Judge Martini said. Money Mr. Durso spent to launder the comforter also demonstrates an ascertainable loss, Judge Martini added. Plaintiff Cathie Cole's claim under the Texas statute had likewise been dismissed because Judge Cavanaugh found she had not pleaded "actual damages." She then fortified her claim with allegations about her added costs for electricity and water required by the need to continually use the heavy duty cycle on a replacement washer Samsung provided. Further, Judge Cavanaugh had thrown out the consumer fraud claims in part because the plaintiffs did not adequately plead Samsung's knowledge of the claimed defects based on 19 Internet postings because all of the postings occurred after two of the plaintiffs obtained their washers and 15 of them after the third plaintiff bought his. Judge Martini held that the plaintiffs fixed that by adding an allegation that Samsung had knowledge through its Global Service Partnership Network, which they claimed uses online software to track warranty claims. Judge Martini also allowed Mr. Durso's claims for breach of express warranty and implied warranty for a particular purpose to proceed but not his claim on the warranty of merchantability. Ms. Cole's warranty claims were once again knocked out because she did not allege she contacted Samsung about the replacement washer. Judge Martini also dismissed with prejudice all the claims by plaintiff Douglas Walker, who did not buy his Samsung washer directly but acquired it when he purchased his home in Whitney, Texas, where it was already installed. Mr. Walker, who asserted only common-law claims, could not prove fraud or misrepresentation because he did not rely on any Samsung statement, nor could he show breach of warranty because although he alleged he complained to the company, he did not say when, making it impossible to know if he did so in a reasonable time, Martini held. The seven Weske plaintiffs, who hail from California, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio and Washington state, filed their action in 2010. They claim their Samsung refrigerators stopped cooling due to a circuit board defect, costing each of them hundreds of dollars for parts, labor and spoiled food. According to their complaint, the alleged defect caused ice to form on the condenser, which caused the refrigerators to stop working. They had to unplug the machines to reset the circuit board and wait for the ice to melt before plugging them in again, the plaintiffs claim. Their complaint had three counts, including breach of their home states' consumer fraud laws, fraudulent concealment under New Jersey law and breach of implied warranty on behalf of the Ohio and Minnesota plaintiffs. Judge Martini dismissed with prejudice both the fraudulent concealment claims, because no one adequately pleaded reliance, and the warranty claims because of when the refrigerators failed. He also jettisoned consumer fraud claims by four plaintiffs, leaving only claims by the three plaintiffs from Ohio, Minnesota and Washington. Randee Matloff -- rmatloff@nagelrice.com -- of Nagel Rice in Roseland, N.J., whose firm was appointed by Cavanaugh as interim class counsel in Durso, said two years into the litigation, having fought off repeated motions to dismiss, she was looking forward to being able to engage in discovery and eventually move for class certification. Co-counsel Michael Kasanoff, a Red Bank, N.J.-based solo, commented that Judge Martini's ruling on ascertainable loss "sets a strong precedent for the future." James Cecchi of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello in Roseland, N.J., who represents the Weske plaintiffs, did not return a call seeking comment, nor did John Maloney of Morristown, N.J.'s Graham Curtin, who is defending Samsung in both matters. A Samsung spokeswoman said the company does not comment on pending litigation. SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces IPO-Related Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Steck, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-06942-JFK (S.D.N.Y., August 26, 2014) is a federal securities class action on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired Santander securities pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its initial public offering on January 23, 2014. Santander is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in Dallas, Texas. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Santander is the holding company for Santander Consumer USA Inc., an Illinois corporation, and subsidiaries, a specialized consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The Company's primary business is the indirect origination of retail installment contracts principally through manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of new and used vehicles to retail consumers. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Santander Investment Securities Inc.; Barclays Capital Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; RBC Capital Markets, LLC; BMO Capital Markets Corp.; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; UBS Securities LLC; Wells Fargo Securities, LLC; KKR Capital Markets LLC; Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P.; Stephens Inc.; and LOYAL3 Securities, Inc. served as underwriters, global coordinators or joint book-running managers of the Company's IPO. The Defendants are Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., Thomas G. Dundon, Jason Kulas, Juan Carlos Alvarez, Roman Blanco, Gonzalo De Las Heras, Stephen A. Ferriss, Matthew Kabaker, Tagar Olson, Alberto Sanchez, Javier San Felix, Juan Andres Yanes, Daniel Zilberman, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Santander Investment Securities Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, BMO Capital Markets Corp., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, UBS Securities LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, KKR Capital Markets LLC, Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P., Stephens Inc., and Loyal3 Securities, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Linkh, Esq. Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 122 E42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, 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: lglancy@glancylaw.com mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com csadler@glancylaw.com - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com SANTANDER CONSUMER: Glancy Biskow Files Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., on Aug. 26 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Santander pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering (the "IPO") on January 23, 2014. Please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire or 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. Santander is a specialized consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The Company's primary business is the indirect origination of retail installment contracts principally through manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of new and used vehicles to retail consumers. In connection with the Company's IPO, Santander's selling stockholders sold approximately 85 million shares of Class A common stock to the public at a price of $24.00 per share. On August 7, 2014, after the close of trading, Santander revealed in a quarterly filing that the Company had received a civil subpoena from the United States Department of Justice under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act ("FIRREA") requesting the production of documents and communications related to the Company's underwriting and securitization of nonprime auto loans since 2007. Following this news, shares of Santander declined over 1% to close on August 8, 2014, at $17.95 per share, representing a 25% decline in Santander's stock price from the IPO price of $24.00. