/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140904.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 4, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 176 Headlines ACTION PROFESSIONALS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act AMERICAN HONDA: Dealership Not Entitled to Attorney Fees APEX CLEAN: Seven Landowners File Class Action Over Wind Turbines ASSOCIATION CAPITAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says AURORA HUTS: Faces "Mielo" Class Suit Alleging Violations of ADA AUSTRALIA: Class Action Good Mechanism for Asylum Seekers BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Face Arkansas Customer Class Suit BANCORPSOUTH INC: Law Firm Filed Class Action in Tennessee BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Law Firm Loses Bid to Collet Attorney Fees BENTON CAPITAL: Accused by Cilantro Patron of Violating ADA BOEING CO: Robbins Geller Sanctioned for Use of False Witness CASA RIO: Faces Class Action Over Patient Neglect COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action CRANE CO: Court Approves $6.5 Million Settlement CYTRX CORP: DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR Dismissed From Suit CYTRX CORP: Faces "Perri" Class Action in C.D. Calif. CYTRX CORP: Faces "Kim" Class Action in C.D. Calif. CYTRX CORP: Faces "Rajasekaran" Class Action in Los Angeles Court EXEL GLOBAL: Discriminates Against African-Americans, Suit Says EXPEDIA INC: Court Tosses Class Action Over Deceptive Tax Charges FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces Concussion Class Action FIDELITY & GUARANTY: October 3 Final Settlement Hearing FIRST STUDENT: Removed "Vasquez" Class Suit to C.D. California FULL MELT: Faces Class Action Over Marijuana-Laced Chocolate GDF SUEZ: Morwell Residents Mull Class Action Over Coalmine Fire GENERAL MOTORS: Offers Loaner-Car Program for Recalled Cars GOOGLE INC: Privacy Organizations to Challenge $8.5MM Settlement GRACO CHILDREN'S: Must Face Class Action Over Seat Buckle Defect GROUPON INC: Sept. 11 Hearing on Bid to Exclude Plaintiff Expert GROUPON INC: Still Facing In re Groupon Derivative Litigation GROUPON INC: Appeal in Mktg & Sales Practices Litigation Pending HAIN CELESTIAL: "Anderson" Suit Transferred to C.D. California HOME RETENTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Suit in California Over Stalling Defect INTERNATIONAL CREATIVE: Interns File Bid for Class Certification INTERNATIONAL GAME: No Decision Yet on Motion for Certification INTERNATIONAL GAME: Faces Shareholder Actions Over GTECH Merger INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Kleen Products Action in Discovery Stage INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Tennessee Action in Preliminary Stage INTERNATIONAL PAPER: U.S. Cases in Discovery Phase INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Canadian Cases in Preliminary Stage J&R BAKER: Sued by EEOC Over Discrimination vs. African Americans KELLOGG BROWN: Removed "Totten" Suit to California District Court LANNETT COMPANY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Class Action Trial Scheduled for November 17 MBZ COLLECTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: 3 Class Action Lawsuits Filed MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Colorado Class Action Pending MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss NY Class Action Due to Be Filed MONTREAL: Judge Certifies Eight Kettling Class Actions NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action OASIS PETROLEUM: Defending Against Train Derailment Class Action PALISADES COLLECTION: Sued in Arkansas Alleging FDCPA Violations PELLA CORP: "Dineen" Suit Consolidated in Designer Windows MDL PELLA CORP: "Naparala" Suit Moved From Wisconsin to S. Carolina PFIZER INC: Class Action Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Oct. 22 PHOENIX COMPANIES: "Strougo" Litigation Dismised in June PHOENIX COMPANIES: Court Denied Fleisher Summary Judgment Motion PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Stayed TCPA Litigation PRIMERICA LIFE: Removed "Hawk" Insurance Suit to C.D. California REXNORD CORP: Insurer Paid Lump Sum in Exchange for Release ROUGE VALLEY: May Face Class Action Over Patient Info Breach SC ACADEMY: Sued by Insurer Over Medical Certification Cases SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Motions to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Final Approval of Settlement in "Conlee" Case SILVER STATE: Six Insurance Brokers File New Class Action SLOAN VALVE: Judge Approves $18-Mil. Class Action Settlement SOUTH FLORIDA DIALYSIS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Rate, Suit Claims SPACE EXPLORATION: Faces Class Action Over July Mass Layoff SUNTRUST BANKS: Provides Updates on Lehman Brothers Litigation SUNTRUST BANKS: Provides Updates on Colonial BancGroup Litigation SUNTRUST BANKS: Denial of Class Cert in "Bickerstaff" on Appeal SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal of Stock Class Action Under Appeal SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid for Reconsideration Pending in 11th Circuit SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces "Brown" Action in District of Columbia SUNTRUST BANKS: October 17 Final Approval Hearing SUNTRUST BANKS: Limited Discovery Allowed in "Thurmond" Case SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Oct. 7 Final Approval Hearing of Settlement SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Preliminary Hearing on Class Cert. Held SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: "Griner" Settlement Approved by Court TRANSOCEAN LTD: Faces Suits Over Wrongful Death & Personal Injury TRANSOCEAN LTD: Facing 199 Putative Class-Action Complaints TRANSOCEAN LTD: Second Circuit Stayed Plaintiff's Appeal U.S. BANCORP: Has $19MM Liability Related to VISA Case at June 30 UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Immigration Practices Settled VOICESHOT LLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Text Message TCPA Class Action WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages WASHINGTON: Trial Court to Decide on Class Action Damages WATTS WATER: Final Approval of "Trabakoolas" Class Settlement WELLS FARGO: Court of Appeals Affirmed Judgment in July WELLS FARGO: Final Approval Hearing of Accord Held in August WINDAMIR DEVELOPMENT: Faces "Lawson" Class Suit in N.D. Georgia WORLD WRESTLING: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action WPX ENERGY: Conducts Accounting in Royalty Litigation WPX ENERGY: Facing 2 Class Actions by Interest Owners ZOCDOC INC: "Geismann" Suit Transferred From Missouri to New York ********* ACTION PROFESSIONALS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Dial, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Action Professionals, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-06761 (C.D. Cal., August 28, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fishcer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ml@kazlg.com AMERICAN HONDA: Dealership Not Entitled to Attorney Fees -------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled that a Honda dealership will not be entitled to attorney fees in its dispute with the American Honda Motor Company Inc. over warranty repairs. Autofair Honda, an authorized Honda dealer in Manchester, N.H., has an agreement with the automaker to perform repairs covered under warranty and to be reimbursed for those repairs, Justice Robert J. Lynn wrote for the court. Honda, however, may charge back warranty repairs in which Autofair did not follow Honda's policies and procedures. In 2010, Honda audited Autofair's warranty repairs and determined that around $100,000 of repairs deviated from Honda's standards. Later, the carmaker reduced the proposed chargebacks to close to $44,000 and then further to close to $30,000. The New Hampshire Motor Vehicle Industry Board ruled that Autofair had to pay $1,032.13 to Honda, but Honda was not entitled to charge back $28,697.79. Autofair moved for attorney fees and costs on the grounds that it was the prevailing party in the dispute under the New Hampshire's law regulating the business practices of motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers and distributors. But the petition was rejected. Autofair would only be entitled to attorney fees if it had to actually pay the chargebacks, not just face the threat from Honda of having repairs charged back to it, the court said. A legislative change to the definition of chargeback also did not change whether Autofair is entitled to attorney fees. The amended law bars carmakers from "announcing an intention to withdraw funds from a dealer for claims that the dealer can reasonably substantiate," Justice Lynn said. The change in the law can't be applied retroactively in order to qualify Autofair for attorney fees, Justice Lynn said APEX CLEAN: Seven Landowners File Class Action Over Wind Turbines ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Wertz, writing for StateImpact, reports that seven landowners filed a class-action lawsuit to prevent wind turbines from being built near their homes in Canadian and Kingfisher counties. In the complaint, the landowners claim that planned wind farm projects controlled by Virginia-based Apex Clean Energy would create a nuisance, devalue their property and adversely affect their health. An organization that opposes wind projects in the two counties, the Oklahoma Wind Action Association, brought the lawsuit on behalf of the landowners. The suit was filed Aug. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The landowners who brought the lawsuit all live within three miles of the planned wind farm, and, in many cases, own property within the "no-build" zone of the planned locations of the 500-foot-tall turbines. The complaint said: "Industrial Wind Turbine manufacturers recommend a minimum setback or safety zone of three (3) times turbine height -- in this case fifteen hundred (1500) feet -- between any home and an Industrial Wind Turbine for safety purposes in case of catastrophic failure of one or more components, not to protect against adverse effects resulting from noise." "As a result, Industrial Wind Turbines, by their own safety standards, create a de facto "no-build" zone in a fifteen hundred (1500) radius surrounding the Turbine. In many instances, this "no-build" zone overlaps with the property of landowners who have no agreement with Defendants. "This invasion of Plaintiffs' right to use and enjoy their property requires Defendants to obtain an easement from the landowner that restricts their ability to construct upon any property within the fifteen hundred (1500) feet of the Industrial Wind Turbine. "Otherwise, Defendants' Industrial Wind Turbines will interfere with Plaintiffs' ability to use their property as they wish safely. "Defendants have undertaken no effort to obtain such easements and Plaintiffs will be left with a cloud upon their titles." The wind energy industry is booming in Oklahoma, which was the country's fourth-largest wind-power producer in 2013. But there has been considerable resistance to some wind farm projects, including the Apex projects planned for Canadian and Kingfisher counties. In December 2013, officials in the nearby city of Piedmont approved an agreement with Apex to settle a heated, year-long fight to block wind farm construction near the city. Officials in Kingfisher, too, are negotiating with Apex on a similar setback agreement, according to the lawsuit. On Sept. 11, the Oklahoma Corporation will hold its first public meeting to discuss potential statewide rules for the wind energy industry, an action requested by Sen. President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman, R-Sapulpa, which was spurred by vocal opposition to proposed wind farm projects in Osage and Craig counties. Kent Dougherty, Director of Development at Apex, declined to comment specifically on the lawsuit, but said the company has a "proven track record" in addressing community concerns. "Numerous third-party studies on the impact of wind turbines on both health and property values repeatedly demonstrate that there are no measurable impacts," he tells StateImpact in a written statement. ASSOCIATION CAPITAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Association Capital Resources, Case No. 1:14-cv-23172- MGC (S.D. Fla., August 27, 2014) is a consumer class action lawsuit based upon the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Vavreck, Esq. MARTINEAU, GONKO & VAVRECK, PLLC Designers Guild Builing 401 North Third Street, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 659-9500 Facsimile: (612) 659-9220 E-mail: mvavreck@mgvlawfirm.com - and - Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com - and - Andy Raul Hernandez, Esq. HERNANDEZ LAW 2828 Coral Way, Suite 206 Miami, FL 33145 Telephone: (305) 444-4407 Facsimile: (305) 444-4408 E-mail: andy@arhlegal.com AURORA HUTS: Faces "Mielo" Class Suit Alleging Violations of ADA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aurora Huts, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01162-CRE (W.D. Pa., August 28, 2014) is brought under The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com AUSTRALIA: Class Action Good Mechanism for Asylum Seekers --------------------------------------------------------- Leanne Mezrani, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that the head of Maurice Blackburn's social justice practice has claimed the firm's recently-filed class action is the most effective means of seeking redress for any injured asylum seekers on Christmas Island. Full-time pro bono lawyer and practice leader Elizabeth O'Shea told Lawyers Weekly that while Maurice Blackburn has a long history of advocating for asylum seekers on an individual basis, it's class action that could better serve the dozens of alleged victims of abuse or neglect while in detention. "A class action is a really good mechanism to make sure the government is held accountable for any breaches of care and are hopefully more respectful of that duty in the future," she said. Ms. O'Shea added that the media attention class actions attract could result in an exposition of the "chaotic and opaque" system of immigration detention that exists at both local and offshore facilities. Maurice Blackburn filed class action proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Tuesday, August 26. The claim alleges that the Federal Government and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Scott Morrison have failed in their duty of care to protect the health and wellbeing of asylum seekers held in detention on Christmas Island. The open class action has been brought on behalf of all asylum seekers who have been detained on Christmas Island in the past three years and have suffered an injury or exacerbation of injury. Maurice Blackburn is seeking compensation and, where appropriate, court orders compelling the government to provide asylum seekers with the care they require. "If they have been treated poorly by the government . . . they are entitled to compensation," said Ms. O'Shea. She added that the value of the compensation has yet to be determined and will depend on individual circumstances. One of many The lead plaintiff in the class action is a six-year-old girl known as 'A.S.'. Her identity has been protected by a Supreme Court of Victoria pseudonym order. A.S. has been in detention for more than a year and has been assessed by a child psychiatrist as having Post Traumatic Stress disorder. In addition to separation anxiety and bed wetting, A.S. has developed a stammer and is refusing food. She has also had an ongoing dental infection and allergies that have not received adequate treatment, according to the claim. Maurice Blackburn lawyers met A.S. on a visit to Christmas Island to investigate allegations that asylum seekers had been denied proper medical care. Ms. O'Shea revealed that the visit was the catalyst for the class action. "What they saw there gave them great cause for concern, so they wanted to look for ways in which we could do something for people . . . and also get the best possible outcome for as many people as we could who had similar stories," she said. Investing in social justice Maurice Blackburn established its social justice practice in 2010 with O'Shea at the helm. She was the firm's first full-time pro bono lawyer. In November 2013, lawyer Katie Robertson joined the practice as an associate. Over the past four years, Ms. O'Shea has represented hundreds of pro bono clients, including the traditional Aboriginal owners of land in the Northern Territory that had been earmarked as a potential nuclear waste dump. She is also taking action against Melbourne City Council on behalf of the Fertility Control Clinic to remedy the nuisance caused by individuals harassing women and staff entering the medical practice, which administers abortions. However, matters involving asylum seekers remain a major focus of the practice. BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Face Arkansas Customer Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- BancorpSouth 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 18, 2010, BancorpSouth Bank was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The suit challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the policies related to posting order of debit card and ATM transactions. The suit also makes a claim under Arkansas' consumer protection statute. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief. The case was transferred to pending multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida wherein an order was entered certifying a class in this case. The consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation court have concluded and the case has been remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida for further proceedings. The Company said there are significant uncertainties involved in any purported class action litigation. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, there can be no assurance that an adverse outcome or settlement would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations for a given fiscal period. BANCORPSOUTH INC: Law Firm Filed Class Action in Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------- BancorpSouth 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 July 31, 2014, a law firm announced that it had filed a purported class-action lawsuit against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. As of the filing date of this Form 10-Q, the Company has not been served with process as to the lawsuit. The filing alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's procedures, systems and process related to certain of its compliance programs. With no service of process and the July 31, 2014 filing date, the Company lacks sufficient information as to the subject suit, therefore cannot determine the probability of any unfavorable outcome, if any, to the Company at this time. BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Law Firm Loses Bid to Collet Attorney Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a law firm has lost its effort to collect $13.3 million out of the fees gathered to pay for the legal work on behalf of American rice farmers, millers and dealers who sued Bayer CropScience LP for tainting the American rice supply with its genetically modified rice. The federal multidistrict litigation was consolidated in Missouri federal court. Law firm The Phipps Group also lost its effort to overturn U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry's order requiring that all settling plaintiffs pay eight percent of their recoveries toward attorney fees and three percent for litigation costs and expenses undertaken for the common benefit of all plaintiffs. Judge Steven M. Colloton, writing for the U.S Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, said that Phipps waived the challenge to the creation of a fund to pay for legal work benefiting all the plaintiffs by agreeing to settle cases under those terms. Phipps argued that success in two of his firm's cases "enhanced lead counsel's leverage in settlement negotiations." However, Judge Colloton said Phipps was not entitled to fees out of the common benefit fund when he did not have a lead role in the discovery and litigation against Bayer. "While it is possible that lawyers may create bargaining leverage over a defendant by refusing to join an MDL and litigating in multiple flora, the district court was not automatically required to accept that Phipps did so here," the court said. "To accept Phipps's position would reduce incentives to collaborate with leadership counsel and could frustrate the purposes of the MDL statute to promote efficiency and coordination." Bayer agreed to pay $750 million to rice farmers, and lead plaintiffs counsel Don Downing, Adam Levitt and other attorneys got approval to receive $51.6 million in fees and $5.5 million in expenses. The court also authorized the law firms to receive up to a total of $72 million in fees from any remaining amount in the common-benefit fund. The disbursement of up to $72 million in fees and expenses was approximately 8.4 percent of the plaintiffs' total recovery from the