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice to serve as lead plaintiff, 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 Casey Sadler, Esquire, or 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. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Exorbitant Prison Phone Call Rates ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that signaling the resumption of litigation over the cost of prison phone calls nationwide, a putative class action has been brought in Arkansas against a giant telecommunications company that plaintiffs claim has gouged inmates with exorbitant rates. Lead plaintiff and Arkansas resident Susan Mojica alleges Securus Technologies Inc. for more than a decade systematically overcharged by as much as 100 percent the cost of telephone calls from inmates in 2,200 prisons and jails in 45 states, according to Mojica v. Securus, filed Aug. 14 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Similar allegations were raised in separate putative class actions in 2000 and 2003 but were effectively put on hold pending the completion of a U.S. Federal Communications Commission investigation of the charges and rates imposed by prison telephone service providers, of which Securus is one of the largest. On Aug. 9, 2013, the FCC issued a rule capping the charges imposed by prison phone providers at 25 cents per minute, with a 15-minute long-distance call to cost no more than $3.75. The rule also prohibited the providers from charging extra fees to connect a call or to use a calling card. In contrast, according to the complaint, Dallas-based Securus has charged as much as 89-cents a minute, plus high per-call connection fees. The company buys calls from connection carriers for less than 1 penny a minute, the plaintiffs allege. The FCC said Securus and other prison payphone providers essentially have functioned as a monopoly in each correctional institution in which they operate. "For years, they have exploited that economic position by charging rates for interstate calls greatly exceeding the cost of providing service," in violation of the Federal Communications Act, which requires rates be just, reasonable and fair, the agency wrote, in defending its rule in December 2013. Securus fought the regulation in court, but lost its battle for a stay of the rate caps in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on January 23. Shortly thereafter, the company said, it implemented the rate cut ordered by the FCC, which Securus said would cost it between $10 million and $15 million each year. Last month, the company announced it would end mandatory billing charges. The proposed class action seeks damages and restitution or disgorgement of Securus' "ill-gotten" gains from its high rates since Jan. 1, 2000. Plaintiffs' counsel is Amy Martin of Everett Wales & Comstock. SPIRIT REALTY: Stipulation of Settlement Has Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- On July 17, 2013, Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., merged with and into Cole Credit Property Trust II, Inc. ("Cole II"), a Maryland Corporation, pursuant to the Merger Agreement. In connection with the Merger, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland against and purportedly on behalf of the Company captioned Kendrick, et al. v. Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., et al. The complaint names as defendants Spirit, the members of the board of directors of Spirit, the Operating Partnership, Cole II and the Cole Operating Partnership, and alleges that the directors of Spirit breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in an unfair process leading to the Merger Agreement, failing to disclose sufficient material information for pre-merger Spirit stockholders to make an informed decision regarding whether or not to approve the Merger, agreeing to a Merger Agreement at an opportunistic and unfair price, allowing draconian and preclusive deal protection devices in the Merger Agreement, and engaging in self-interested and otherwise conflicted actions. The complaint alleges that the Operating Partnership, Cole II and the Cole Operating Partnership aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks a declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties or aided and abetted such breaches and that the Merger Agreement is unenforceable, an order enjoining a vote on the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rescission of the transactions in the event they are consummated, imposition of a constructive trust, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and other relief. On June 4, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, the named defendants in the merger litigation signed a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted therein. The MOU provides, among other things, that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for the release and dismissal of all asserted claims (the "Stipulation of Settlement"). The Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the court on January 22, 2014 for approval, and the court granted the parties' request for preliminary approval at a hearing on May 21, 2014, Spirit Realty Capital said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. "However, the asserted claims will not be released and dismissed until such stipulation of settlement is finally approved by the court in a hearing following the expiration of the period for shareholder objection to the settlement terms," Spirit said. "There can be no assurance that the court will finally approve the Stipulation of Settlement. The Company does not expect that the terms of the settlement, if approved by the court, would have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. The Company does not expect that the terms of the settlement, if approved by the court, would have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations." Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., is a Maryland corporation and operates as a self-administered and self-managed REIT that seeks to generate and deliver sustainable and attractive returns for stockholders by investing primarily in and managing a portfolio of single-tenant, operationally essential real estate throughout the United States that is generally leased on a long-term, triple-net basis primarily to tenants engaged in retail, service and distribution industries. SQUARE FOOT MANAGEMENT: "Buntin" Suit Seeks To Recover Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Buntin v. Square Foot Management Company LLC, Case No. 6:14-cv-01394 (M.D. Fla., August 27, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Square Foot Management Company LLC is engaged in residential and commercial construction management and general contracting business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd W. Shulby, Esq. TODD W. SHULBY, PA 2800 Weston Rd, Ste 101 Weston, FL 33331 Telephone: (954) 530-2236 Facsimile: (954) 530-6628 E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: UK Arbitration to Be Reconvened in September --------------------------------------------------------------- SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that several actions (the "Millennium Actions") have been filed in various jurisdictions against GlobeOp alleging claims and damages with respect to a valuation agent services agreement performed by the Company's subsidiary, GlobeOp Financial Services S.A. ("GlobeOp"), for the Millennium Global Emerging Credit Fund, L.P. and Millennium Global Emerging Credit Fund Ltd. (the "Millennium Funds"). These actions include (i) a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "U.S. Class Action") on behalf of a putative class of investors in the Millennium Funds filed in May 2012 asserting claims of $844 million (the alleged aggregate value of assets under management by the Millennium Funds at the funds' peak valuation); (ii) an arbitration proceeding in the United Kingdom (the "UK Arbitration") on behalf of Millennium Global Investments Ltd. and Millennium Asset Management Ltd., the Millennium Funds' investment manager and administrative manager, respectively (together, the "Millennium Managers"), which commenced with a request for arbitration in July 2011, seeking an indemnity of $26.5 million for sums paid by way of settlement to the Millennium Funds in a separate arbitration to which GlobeOp was not a party, as well as an indemnity for any losses that may be incurred by the Millennium Managers in the U.S. Class Action; and (iii) a claim in the same arbitration proceeding by the liquidators on behalf of the Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Ltd. (the "Master Fund") against GlobeOp for damages alleged to be in excess of $160 million. These actions allege that GlobeOp breached its contractual obligations and/or negligently breached a duty of care in the performance of services for the Millennium Fund and that, inter alia, GlobeOp should have discovered and reported a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the portfolio manager employed by the investment manager. The U.S. Class Action also asserts claims against SS&C identical to the claims against GlobeOp in that action. In the arbitration, GlobeOp has asserted counterclaims against both the Millennium Managers and the Master Fund for indemnity, including in respect of the U.S. Class Action. A hearing on the merits of the claims asserted in the UK Arbitration was conducted in London in July and August 2013 and is scheduled to be reconvened in September 2014. GlobeOp has secured insurance coverage that provides reimbursement of various litigation costs up to pre-determined limits. Since 2012, GlobeOp has been reimbursed for litigation costs under the applicable insurance policy. In January 2014, GlobeOp, SS&C, the Millennium Managers and the plaintiff in the U.S. Class Action entered into a settlement agreement resolving all disputes and claims between and among the parties (including a separate mutual release between and among GlobeOp and SS&C, on the one hand, and the Millennium Managers on the other that covers claims asserted in the UK Arbitration). The settlement agreement was approved by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 7, 2014. Assuming no appeals are filed, the District Court order approving the settlement was to become final on or about August 6, 2014 and the settlement would be consummated within ten business days thereafter. The settlement does not affect the claims, counterclaims and/or defenses as between GlobeOp and the Master Fund. GlobeOp's insurers have agreed to fund the entirety of the settlement amount contemplated to be contributed by GlobeOp. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters. The Company believes that it has strong defenses and is vigorously contesting the UK Arbitration (as described above, the U.S. Class Action is the subject of a settlement agreement). The amount of any potential loss, if any at all, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO: BLFJ Postpones Filing of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Dean, writing for KSDK, reports that the organization Black Lawyers for Justice said it will file a $200 million class action lawsuit on behalf of the protesters in Ferguson. BLFJ has postponed filling the lawsuit. It was supposed to be filed at the Thomas F. Eagleton United States Courthouse at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday Aug. 26, but it has been delayed until 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, Aug. 28. The release said the lawsuit is against St. Louis County, Ferguson Police and the mayor of Ferguson. "We are representing the injured and arrested demonstrators involved in the Michael Brown Case," BLFJ said. No reason was given for the postponement. STATE STREET: October 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS HILL v. STATE STREET CORPORATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO THE SECURITIES ACTION DOCKET NO. 09-cv-12146-GAO Master Docket No.1:09-cv-12146-GAO SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock of State Street Corporation during the period from October 17, 2006 through October 21, 2009, inclusive, including all persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired State Street common stock pursuant and/or traceable to a registered public offering conducted on or about June 3, 2008, and who were damaged thereby: PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, that the above-captioned litigation has been certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $60,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on October 27, 2014 at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable Judith G. Dein at the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Courtroom 15, 5th Floor, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 8, 2014 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Co- Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. Please note, the hearing may be adjourned by the Court without further written notice to the Settlement Class. If you intend to attend the hearing, you should confirm the date and time with Co-Lead Counsel. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and a Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Hill v. State Street Corporation, c/o Epiq Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 2876, Portland, OR 97208-2876; 1-888-287-8136. Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.statestreetclassactionsettlement.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim Form postmarked no later than December 16, 2014. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than October 6, 2014, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Representative Co-Lead Counsel and Representative Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than October 6, 2014, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, State Street, any of the other Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Co-Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim Form, should be made to Co-Lead Counsel: Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP John C. Browne, Esq. 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 (800) 380-8496 blbg@blbglaw.com Motley Rice LLC William H. Narwold, Esq. 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 (843) 216-9000 STTsettlement@motleyrice.com Requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim Form should be made to: Hill v. State Street Corporationc/o Epiq Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 2876 Portland, OR 97208-2876 888-287-8136 www.statestreetclassactionsettlement.com By Order of the Court TARGET CORP: Plaintiffs Attorney Files Amended Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that litigation against Target Corp. over its massive data breach took another step forward on Aug. 25 as attorneys filed an amended class action complaint against the retailer that combines into a single document the strongest legal claims customers have asserted against the company in dozens of individual lawsuits. The revised lawsuit, which includes more than 100 named plaintiffs from all but a handful of states, seeks to represent a nationwide class and state specific classes of Target patrons. As many as 110 million Target customers are believed to have had their personal or financial information compromised in the attack, making it one of the largest data breaches in U.S. history. Vincent Esades, a plaintiffs attorney from Heins Mills & Olson PLC, said lawyers combed the nearly 60 lawsuits that had filed on behalf of customers to locate the strongest claims and best plaintiffs to proceed with the litigation. Mr. Esades said they constructed the amended lawsuit "from the ground up" and that it includes a more complete factual history of the Target breach. "In the simplest terms, we attempted to take what were the best claims and best plaintiffs and consolidate them into a single report for the ease of the court and all the parities involved," Mr. Esades told Law360 on Aug. 26. The amended complaint includes a detailed analysis of the Target breach and a timeline with information about what company employees did in the weeks leading up to the breach and after it began. The plaintiffs contend that the breach was avoidable and occurred because Target did not take proper precautions in protecting its computer systems. Hackers in Eastern Europe, including one named Rescator, began probing the computer networks of major U.S. retailers beginning in June 2013, the lawsuit said. They were able to obtained credentials to access Target's computer system through a third party refrigeration and HVAC vendor, Fazio Mechanical Services. With this information in hand, hackers logged onto Target's network using Fazio's credentials -- gaining access "to the billing, contract submission, and project management portions of Target's computer network only, and presumably nothing else," the lawsuit said. But Target's system was not properly segmented, which allowed hackers to upload malware targeting customer payment information and personal data, according to the complaint. From there, hackers were able to upload malware that stole customer payment card information onto Target cash registers. The malware was uploaded "into a majority of Target's in-store cash registers" by November 20, giving them access to customer card information. "The way the malware worked was simple: when a customer went to any in-store Target cash register to pay for an item, and swiped his or her card, the malware stepped in and captured the shopper's card number and other sensitive personal information," the lawsuit said. Target's security software detected the malware on its system around November 30 but company officials apparently took no action, the lawsuit said. Target received the same alert on December 2 but did not respond to the warning, according to the complaint. Hackers began the work of actually harvesting the payment card information in December, the lawsuit said. The U.S. Department of Justice notified Target of the breach on Dec. 12 but did not notify the public of the breach until several days later after the company attempted to verify the report. Target began cleaning its system of the hackers' malware on Dec. 15. News of the breach did not break until Dec. 19. "Target had multiple opportunities to identify and prevent the attack on its data systems, but key personnel at Target remained unaware or unconcerned about what had occurred until days after investigations by the Department of Justice and computer security experts identified the massive breach," the lawsuit said. Several government regulators, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and some state attorneys general, are investigating the cause of the breach and Target's response to it. Target is one of the largest retailers in the U.S., with nearly 2,000 locations in the U.S. and Canada. The consumer plaintiffs are represented by Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Milberg LLP, Girard Gibbs LLP, Nichols Kaster PLLP and Heins Mills & Olson PLC. Target is represented by Wendy J. Wildung -- wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- and Michael A. Ponto -- michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP and Harold J. McElhinny -- hmcelhinny@mofo.com -- Jack W. Londen -- jlonden@mofo.com -- Michael J. Agoglia -- magoglia@mofo.com -- Rebekah Kaufman and David F. McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The case is In re: Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, case number 0:14-md-02522, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. UNIT CORPORATON: Faces Panola ISD Class Action in Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------- Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in the case, Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma, "The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that our exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production." Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly, Melody Culberson and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for which the the Company's exploration segment distributes royalty. According to Unit Corp, "We asserted several defenses including that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We also asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the Oklahoma Supreme Court for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. The Plaintiffs recently filed a second request to certify a class of royalty owners that is slightly smaller than their first attempt. We will continue to resist certification using the defenses described above, as well as new defenses based on the Court of Civil Appeals' decertification of the Plaintiffs' original class action. The merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class certification issues are pending." The Company operates, manages, and analyzes results of operations through three principal business segments: Oil and Natural Gas; Contract Drilling; and Mid-Stream. UNITED PARCEL: February 2015 Trial in Franchisees' Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that UPS and its subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are defendants in a lawsuit in California Superior Court about the rebranding of The UPS Store franchises. In the Morgate case, the plaintiffs are (1) 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand to The UPS Store; and (2) a certified class of all franchisees who did rebrand. With respect to the 125 individual franchisees described in (1) above, the trial court entered judgment against a bellwether individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January 2012. "In March 2013, we reached a settlement with the remaining individual plaintiffs who did not rebrand; this settlement did not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity," the Company said. "The trial court granted our motion for summary judgment against the certified class described in (2) above, which was reversed in January 2012. "We have not reached a settlement with this class of franchisees, and the claims of the class remain pending. The trial is scheduled for February 2015. UNITED PARCEL: Defending One Outstanding Case in Ontario -------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against UPS in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and the Company is appealing that decision. The Company, "The motion to authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended that case in our favor. The 2013 Quebec litigation also has been dismissed. We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario." UNITED PARCEL: Entered Into Agreement in Principle in June ---------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint. UPS said, "The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in October 2010, which we moved to dismiss. In August 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss all claims relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in November 2012. We filed another motion to dismiss." In January 2014, the Court dismissed UPS from one of the claims in the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice, but denied UPS's motion to dismiss with respect to the other claims asserted against UPS. In June 2014, UPS entered into an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the remaining claims asserted against UPS for an immaterial amount. This agreement in principle is subject to the negotiation of final settlement documents and court approval of the settlement. UNITED STATES: ACLU Announced Deal on New Departure Procedures -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Government agreed to new procedures so foreign nationals without immigration papers know the legal consequences of voluntarily returning to their countries from Southern California, the ACLU announced, according to Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service. The ACLU and the law firm Cooley LLP reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on August 18 to ease border patrol and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement voluntary return procedures in Southern California. The government entered into the settlement without admitting any wrongdoing. In a June 2013 class action lawsuit, the ACLU claimed immigration officials used threats and intimidation to force people to accept voluntary departure. Lead plaintiff Lopez-Venegas said she was forced to accept voluntary departure in 2011, returning to Mexico with her 11-year- old son, a U.S. citizen with Asperger's syndrome. "The United States derives its core strength from embracing the notions of fairness and due process under our Constitution," Cooley's Darcie Tilly said in a statement. "We are heartened that this lawsuit should lead to the cessation of these forced 'voluntary departures,' the improvement of our critical border patrol policies and practices, and if approved by the court, a procedure for the reunification of aggrieved individuals with their families." If a person agrees to voluntarily return to their country, immigration officials may skip the lengthy deportation process, which may involve detention and hearings before an immigration judge. But Lopez-Venegas said in her lawsuit that the process was sometimes far from voluntary. Immigration officials in Southern California had told people that they could spend months in jail if they did not agree to voluntarily return to their countries, she alleged. In addition, immigration officers had made people believe they could adjust immigration documents for a quick return to the U.S, the plaintiff claimed. In reality, the process of returning to the U.S. may take more than ten years, if it happens at all, the ACLU has said. "These abusive and illegal practices rob victims of their right to seek relief from removal. As administered and practiced in Southern California, the 'voluntary departure' program has become a regime of unlawful coerced expulsion -- one which tears numerous families apart every year," the court filing states. In December 2013, U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt refused to dismiss Lopez-Venegas' complaint but denied her request for a preliminary injunction against the government. Earlier this year, the court entered a protective order for witnesses in the case. Settlement discussions began in April. The settlement was submitted to the court on Aug. 18, the ACLU said. Under the agreement, the Department of Homeland Security agreed to inform people verbally and in writing about the consequences of voluntary departure. Immigration officials must provide a working phone if a person asks for it. People have two hours to seek advice from their consulate or seek help from a legal representative before an official can issue a voluntary departure. Officials may not pre- check boxes for voluntary departure on immigration forms, the ACLU said in summary of the settlement. The government also agreed to set up a telephone hotline so people can listen to a pre-recorded messages that explain the consequences of agreeing to voluntarily leave the country. If the federal court approves the class portions of the settlement, class members may travel to the San Ysidro Port of Entry between San Diego and Tijuana, where border agents may parole them into the U.S., and detain them for a hearing before a immigration judge, the ACLU said. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol issued a joint statement on August 27, 2014, defending voluntary departure as "an option for individuals who may request to be returned home in lieu of removal proceedings," U-T San Diego reported. "In an effort to address the issues raised in this litigation, both agencies have agreed to supplement their existing procedures to ensure that foreign nationals fully comprehend the potential consequences of returning voluntarily to Mexico," the agencies stated. The case is Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Napolitano, et al., Case No. 13-cv-3972-JAK-PLAx, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Settles Data Breach Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Caroline Wenzke Hudson, Esq., of Winston & Strawn LLP reports that the University of Miami recently agreed to a proposed settlement of class action allegations that it failed to adequately safeguard and secure medical records of former patients, thus leading to a 2013 breach of its storage systems. Last year, billing vouchers for over 13,000 patients stored by an off-site storage vendor went missing, exposing the name, date of birth, Social Security number, physician name, facility, insurance company name, medical record number, and procedure diagnostic codes of each affected individual. The plaintiff, one of the former patients, alleged that an unauthorized person accessed, misused, and disclosed the personally identifiable information in these records, and that she had suffered financial harm due to the breach because money was withdrawn from her bank account. Plaintiff further claimed that the university failed to notify affected former patients within 60 days of its discovery of the breach as promised in its "Notice of Privacy Practices," instead waiting six months to send notification letters. Under the settlement agreement, Miami will conduct various risk assessments, perform remediation of any identified problems, and ensure vendors have adequate security controls in place. The university has agreed to pay $100,000 in individual claims, $90,000 in attorneys' fees, and $1,500 to the named plaintiff. The parties have asked the federal district court to approve the recently-filed proposed settlement agreement. VINTAGE PHARMA: Coordination of Birth Control Pill Suits Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal judicial panel has refused to coordinate lawsuits filed over the 2011 recall of birth control pills that were packaged incorrectly, putting women at risk of unwanted pregnancies. Vintage Pharmaceuticals LLC, a subsidiary of Malvern, Pa.'s Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., which is part of Endo International PLC, recalled eight brands of oral contraceptives, including Cyclafem and Tri-Previfem, because some of the blisters on the card had been rotated 180 degrees, reversing the weekly orientation of the pills. Plaintiffs attorney Keith Bodoh -- Bodoh@RBNlaw.com -- of Robertson, Bodoh & Nasrallah in Marietta, Ga., who filed a class action in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of two women, one of whom became pregnant, had moved to coordinate the litigation. He claimed that he had 115 clients who hadn't yet filed suit and cited three other cases, two of which settled before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation heard oral arguments on July 31 in Kansas City, Kan. The remaining case, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, was filed by a woman in Kansas City, Mo., who gave birth in 2012. Another case is pending in Los Angeles County, Calif., Superior Court. On Aug. 12, the MDL panel denied coordination because the cases were based too much on individual circumstances, such as whether the women actually got pregnant. Mr. Bodoh declined to comment. Pamela Yates -- pamela.yates@kayescholer.com -- a partner in the Los Angeles office of New York's Kaye Scholer who represents Vintage Pharmaceuticals, which does business as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, argued in court papers that more than 99 percent of the packages weren't defective. "What the company did was when a consumer reported to a pharmacist, and the pharmacist reported to my client, that there was some rotation on the pills, we recalled all products over a certain time span that followed the same manufacturing procedure, looking for other errors," she told The National Law Journal. "We found a very, very low error rate, far less than 1 percent. Of the people who have sued, not a single one has proven or shown they received one that had a rotated row of recalled contraceptives." Pill manufacturer Patheon Inc., which is based Canada, has moved to dismiss the Georgia case for lack of jurisdiction. VISTEON CORPORATION: 750+ Employees File Actions in Germany ----------------------------------------------------------- Visteon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that several current and former employees of Visteon Deutschland GmbH ("Visteon Germany") filed civil actions against Visteon Germany in various German courts beginning in August 2007, seeking damages for the alleged violation of German pension laws that prohibit the use of pension benefit formulas that differ for salaried and hourly employees without adequate justification. Several of these actions have been joined as pilot cases. In a written decision issued in April 2010, the Federal Labor Court issued a declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the pilot cases. To date, more than 750 current and former employees have filed similar actions or have inquired as to or been granted additional benefits, and an additional 600 current and former employees are similarly situated. The Company's remaining reserve for unsettled cases is approximately $8 million and is based on the Company's best estimate as to the number and value of the claims that will be made in connection with the pension plan. However, the Company's estimate is subject to many uncertainties which could result in Visteon Germany incurring amounts in excess of the reserved amount of up to approximately $9 million. VITACOST.COM INC: Faces Class Actions Over Merger With Kroger ------------------------------------------------------------- On July 1, 2014, Vitacost.com, Inc., The Kroger Co., an Ohio corporation ("Kroger"), and Vigor Acquisition Corp, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Kroger ("Purchaser") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Purchaser agreed to commence a cash tender offer to acquire all of the shares of the Company's common stock for a purchase price of $8.00 per share, net to the holder thereof in cash (the "Offer Price"), without interest thereon and subject to any required tax withholding, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Offer to Purchase and in the related Letter of Transmittal (which, together with any amendments or supplements, collectively constitute the "Offer") contained in the Schedule TO filed by Purchaser and Kroger with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2014, as amended on August 1, 2014. The Offer was to expire at 5:00 PM, New York City time, on August 15, 2014, unless the Offer is extended. Vitacost.com said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that three purported class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the Company's stockholders against various defendants including the Company, the Company Board, Kroger and Purchaser, in connection with the proposed Merger. Those cases are captioned Ernst v. Vitacost.com, et. al., Case No. 2014 CA 008318 AJ (Fla. Cir. Ct., Palm Beach Cnty., July 7, 2014); Heim v. Vitacost.com, et. al., Case No. 9883-VCP (Del. Ch. Ct. July 15, 2014); and Takis P. Dionisos v. Vitacost.com. et. al., Case No. 9945-VCP, (Del. Ch. Ct. July 24, 2014). The complaints allege, generally, that the Company Board breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell the Company through an allegedly defective