settlements with Bayer and was "within the range of awards made in similar cases," Judge Colloton said. Judge Colloton agreed that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order holdbacks from state-court settlements and verdicts in which plaintiffs' counsel refused to pay into the MDL common- benefit fund. In a separate decision, Judge Diane E. Murphy, writing for the Eighth Circuit, did find that the Eighth Circuit has personal jurisdiction over a class action Messrs. Downing and Levitt have brought for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against Martin J. Phipps, Mikal C. Watts, Charles A. Banks, Goldman Phipps, PLLC, Keller Stolarczyk PLLC, Steven B. Murray, and the Murray Law Firm. Messrs. Downing and Levitt allege that the other plaintiffs lawyers "had access to common benefit services and materials which they used to obtain recoveries in their state law cases" but they refused to pay into common benefit fund. There is personal jurisdiction in Missouri federal court over Downing's and Levitt's lawsuit because the defendants traveled to Missouri to negotiate settlement of their state-court cases with Bayer, Judge Murphy said, and "obtained a substantial recovery for their state court clients and fees for themselves personally. Defendants' voluntary actions taken in Missouri led directly to their own financial gain, that gain being the subject matter of Mr. Downing's complaint alleging unjust enrichment and quantum meruit." BENTON CAPITAL: Accused by Cilantro Patron of Violating ADA ----------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Scott Bebry v. Benton Capital LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company and Living Bread LLC a Domestic Limited Liability Company d/b/a Cilantro, Case No. 1:14-cv-06971-AJN (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff personally visited the Defendants' property, but was denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the facilities at the Property due to certain violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Bebry is paralyzed as a result of an accident and uses a wheelchair for mobility. He visited the Cilantro restaurant located in New York City within one year prior to instituting the action. Benton Capital LLC is the owner, lessor or operator of the real property where the Restaurant is located. Living Bread LLC is the lessee or operator of the real property where the Restaurant is located. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Robles, Esq. 471 54th Street Brooklyn, NY 11220 Telephone: (718) 492-3600 Facsimile: (718) 492-3008 E-mail: detect2112@yahoo.com BOEING CO: Robbins Geller Sanctioned for Use of False Witness ------------------------------------------------------------- David Yates, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that over the years, the securities law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and its attorneys have reaped staggering multi-billion dollar awards from companies and in turn doled out hundreds of thousands of dollars to political candidates. Now, U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo in Chicago has found a new use for the San Diego firm's hard-earned cash -- paying sanctions to Boeing for bringing a frivolous lawsuit based on the testimony of a false witness. The original lawsuit, filed in 2009, alleged Boeing withheld information concerning delays in producing the 787 Dreamliner, causing the company's stock to dip, court records show. The case relied on the testimony of a project chief engineer, who in actuality turned out to be a contracted employee hired to perform low-level engineering work on a different airplane months after the events at issue in this case, states Judge Castillo's Aug. 21 order. In his order, Judge Castillo says Robbins Geller failed to conduct a proper investigation before filing suit, "blindly" relying on their investigators and making repeated misrepresentations to the court as to the strength and truth of the confidential source's allegations. "This court is always reluctant to sanction a member of the bar," Judge Castillo wrote. "It gives the court no pleasure to issue sanctions; nevertheless, the court cannot ignore plaintiffs' counsel's repeated misconduct throughout this litigation." The firm was ordered to pay Boeing's attorneys fees and other costs. As pointed out in Judge Castillo's order, this isn't the first time the firm has been singled out for misconduct. In May 2012, Legal Newsline reported U.S. District Judge Justin Quackenbush, of Washington's federal eastern district, warned Robbins Geller he would be sanctioning the firm, along with attorneys Joy Bull and John Grant. The two attorneys had led a class action against the student- travel company Ambassadors Group. Finding that the law firm had purposely padded its hours and expense sheets in the case, Judge Quackenbush asked Ms. Bull and Mr. Grant to show why class members should pay for expenses that included a $402 dinner, which included two $72 bottles of wine and a $60 tip for the waiter, expensive hotel rooms and two round-trip plane ticket that cost almost $4,000. Robbins Geller has earned a reputation for securing massive awards from companies on behalf of shareholders. For example, in the Enron Corp. securities litigation, Robbins Geller attorneys and lead plaintiff the Regents of the University of California aggressively pursued numerous defendants, including many of Wall Street's biggest banks, and successfully obtained settlements in excess of $7.3 billion for the benefit of investors, according to the firm's website. And the firm and its attorneys have a history of re-directing portions of those awards to liberal candidates. Over the past 10 years, the Robbins Geller attorneys have spent nearly $1 million in state elections alone, according to followthemoney.org. On the federal level, Robbins Geller attorneys have pumped tens of thousands of dollars into the coffers of candidates so far in this year's election cycle. One of the primary beneficiaries of those donations is U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, with $15,600 in contributions from firm attorneys. Mr. Braley, the former head of the Iowa Trial Lawyers Association, is a candidate running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Tom Harkin. Earlier this year, the congressman made national media headline for his remarks at a January fundraiser in Corpus Christi, Texas, where he asked a group of trial lawyers to help keep a "farmer" (GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley) from becoming the next chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Eclipsing Mr. Braley as top recipient of Robbins Geller donations is U.S. Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., netting $26,700 from its attorneys in his 2014 re-election bid. Since 2011, Robbins Geller has been Peters' top contributor, supplying the former San Diego city councilman with more than $60,000 in donations, according to opensecrets.org. Other candidates significantly benefiting financially from Robbins Geller attorneys include Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, ($14,100); comedian and Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., ($10,950); and Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., ($5,200). CASA RIO: Faces Class Action Over Patient Neglect ------------------------------------------------- Barry Davis, writing for KENS 5, reports that Maloney's law firm filed a class-action suit on Aug. 28 against Casa Rio Healthcare & Rehabilitation, accusing the facility of contributing to the deaths of seven more patients. Marynell and Michelle Maloney already represent two families in the deaths of their loved ones. Two of the families cases sound particularly gruesome. In one the suit alleges a 46-year-old woman was neglected so long, a huge maggot infestation set up in her ear. The woman's mother reportedly had to call ems to take the daughter to the hospital because she says Casa Rio refused to call an ambulance. The law firm already represents two other families with similar claims against the facility, they will not join the seven others in that class action suit. The Maloneys says the allegations go as far back as October 2011, shortly after Casa Rio began operations. COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising -------------------------------------------------------- Atlanta Business Chronicle reports that a new lawsuit contends that The Coca-Cola Co. has deceived consumers into thinking that Coca-Cola is a natural and healthy drink as consumer preferences have moved away from carbonated soft drinks. The lawsuit, filed Aug. 22 in federal court in Massachusetts, contends that sales of Coca-Cola "are fueled by false and deceptive representations that Coca-Cola is not only a healthy product, but one free of artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives." "Faced with clear evidence that it was losing market share because consumers increasingly preferred beverages without artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives, The Coca-Cola Company, owner of the brand, responded, not by providing consumers with what they wanted -- a natural and healthy drink -- but by deceiving them into thinking that Coca-Cola was natural and healthy when, in fact, it contained artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives," the lawsuit contends. The nine lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case are asking the court to grant the lawsuit class-action status. If granted by the court, it would represent all consumers in Massachusetts who bought Coca-Cola since Aug. 1, 2010, a number potentially in the millions. The lawsuit opens a new legal front against Coca-Cola's advertising and marketing. Another lawsuit now being litigated in the U.S. Supreme Court is challenging Coca-Cola's advertising for pomegranate-flavored juice. Another major legal battle is challenging the company's advertising for its Simply Orange orange juice. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Continental Resources, 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 2010, an alleged class action was filed against the Company alleging the Company improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. The Company has responded to the petition, denied the allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses. Discovery is ongoing and information and documents continue to be exchanged. The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action will have on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. The class has not been certified. Plaintiffs have indicated that if the class is certified they may seek damages in excess of $165 million which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that the case meets the requirements for a class action and is vigorously defending the case. CRANE CO: Court Approves $6.5 Million Settlement ------------------------------------------------ In 2009, at the request of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Crane Co. performed certain tests of the indoor air quality of approximately 40 homes in a residential area surrounding a former manufacturing facility in Roseland, New Jersey (the "Site"), where the Company had performed soil and groundwater remediation activities after the manufacturing facility was closed in the mid-1980s, to determine if any contaminants (volatile organic compound vapors from groundwater) from the Site were present in those homes. The test results showed that three homes had volatile organic compound vapors above NJ DEP's recommended concentration levels, and the Company installed vapor mitigation equipment in those homes. On April 15, 2011, those three homeowners, and the tenants in one of those homes, filed separate suits against the Company seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for their lost property value and nuisance. In addition, a homeowner in the testing area, whose home tested negative for the presence of contaminants, filed a class action suit against the Company on behalf of himself and 138 other homeowners in the surrounding area, claiming damages in the nature of loss of value on their homes due to their proximity to the Site. The plaintiffs in these cases amended their complaints to assert claims under New Jersey's Environmental Rights Act for the Company's alleged failure to properly report its waste discharge practices in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and for natural resource damages. In late December 2013, the plaintiffs moved to have a class of 139 homeowners certified, and the motion was granted in early February 2014. At the same time the Court also entered partial summary judgment on liability for the three homes where the Company had installed vapor mitigation equipment. The Company reached an agreement to settle all current claims with the class and individual plaintiffs for a one-time payment of $6.5 million, Crane Co. 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. This agreement was approved by the Court on July 23, 2014 and its settlement amount was expected to be paid on or about August 8, 2014. CYTRX CORP: DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR Dismissed From Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ CytRx 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 14, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and an officer, as well as DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, two external investor and public relations firms unaffiliated with the Company, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Chen vs. CytRx Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-14-01956-GHK-(RTWx). The Company said, "The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between November 22, 2013 and March 13, 2014. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws in connection with various public statements purportedly issued by us or on our behalf." On May 29, 2014, the court dismissed DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR without prejudice from the action for plaintiff's failure to serve those parties. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and attorney's fees and costs. CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development company specializing in oncology. CYTRX CORP: Faces "Perri" Class Action in C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- CytRx 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 18, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and an officer, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Perri v. CytRx Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-02052-DDP-(JCGx). The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between November 20, 2013 and March 13, 2014, asserts claims substantially identical to those asserted in Chen v. CytRx Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-14- 01956-GHK-(RTWx). The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and attorney's fees and costs. CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development company specializing in oncology. CYTRX CORP: Faces "Kim" Class Action in C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------- CytRx 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 April 9, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and an officer, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Kim v. CytRx Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-02689-DMG-(AJWx). The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between November 22, 2013 and March 13, 2014, asserts claims substantially identical to those asserted in Chen v. CytRx Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-14- 01956-GHK-(RTWx), and Perri v. CytRx Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-02052-DDP-(JCGx). The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and attorney's fees and costs. On June 13, 2014, the court consolidated the Perri and Kim actions with the Chen action, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the Chen action, and dismissed the Perri and Kim actions. CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development company specializing in oncology. CYTRX CORP: Faces "Rajasekaran" Class Action in Los Angeles Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- CytRx 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 April 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain officers and each director, as well as certain underwriters, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, captioned Rajasekaran v. CytRx Corporation, et al., BC541426. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's secondary common stock offering, which closed on February 5, 2014. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements in filings with the SEC. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, rescission, and attorney's fees and costs. On May 2, 2014, CytRx and the named officers and directors, joined by the underwriter defendants, removed this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court on June 11, 2014. CytRx and the named officers and directors, as well as the underwriter defendants, opposed that motion on July 14, 2014. CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development company specializing in oncology. EXEL GLOBAL: Discriminates Against African-Americans, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Exel Global Logistics Inc., Case No. 1:14- cv-00129-WLS (M.D. Ga., August 27, 2014) alleges that the Company systematically discriminates against and excludes African- Americans, including the Plaintiff, from employment opportunities. Headquartered in Westerville, Ohio, Exel Global Logistics Inc. provides freight management services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nikki G Bonner, Esq. N. GIOVANNI BONNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 3455 Peachtree Rd., Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 995-6643 E-mail: nikki@ngiovannilaw.com EXPEDIA INC: Court Tosses Class Action Over Deceptive Tax Charges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Mahoney, writing for Law360, reports that a Washington federal court on Aug. 26 dismissed a class action suit alleging online travel planning service Travelscape LLC and its parent company Expedia Inc. imposed unfair and deceptive tax recovery charges on hotel room consumers and conspired with hotels on pricing. U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez said that lead plaintiff Eileen Gillespie had not established that she suffered a concrete injury or that there's a likelihood that she will be wronged again in the manner that she had alleged. "Because plaintiff does not have an ongoing relationship with defendants and there is no realistic threat of future harm in the absence of injunctive relief, plaintiff lacks standing to pursue prospective relief," the opinion said. Since the court found Ms. Gillespie had no cognizable claim of relief, it also found she could not represent the proposed class of defendants, according to the opinion. Ms. Gillespie had alleged that Travelscape failed to disclose that it kept part of a "tax recovery charge and service fee" as profit. She also claimed that she was overcharged on her room as a result of anticompetitive conspiracies between hotel chains and travel agents like Expedia and Travelscape. "Gillespie brings this action against defendant Travelscape to remedy its unfair practices of overcharging consumers for travel recovery charges and service fees and against Travelscape and co- defendants for overcharging plaintiff and other consumers on room rate due to anticompetitive price-fixing conspiracy between travel retailers and hotels," her complaint said. But the defendants argued that Ms. Gillespie was not able to show injury. They pointed to evidence showing that Ms. Gillespie had been reimbursed by her employers for her stays at the hotels prior to filing the lawsuit in January 2013. Ms. Gillespie did not dispute that she was reimbursed but argued she could still show injury because she temporarily lost the use of some credit while waiting for reimbursement. "However, plaintiff provides no evidence that during the ten days she was without use of that credit, she was damaged in any way," the Aug. 26 opinion said. "Moreover, she alleges no continuing harm from the single transaction in which she engaged with Travelscape LLC." "As a result, the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden of establishing the existence of an actual injury at the time this action was brought," the opinion added. Attorneys for the parties involved did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Aug. 27. Expedia is currently fighting a larger battle in the California courts over whether transient occupancy taxes should be applied to online travel websites' commissions. The California Supreme Court agreed recently to hear an appeal of a March decision that Expedia and other online travel companies only have to pay the city of San Diego occupancy taxes on money they actually send to hotels and that the city's tax law does not cover the travel companies' commissions. Ms. Gillespie is represented by Christopher V. Langone of