process, for an unfair price, and on unfair terms. The Dionisos complaint also alleges that the Company Board failed to disclose material information regarding the proposed Merger. The lawsuits seek, among other things, equitable relief enjoining the consummation of the proposed Merger, rescission of the proposed Merger (to the extent the proposed Merger has already been consummated), damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 24, 2014, the Dionisos plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On July 31, 2014, the Heim lawsuit and Dionisos lawsuit were consolidated into a single action in the Delaware Court of Chancery. A hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction was set for August 11, 2014 in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Company has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable decision. It is possible that the Company's financial statements could be materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome. Vitacost.com, Inc. is an online retailer of healthy living products, including dietary supplements such as vitamins, minerals, herbs and other botanicals, as well as cosmetics, natural personal care products, pet products, sports nutrition and health foods. Vitacost was incorporated in 1994 and began its online retail activity in 1999. Vitacost sells a proprietary line of healthy living products as well as a wide selection of other manufacturers' brand-name goods. The Company ships products from two distribution centers located in Lexington, North Carolina and Las Vegas, Nevada. VOLVO GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Boat Engine Defects -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Christopher Drummond and Paulann Perry, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volvo Group North America, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-03460 (D.S.C., August 27, 2014), arises from the Defendant's failure to disclose that the Volvo Penta 5.7 L or 8.1 L model boat engines equipped with XDP outdrives are defective and the Defendant's inability or refusal to properly repair the Engines. Volvo Group North America, LLC is a foreign company that manufacturers trucks, buses, construction equipment, drive systems for marine and industrial applications. The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin Howell Crosby, Esq. Ronnie L. Crosby, Esq. PETERS MURDAUGH PARKER ELTZROTH AND DETRICK PO Box 457 Hampton, SC 29924 Telephone: (803) 943-2111 Facsimile: (803) 914-2015 E-mail: acrosby@pmped.com rcrosby@pmped.com - and - John C. Johnston, Esq. E. Merritt Farmer Jr., Esq. JOHNSTON & FARMER, LLC 361 N. Shelmore Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 306-4240 E-mail: jjohnston@johnstonfarmer.com mfarmer@johnstonfarmer.com VULCAN MATERIALS: Faces Class Action Over Sinkhole -------------------------------------------------- Vulcan Materials Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that during the operation of its former Chemicals Division, Vulcan was the lessee under a salt lease from 1976 - 2005 in an underground salt dome formation in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. The Texas Brine Company operated this salt mine for the account of Vulcan. Vulcan sold its Chemicals Division in 2005 and assigned the lease to the purchaser, and Vulcan has had no association with the leased premises or Texas Brine Company since that time. In August 2012, a sinkhole developed near the salt dome and numerous lawsuits were filed in state court in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. Other lawsuits, including class action litigation, were also filed in August 2012 in federal court in the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans. The plaintiffs in the Federal court class action and Texas Brine have recently announced a proposed settlement for $48.1 million. This proposed settlement is still subject to certain court procedures, including notice to the class, before it can be approved and finalized. "We understand that Vulcan will be named as a released party in the settlement agreement, although Texas Brine and its insurers are not themselves releasing Vulcan from their claims for contribution and indemnity against Vulcan," the Company said. There are numerous defendants to the litigation in state and federal court. Vulcan was first brought into the litigation as a third-party defendant in August 2013 by the Texas Brine Company. Vulcan has since been added as a direct and third-party defendant by other parties, including a direct claim by the State of Louisiana. The damages alleged in the litigation range from individual plaintiffs' claims for property damage, to the State of Louisiana's claim for response costs, to claims for alleged physical damages to oil pipelines, to various alleged business interruption claims, and to claims for indemnity and contribution from Texas Brine. It is alleged that the sinkhole was caused, in whole or in part, by Vulcan's negligent actions or failure to act. It is also alleged that Vulcan breached the salt lease, as well as an operating agreement with Texas Brine. "Vulcan denies any liability in this matter and will vigorously defend the litigation. We cannot reasonably estimate any liability related to this matter," the Company said. Vulcan is the nation's largest producer of construction aggregates, primarily crushed stone, sand and gravel and a major producer of asphalt mix and ready-mixed concrete. WHOLE FOODS: Greek Yogurt Label Is Deceptive, Class Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Whole Foods Market claims its 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt has 2 grams of sugar, though it has nearly six times that amount, customers claim in a California federal class action. Lead plaintiff Chas Jackson claims that consumer watchdogs tested the yogurt and discovered it contains 11.4 grams of sugar per 170 gram serving, almost six times the amount that appears on the label. The claim follows a similar legal action against Whole Foods Market in Philadelphia, where the supermarket has pulled the yogurt from its shelves. "By comparison, according to the USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] the sugar content of an ice cream sandwich is 13 grams; only slightly more than the 11.4 gram sugar content of 'Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt,'" the California lawsuit states. The supermarket allegedly "brags" on its Web site that a professional dietician reviews each food label for accuracy. "Unless this statement on defendant's website is false, then Whole Foods Market was fully aware of the contents of its store brand plain Greek yogurt and of the fact that the yogurt's actual sugar content was dramatically higher than what is stated on the label," the complaint states. According to the lawsuit, even yogurts that contain no added sweeteners naturally exceed more than 2 grams of sugar per serving. Jackson claims that Whole Foods mislabeled the product to gain a competitive edge and to "induce" customers to buy it. "Despite the test results published by Consumer Reports, Whole Foods Market has not pulled the mislabeled yogurt off its shelves and continues to sell the mislabeled product to consumers in its California stores every day, bearing the same inaccurate label," the complaint states. Jackson seeks class certification and damages for breach of warrant, false advertising, fraudulent business practices, and violations of the California Business and Professions Code. Whole Foods told Philly.com on August 27, 2014, that the store is investigating the claims. "While we continue to investigate Consumer Reports claims, we have removed our 365 Everyday Value Nonfat Plain Greek Yogurt from store shelves," Whole Foods spokeswoman Katie Malloy said. "However, we offer a variety of other nonfat plain Greek yogurt options for our shoppers to choose from." The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 310 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Epstein" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- World Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a shareholder filed on April 22, 2014, a putative class action complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), against the Company and certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received above-referenced CID from the CFPB. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in the matter. On June 25, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and has stipulated to an extension of time for a response from Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund which has been appointed lead plaintiff in the case. WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Botched TV Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Curtis Swanson, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon, and George A. Barrios, Case No. 3:14-cv-01228-JCH (D. Conn., August 25, 2014) arises out of false and misleading statements about the WWE's much publicized ability to transform its earnings profile through, among other things, the negotiation of a lucrative new long-term television license deal, the supposedly "primary driver" of the transformation. Mr. Swanson contends that WWE was not able to negotiate the lucrative television rights deal that Defendants led investors to expect. He adds that when the WWE revealed the truth about the value of its new distribution deal, the stock price of WWE fell to $11.27 per share on May 16, 2014, a decline of 43% from the previous closing price of $19.93 per share. WWE is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices located in Stamford, Connecticut. WWE is an integrated media and entertainment company that was founded in Stamford in 1980 and focuses on the wrestling entertainment business worldwide. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Sebastian Tonatore, Esq. Stephanie Bartone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (866) 367-6510 E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com shopkins@zlk.com stornatore@zlk.com sbartone@zlk.com ZAGG INC: Appeal in Shareholders' Suit Pending Before 10th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- On September 6 and 10, 2012, two putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported ZAGG Inc. shareholders against the Company, Randall Hales, Brandon O'Brien, and Cheryl Larabee, as well as Robert G. Pedersen II, the Company's former Chairman and CEO, and Edward Ekstrom and Shuichiro Ueyama, former members of the Company's Board of Directors. The cases are James H. Apple, et al. v. ZAGG Inc, et al., U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2:12-cv-00852; Ryan Draayer, et al. v. Zagg Inc, et al., U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2:12-cv-00859. These lawsuits were subsequently amended by a complaint filed on May 6, 2013. The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock between October 15, 2010 and August 17, 2012. The plaintiffs claim that as a result of Mr. Pedersen's alleged December 2011 margin account sales, the defendants initiated a succession plan to replace Mr. Pedersen as the Company's CEO with Mr. Hales, but failed to disclose either the succession plan or Mr. Pedersen's margin account sales, in violation of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a), and SEC Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On March 7, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (the "Court") consolidated the Apple and Draayer actions and assigned the caption In re: Zagg, Inc. Securities Litigation, and on May 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On July 5, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On February 7, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On June 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief appealing the Courts decision with respect to some of their claims. The appeal is now pending in the Tenth Circuit, ZAGG said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. ZAGG Inc is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has an international office located in Shannon, Ireland. The Company designs, produces, and distributes professional and premium creative product solutions such as InvisibleShield(r) screen protection, keyboards for tablet computers and mobile devices, keyboard cases, earbuds, mobile power solutions, cables, cases, Bluetooth speakers, and cleaning accessories for mobile devices under the family of ZAGG and InvisibleShield brands. In addition, the Company designs, produces, and distributes earbuds, headphones, Bluetooth speakers, Near-Field Audio amplifying speakers, cases, and cables for mobile devices under the family of iFrogz brands in the fashion and youth oriented lifestyle sector. ZILLOW INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit in W.D. Wash. Fully Briefed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zillow, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in November 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle against the Company and certain of its executive officers seeking unspecified damages. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in June 2013. The Company said, "The complaint purports to state claims for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased our common stock between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that during the period between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012, we issued materially false and misleading statements regarding our business practices and financial results." "In August 2013, we moved to dismiss the lawsuit. That motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and is pending before the Court. "We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing, and we will continue to vigorously defend the claims in the lawsuit. "We have not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of June 30, 2014 or December 31, 2013, as we do not believe a material loss is probable. It is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred; however, the possible loss or range of loss is not estimable." Zillow operates real estate and home-related information marketplaces on mobile and the Web, with a complementary portfolio of brands and products to help people find vital information about homes, and connect with local professionals. ********* 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 * * *