the Langone Law Firm, Mark T. Lavery of Hyslip & Taylor LLC LPA. Travelscape is represented by Bradley S. Keller and Keith D. Petrak of Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP. The case is Gillespie v. Travelscape LLC, et al., case number 13- cv-0622, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces Concussion Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that current and former soccer players on Aug. 27 accused FIFA, the sport's international governing body, of failing to protect players from concussion risks, filing a class action complaint in California federal court seeking policy changes to limit injuries. The 132-page complaint alleges FIFA knew players, especially women and children, are at risk for concussions when they head the ball, but doesn't require proper medical evaluations for concussions during games and can allow concussed players back on the field. "There is an epidemic of concussion injuries in soccer at all levels around the world," the complaint said. "FIFA presides over this epidemic and is one of its primary causes." The suit also names the U.S. Soccer Federation Inc., the American group in charge of soccer organizations, along with several youth soccer groups. The plaintiffs are not seeking monetary damages, instead asking for rule changes that would include limits on heading and allow for more medical substitutions during games. They are also requesting medical monitoring for current and former players since 2002. FIFA participated in conferences discussing concussion safety since 2002 but failed to adopt the recommendations, one of which included barring players with concussion symptoms from returning to a game, according to the complaint. The lawsuit referenced German player Christoph Kramer's performance during the 2014 World Cup, who returned to the field dazed after he was knocked unconscious and staggered around the field before being removed again. "The negligence is remarkable, given that FIFA actively promotes its activities to children," plaintiffs' attorney Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP said in a statement. "Yet no rule limits headers in children's soccer, and children are often taught to head the ball from the age of three. We estimate that a dedicated youth player might sustain 1,000 headers per year and a high school player more than 1,800 headers." Representatives for the defendants did not immediately respond Aug. 27 to requests for comment. Similar suits have targeted the NFL, NCAA and NHL for their handling of concussions, but the plaintiffs on Aug. 27 said theirs was the first class action against FIFA over concussions. Mr. Berman represents plaintiffs who have reached a $75 million settlement with the NCAA. Even though FIFA is headquartered in Switzerland, the plaintiffs claim the California court has jurisdiction because its "Laws of the Game" bind all other soccer organizations, including FIFA's limits on substitutions that can incentivize coaches to leave in concussed players. FIFA also does substantial business in California, including millions in advertising for the World Cup. "FIFA and U.S. Soccer knew that through the power of the laws of the game, they had the power to direct and influence how the rest of the defendants treat concussion management issues," the complaint said. The plaintiffs are represented by Jon T. King, Steve W. Berman, Elizabeth A. Fegan and Thomas E. Ahlering of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Jack W. Lee -- JLee@MinamiTamaki.com -- Derek G. Howard -- dhoward@minamitamaki.com -- and Sean Tamura-Sato of Minami Tamaki LLP. Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately available. The case is Rachel Mehr et al. v. Federation Internationale de Football Association et al., case number 3:14-cv-03879, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. FIDELITY & GUARANTY: October 3 Final Settlement Hearing ------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity & Guaranty Life 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 18, 2011, a putative class action Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. OM Financial Life Insurance Company, et. al., Case No. 2:2011-cv-05871. The Plaintiff asked the Court to certify the action as a class action on behalf of both a nationwide and a California class defined as certain persons who were sold OM Financial Life Insurance equity-indexed universal life insurance policies. The Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on defendants' advice to purchase unsuitable insurance policies. After extensive motion practice, the federal court dismissed the federal causes of action, with prejudice, and, on May 9, 2013, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissed the state law claims, without prejudice, and granted the Plaintiff leave to re- file the state law claims in California state court. On July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et. al. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), at No. BC-514340. The state court Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in purchasing unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class defined as "all persons who reside or are located in the state of California who were sold OM Financial/FGL Insurance equity-indexed universal life insurance policies as an investment." On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 to settle the claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions, of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive. As part of the settlement, FGL Insurance agreed to certification of the nationwide class for settlement purposes only. An amended Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on April 23, 2014 as part of the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Conditional Class Certification. On June 19, 2014, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Conditional Class Certification and entered its Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement ("Order"). Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Order, FGL Insurance has the right to unilaterally terminate the settlement if either: (i) 100 policyholders or (ii) policyholders representing more than one percent (1%) of the total premiums paid opt out of or object to the settlement. Final settlement is also subject to other conditions and the entry of a final order that can no longer be appealed. On October 3, 2014, the Court is expected to hold a hearing to determine whether it should finally approve the settlement. At June 30, 2014, the Company estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action would be $9.9 and established a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $7.3. Based on the information currently available the Company does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related cost to differ materially from the amount accrued. The Company is seeking indemnification from OM Group (UK) Limited ("OMGUK") under the First Amended and Restated Stock Purchase Agreement, dated February 17, 2011 (the "F&G Stock Purchase Agreement") between HFG and OMGUK related to the settlement and the costs and fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both the federal and state courts. The Company has established an amount recoverable from OMGUK for the amount of $4.5, the collection of which the Company believes is probable. The actual amount recovered from OMGUK could be greater or less than the Company's estimate, but the Company anticipates that the amount recovered will not be materially different than its current estimate. The settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action and the amount recoverable from OMGUK is presented net in the income statement in the caption "Benefits and other changes in policy reserves." Fidelity & Guaranty Life (formerly, Harbinger F&G, LLC ("HFG")) ("FGL" and, collectively with its subsidiaries, the "Company") is a subsidiary of Harbinger Group Inc. ("HGI"). HGI is a diversified holding company focused on obtaining controlling equity stakes in companies that operate across a diversified set of industries. FGL's primary business is the sale of individual life insurance products and annuities through independent agents, managing general agents, and specialty brokerage firms and in selected institutional markets. FIRST STUDENT: Removed "Vasquez" Class Suit to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Vasquez v. First Student, Inc., et al., Case No. BC502475, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-06760 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from labor-related disputes. The Defendants are represented by: Allison C. Williams, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 501 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: ACWilliams@littler.com FULL MELT: Faces Class Action Over Marijuana-Laced Chocolate ------------------------------------------------------------ Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Full Melt Chocolate and LivWell after a Denver County Fair patron claimed he was given marijuana-laced chocolate at the fair's "Pot Pavilion." The Denver County Fair was held Aug. 1-3 at the National Western Complex in Denver and, among other attractions, there was a Pot Pavilion which had a stage with hourly events, according to a complaint filed Aug. 7 in the Second Judicial Circuit of Denver County Court. Jordan Coombs claims the Denver County Fair's webpage advertising the Pot Pavilion expressly provided that no marijuana would be onsite. On Aug. 3, the defendants maintained a display booth within the pavilion and were giving out free samples of chocolate, according to the suit. Mr. Coombs claims he and his family went to the fair and entered to Pot Pavilion and Coombs was offered free chocolate samples. "When defendant offered the plaintiff the free chocolate samples, its representatives expressly assured the plaintiff that the chocolate did not contain any THC," the complaint states. "In reliance upon the defendant's representation that the chocolate did not contain THC, the plaintiff accepted several pieces of chocolate and ate them." Soon after eating the chocolate, Mr. Coombs began to feel strange and physically ill and was forced to leave the fair due to his deteriorating health, according to the suit. Mr. Coombs claims his spouse drove him to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with overdosing on THC. The hospital ordered blood tests, which confirmed the presence of THC in his blood, he says. He incurred damages to his car by projectile vomiting in it and incurred medical expenses from his reasonable and necessary visit to the emergency room, according to the suit. Mr. Coombs claims the class is defined by all persons who were served with THC-containing chocolate by the defendants at the Denver County Fair. "This civil action is for personal injuries arising from the defendants' negligent distribution of marijuana-infused chocolate bars under the guise that they contained no Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive constituent (or cannabinoid) of the cannabis plant," the complaint states. The defendant manufactured and distributed the chocolate product that caused Coombs and others similarly situated to unknowingly ingest THC and suffer injuries as a result, according to the suit. Mr. Coombs claims the defendants are strictly liable to him for all damages proximately caused by its defective product. The defendants are liable to the plaintiff for breaching express and implied warranties that it made regarding the adulterated product that Coombs consumed, according to the suit. Mr. Coombs claims the defendants were also negligent and failed to label the product correctly. Mr. Coombs is seeking compensatory damages. He is being represented by: Corey T. Zurbuch, Esq. FRASCONA, JOINER, GOODMAN AND GREENSTEIN PC 4750 Table Mesa Dr Boulder, CO 80305 Tel: (303) 494-3000 GDF SUEZ: Morwell Residents Mull Class Action Over Coalmine Fire ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to The Guardian's Gay Alcorn, the report of an inquiry into the Hazelwood coalmine fire was expected to be released on Sept. 2 as residents of the nearby town of Morwell consider a class action lawsuit. The 400-page report is expected to be critical of the Victorian health department and the mine's operator, GDF Suez. During hearings, the inquiry heard that the chief health officer, Dr. Rosemary Lester, had waited too long before recommending that vulnerable groups relocate and that communication to residents was confusing. Dr. Lester defended her actions, saying they were based on the best evidence available at the time. The inquiry also heard that GDF Suez was not fully prepared for a mine fire and had not adequately rehabilitated the disused area which caught alight. The blaze at the open-cut coalmine began on February 9 and burned for 45 days. There is no buffer zone between the brown coalmine and Morwell, and its 14,000 residents were blanketed with smoke, ash and at times carbon monoxide for six weeks. The inquiry, led by the former supreme court judge Bernard Teague, heard that the fire was "one of the worst public health and environmental disasters in the state's history". The legal firm Maurice Blackburn has called for residents and businesses to register if they are interested in a class action, which is normally run on a no-win, no-fee basis. The firm wanted to "gauge the extent to which people have been adversely affected by the fire and the amount of damage that has been suffered". A lawsuit would depend on the inquiry's findings and the community's interest. Five months after the fire was extinguished, many residents of Morwell continue to be angry at the way authorities handled the disaster in a town already disadvantaged by high unemployment and poor health. They remain concerned about ongoing health problems and fear a recurrence of a fire unless the inquiry's recommendations are implemented in full. Residents have also been largely left to bear the cost, with some still fighting insurance companies to clean roof cavities that remain covered in black dust. The blaze led to the setting up of the lobby group Voices of the Valley to fight for improved mine safety and for more diverse industry for the Latrobe valley, a major coalmining and power- generation center. The group's president, Wendy Farmer, said the community was looking for the mine to be rehabilitated properly "so we don't have to fear that this could happen again". "We want the community's health to be looked at," she said. "What we were breathing was pretty bad, and we were ignored and told that it was OK . . . when it wasn't OK." A new group, Latrobe Valley First, has held "kitchen table" meetings over the past two months to discuss the region's future with the aim of standing an independent candidate in November's state election. Tracie Lund, the coordinator of Morwell Neighbourhood House, has been nominated as a candidate for the group, which is holding interviews this week. During the fire, Lund organized a petition for a long-term study into the fire's health impact, which gathered more than 25,000 signatures. GENERAL MOTORS: Offers Loaner-Car Program for Recalled Cars ----------------------------------------------------------- Aimee Picchi, writing for CBSNews, reports that when Beth Foster received recall notices from General Motors (GM) on her 2004 Chevy Malibu, she said she had little option other than to keep using it. "I had gotten two cards from GM saying my car had been recalled, but the parts weren't available," Ms. Foster said. "I didn't have a choice but to drive it" because she didn't have the money to buy or rent another car, and she depends on the vehicle to make the 60-mile round-trip commute to her Chattanooga, Tenn.-based employer, a social justice ministry. But when the steering wheel "went nutso" -- one of the recalls was linked to that model's power steering -- she said a friend contacted the dealer on her behalf. In mid-August, "he called the dealership to see if they could get it fixed," Ms. Foster recalled. "He really pushed." Finally, her friend asked if the dealership could provide a loaner car, which paid off: Foster is now driving a rented 2014 Hyundai Sonata while her Malibu waits to get fixed. The problem, Ms. Foster notes, is that her recall notices lacked information about the loaner-car program GM offers, so she had no idea the program existed. As GM continues to work on repairs for millions of vehicles, only a small fraction of consumers with recalled cars have taken the company up on the plan. GM says the loaner program is noted on its recall website, although the information isn't easily found. Also, its customer assistance hotline has details. "When you bring your car for repairs, you should be told a loaner is available, and there should be prominent display," said Steve Berman, managing partner at law firm Hagens Berman and the co-lead counsel in the class action against GM. "People don't think, 'I should get on a website and do a Q&A search.'" About 85,000 customers have received loaners since the program started, said GM spokesman Jim Cain. But with 2.6 million GM cars recalled for faulty ignition switches -- which have been linked to at least 13 fatalities -- that means only 3.3 percent of car owners have been given a temporary replacement. Whether that's a low or high number isn't clear because Cain said the program may be the first of its kind. "It's the kind of thing we wanted to dealers to have at their disposal to address customer concerns," Mr. Cain said. "It was something they could proactively offer if customers had concerns, or if they asked." But with the repairs dragging on, hundreds of thousands of cars with the ignition-switch recall remain on the road. As of Aug. 21, only one-third have been fixed, according to The Wall Street Journal. GM's Mr. Cain said the company is on track to fix the ignition-switch defect in October. So, why hasn't GM made the loaner plan more obvious to car owners? One theory: to keep costs down, Mr. Berman said, who added that allegations of GM taking short cuts to save money with its ignition switches "will be the theme of our case." GM, which took a $700 million charge earlier this year for its recalls, hasn't broken out the costs of the loaner program, although Cain said it "was certainly not an inexpensive program." That's clear from Ms. Foster's experience. She said her rental car charge for the first month alone is $1,000, a bill that GM is covering. Ms. Foster said she would probably still buy another GM car, even after the experience. Her late grandfather, who worked on the GM factory floor for 40 years, "ground into our brains that this is the car to get." She added: "He would probably be a little disappointed that GM was not more responsive. He was also very loyal, so he would want us to stick with GM and give them to chance to fix it." GOOGLE INC: Privacy Organizations to Challenge $8.5MM Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that five privacy organizations are asking a judge to scuttle Google's $8.5 million settlement of a class-action privacy lawsuit. "The proposed settlement is bad for consumers and does nothing to change Google's business practices," the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Watchdog, Patient Privacy Rights and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse said on Aug. 27 in a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, Calif. The tentative deal, which was revealed in court papers last year, stems from a lawsuit alleging that Google leaked search users' names to publishers and advertisers through referrer headers -- the information that's automatically transmitted by Google to publishers and advertisers. Some queries, like people's vanity searches on their own names, can offer clues to users' identities. The agreement calls for Google to pay around $6 million to six nonprofits -- the World Privacy Foundation, Carnegie-Mellon University, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Harvard's Berkman Center, Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, and the AARP. The proposed settlement also requires Google to revise its privacy policy, but allows the company to continue transmitting referrer headers. As a practical matter, Google no longer sends search queries when people click on organic links. But Google theoretically could go back to its former practice any time it wants. The company also still transmits queries to AdWords advertisers when users click on paid search ads. The privacy groups that oppose the deal point out that it allows Google to "continue to engage in the privacy-invading practice" that sparked the lawsuit. The organizations previously asked the Federal Trade Commission and California Attorney General to oppose the settlement. Neither has weighed in, according to court records. But another organization, the Center for Class Action Fairness, officially filed an objection to the deal. That group -- which has also opposed other settlements -- says the $8.5 million fund should be distributed to Google's users instead of nonprofits. Judge Davila was set to hold a final hearing on the deal on Friday, Aug. 29. So far, he hasn't indicated that he's troubled by any of the terms. On the contrary, he granted the deal preliminary approval in March. At the time, he said that "class action settlements do not need to embody the best result for preliminary approval." GRACO CHILDREN'S: Must Face Class Action Over Seat Buckle Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sindhu Sundar, Cara Salvatore and Kat Greene, writing for Law360, report that car-seat maker Graco Children's Products Inc. should not escape a proposed class action over a seat buckle defect that spurred a massive recall this year because its recall program that supplies replacement buckles does not compensate consumers who no longer use the seats, a consumer argued on Aug. 27. In a filing in California federal court, plaintiff Seth Long, who had purchased a now-recalled Graco child car seat, asked the court to reject Graco's motion to dismiss his suit, arguing that Graco cannot "hide behind a recall" if that recall does not offer remedies to all its consumers. The defective buckles may become stuck in the latched position, making it harder to pull the child out of the car, according to the suit. Mr. Long had brought his suit in March 2013. Graco issued its recall in February this year, pulling back at the time 3.7 million forward-facing toddler seats over the buckles, which could become so gunked up with food, juice, formula or vomit that they won't open. The seat maker added 1.9 million car seats to the recall in July. Graco has sought to dismiss his suit, arguing that its recall program provides consumers a "full refund" of their purchase cost when they return the product, but Long disputes this, arguing that its remedy is only to offer replacement buckles and not refunds, according to his opposition filing. "Graco's recall does not provide consumers with the option of returning their seats for a refund because no refund program has been publicly disseminated," Mr. Long says in his motion. "Not a single publicly available document exists on Graco's website or the National Highway Safety Administration website or has been produced by Graco that states that, under the recall, consumers can obtain refunds," he added. "While consumers can obtain 'reimbursement of costs' (whatever that means), the recall does not provide for a refund for the purchase price of the car seat." At the time of the February recall, the NHTSA published a series of reports on the car seats, saying it had been investigating the belt buckles since 2012. Among the problems it encountered were that the buckles would get so impenetrable that parents would end up having to pick up the child and the seat -- which could together weigh more than 70 pounds -- to lift it out of the car in the event of an emergency, the agency said. Graco received at least 6,100 complaints about the buckles, the NHTSA said in its report. The plaintiff is represented by Jordan L. Lurie -- Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert K Friedl -- Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Tarek H. Zohdy and Cody R. Padgett of Capstone Law APC. Graco is represented by Rocky N. Unruh, Yakov P. Wiegmann, Joseph Krasovec and Heidi Dalenberg of Schiff Hardin LLP. The case is Seth Long v. Graco Children's Products Inc., case number 3:13-cv-01257, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. GROUPON INC: Sept. 11 Hearing on Bid to Exclude Plaintiff Expert ---------------------------------------------------------------- Groupon, 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 it is currently a defendant in a proceeding pursuant to which, on October 29, 2012, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed against the Company, certain of its directors and officers, and the underwriters that participated in the initial public offering of the Company's Class A common stock. Originally filed in April 2012, the case is currently pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation. The complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Allegations in the consolidated amended complaint include that the Company and its officers and directors made untrue statements or omissions of material fact by issuing inaccurate financial statements for the fiscal quarter and the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 and by failing to disclose information about the Company's financial controls in the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public offering of Class A common stock and in the Company's subsequently-issued earnings release dated February 8, 2012. The putative class action lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief. The plaintiff filed an amended motion for class certification on December 4, 2013. On March 18, 2014, the court entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for fact discovery by March 13, 2015, expert discovery by August 31, 2015, and dispositive motions by October 30, 2015. On May 2, 2014, defendants filed a motion requesting exclusion of the opinions of plaintiff's proposed market efficiency expert in resolving the motion for class certification. The hearing on the motion to exclude plaintiff's expert is scheduled for September 11, 2014. Groupon, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company"), which commenced operations in October 2008, operates online local commerce marketplaces throughout the world that connect merchants to consumers by offering goods and services at a discount. The Company also offers deals on products for which it acts as the merchant of record. GROUPON INC: Still Facing In re Groupon Derivative Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Groupon, 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 federal and state purported stockholder derivative lawsuits have been filed against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers. The federal purported stockholder derivative lawsuit was originally filed in April 2012 and a consolidated stockholder derivative complaint, filed on July 30, 2012, is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: In re Groupon Derivative Litigation. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control. The state derivative cases are currently pending before the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois: Orrego v. Lefkofsky, et al., was filed on April 5, 2012; and Kim v. Lefkofsky, et al., was filed on May 25, 2012. The state derivative complaints generally allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly mismanaging the Company's business by, among other things, failing to utilize proper accounting controls and, in the case of one of the state derivative lawsuits, by engaging in alleged insider trading of the Company's Class A common stock and misappropriating information. In addition, one state derivative case asserts a claim for unjust enrichment. The derivative lawsuits purport to seek to recoup for the Company an unspecified amount of monetary damages allegedly sustained by the Company, restitution from defendants, reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other forms of monetary and non- monetary relief. On June 20, 2012, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion requesting that the court stay the consolidated federal derivative action pending resolution of the consolidated federal class actions. On July 31, 2012, the court granted defendants' motion in part, and stayed the consolidated federal derivative action pending a separate resolution of upcoming motions to dismiss in the consolidated federal class actions. On June 15, 2012, the state plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the state derivative actions, which was granted on July 2, 2012, and on July 5, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel, which was granted on July 27, 2012. No consolidated complaint has been filed in the state derivative action. On September 14, 2012, the court granted a motion filed by the parties requesting that the court stay the state derivative actions pending the federal court's resolution of anticipated motions to dismiss in the consolidated federal class action. On April 18, 2013, the state court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved its selection of lead counsel and local counsel for the purported class. Following entry of the court's order denying defendants' motions to dismiss in In re Groupon Securities Litigation, the courts in both the state and federal derivative actions granted motions requesting that the respective courts extend the litigation stays currently in place pending further developments in In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Company intends to defend all of the securities and stockholder derivative lawsuits vigorously. Groupon, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company"), which commenced operations in October 2008, operates online local commerce marketplaces throughout the world that connect merchants to consumers by offering goods and services at a discount. The Company also offers deals on products for which it acts as the merchant of record. GROUPON INC: Appeal in Mktg & Sales Practices Litigation Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Groupon, 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 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a series of class actions that came to be consolidated into a single case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The consolidated case is referred to as In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The Company denies liability, but the parties agreed to settle the litigation for $8.5 million before any determination had been made on the merits or with respect to class certification. Because the case had been filed as a class action, the parties were required to provide proper notice and obtain court approval for the settlement. During that process, certain individuals asserted various objections to the settlement. The parties to the case opposed the objections and on December 14, 2012, the district court approved the settlement over the various objections. Subsequent to the entry of the order approving settlement, certain of the objectors filed a notice of appeal, contesting the settlement and appealing the matter to the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending. The Company believes that the settlement is valid and intends to oppose the appeal. Plaintiffs also maintain that the settlement is valid and will be opposing the appeal. The settlement, however, is not effective during the pendency of the appeal. The Company does not know when the appeal will be resolved. Depending on the outcome of the appeal, it is possible that the settlement will be rejected, or that there will be further proceedings in the appellate court or district court, or that the settlement will be enforced at that time without further objections or proceedings. Groupon, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company"), which commenced operations in October 2008, operates online local commerce marketplaces throughout the world that connect merchants to consumers by offering goods and services at a discount. The Company also offers deals on products for which it acts as the merchant of record. HAIN CELESTIAL: "Anderson" Suit Transferred to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Barbara Anderson v. The Hain Celestial Group Inc., et al., Case No. 8:13-cv-01747, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District (San Francisco). The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-03895-NC to the proceeding. Ms. Anderson alleges that Hain misrepresented its retail food products by including "All Natural" labels, even though the products contained artificial ingredients and extensively processed ingredients, such as "evaporated cane juice." The Plaintiff is represented by: Chant Yedalian, Esq. CHANT & COMPANY, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 1010 N. Central Ave. Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (877) 574-7100 Facsimile: (877) 574-9411 E-mail: chant@chant.mobi The Defendant is represented by: Claudia Maria Vetesi, Esq. Kathleen Brenna Roney, Esq. Lisa Ann Wongchenko, Esq. Maya Ingram, Esq. William L. Stern, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-6626 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: cvetesi@mofo.com KRoney@mofo.com lwongchenko@mofo.com mingram@mofo.com wstern@mofo.com HOME RETENTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Albert Gregory, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Home Retention Services, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:14-cv-05366-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., August 27, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Suit in California Over Stalling Defect ------------------------------------------------------------ Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai after owners of the 2010-2012 Hyundai Santa Fe claim Hyundai knew about a stalling defect on the vehicles, but waited years to issue a recall. Julia Reniger and Greg Bataglia claim the stalling defect can suddenly cut power to the brakes and steering, which increases the risk of a crash, according to a complaint filed Aug. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Hyundai initiated a "Service Campaign" to address the problem earlier in August, but it did not actually fix the problem, according to the suit. "The stalling defect has been documented to occur under a multitude of driving conditions," the complaint states. "Some owners have reported the class vehicles shutting off completely without warning when driving at low speeds, turning or coming to a stop." The plaintiffs claim some owners have also reported their vehicles shutting down while driving at full speed on city streets and highways. Stalls have been reported to occur on both uphill and downhill grades, when accelerating and/or decelerating, when at a stop and even when going in reverse, according to the suit. "Accounts posted on the Internet by Class Vehicle owners over a period of several years vividly illustrate the extreme danger posed by the Stalling Defect," the complaint states. The plaintiffs claim Hyundai says it believes the vehicles can stall when the driver is braking at low speed, which can momentarily reduce the engine RPM. In combination with an additional, simultaneous load on the engine, the reduced RPM can cause the engine to stall, the complaint says. "Consumers who have complained to [the] defendants concerning the stalling defect have either been told that nothing was wrong with their vehicles, that the problem could not be replicated and therefore could not be addressed or provided with ineffective 'fixes' that failed to solve the problem," the complaint states. The plaintiffs claim the defendant intentionally concealed this information from consumers to protect their own financial interests. Hyundai also provided owners with "false or misleading" reassurances that the vehicles were safe to drive, according to the suit. Subsequent to purchase, Ms. Reniger's vehicle stalled on multiple occasions under a multitude of driving conditions, she says. The first stall occurred within a few months of purchase, she says. Each time Ms. Reniger's vehicle stalled it experienced an accompanying loss of power to the steering and brakes, she says. Ms. Reniger brought her vehicle to Mission Hills Hyundai three times during March to have the stalling defect repaired and multiple "fixes" were attempted including, among other things, cleaning the throttle body and changing the battery, she says. Each time, however, shortly after she picked up her vehicle, it stalled again, according to the suit. "Because the Hyundai dealer was unable to remedy the stalling defect after repeated attempts, and the defect was a serious safety issue which impacted plaintiff's use and enjoyment of her vehicle, plaintiff subsequently traded in her vehicle," the complaint states. Had Ms. Reniger known of the stalling defect, she would never have purchased the subject vehicle. The plaintiffs claim Hyundai violated California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Business code and breached its implied warranties. The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, an order requiring the defendant to perform a safety recall and compensatory damages. They are represented by Lionel Z. Glancy and Mark S. Greenstone of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. The case has been assigned to District Judge Laurel Beeler. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case number: 3:14-cv-03612 INTERNATIONAL CREATIVE: Interns File Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that two former interns of International Creative Management have submitted a motion for class certification in a lawsuit that has the potential of developing into a significant one on the internship front. In papers lodged at a New York federal court on Aug. 26, Kimberly Behzadi and Jason Rindenau say they weren't paid to perform work normally assigned to agents or their assistants. Among the assigned duties was "script coverage," the process of reading scripts and summarizing them, and "coverage reports," or condensing information in scripts for use in casting and client meetings. The two former interns also say they did administrative work ranging from doing agents' expenses to maintaining a calendar of comedy events for agents. They are now looking to provide notice to other former ICM interns who might join the proposed class action. Ms. Behzadi says she observed more than 30 unpaid interns during her time at ICM in early 2012. Mr. Rindenau witnessed approximately 45 interns the previous summer. The law firm of Outten & Golden, representing the two, wants ICM to provide information about other interns. Unlike many of the other internship lawsuits, the ICM case kicked off with the talent agency's effort to curtail the claims by citing an agreement to arbitrate. In late August, ICM submitted a motion to dismiss, which argued that Ms. Behzadi had disregarded her obligations under the arbitration agreement by filing a complaint in federal court. The agency argued that her claims were within the scope of arbitration. However, Ms. Behzadi's lawyer is opposing the motion on the basis that her agreement came after she was an intern, when she accepted a paid position at ICM as a "floater assistant." (According to her declaration, she was then promoted to Assistant in February 2013, reporting to two agents, before she was laid off last December.) As such, her arbitration agreement is said to have covered "prospective -- not retroactive" employment claims. The arbitration agreement is also slammed by plaintiffs' lawyers as "substantively and procedurally unconscionable under California law because it imposes a cost-sharing regime that is contrary to Behzadi's right to fee-shifting under the [Fair Labor Standards Act] and New York Labor Law." In its own papers, ICM argues that "simply because some of Behzadi's allegations pre-date the execution of the Arbitration Agreement is of no consequence," citing one 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling (Arrigo) as precedent. The motion to dismiss was lodged, though, before the lawsuit was amended to add Mr. Rindenau as a proposed class representative. The addition of a second former ICM intern could provide some cover for the lawsuit to proceed regardless of what the judge has to say about Ms. Behzadi's situation. The proposed class action figures to be impacted by Fox's pending appeal of a decision giving victory to two former interns who worked on the film Black Swan, but the looming appellate showdown didn't stop the advance of another internship class action against Viacom. INTERNATIONAL GAME: No Decision Yet on Motion for Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Representatives of a purported class of persons allegedly harmed by video lottery terminal (VLT) gaming filed on April 26, 2012, an action in the Supreme Court of New Foundland and Labrador. Atlantic Lottery Corporation has impleaded VLC, Inc., IGT-Canada, Inc., International Game Technology and other third party defendants seeking indemnification for any judgment recovered against Atlantic Lottery Corporation in the main action. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class action certification on September 17, 2012. International Game Technology 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 Court has decided to address the motion for certification in two phases. Under Phase 1, the Court will determine whether the Plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action. Hearings on Phase 1 were held on June 6 and 7, 2013. The Court has not yet issued a decision. Should the Court conclude that Plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action, then, under Phase 2, the Court would determine the appropriateness of certification of the putative class. International Game Technology is a global gaming company specializing in the design, development, manufacture, and marketing of casino-style gaming equipment, systems technology, and game content across multiple platforms -- land-based, online real-money and online social. INTERNATIONAL GAME: Faces Shareholder Actions Over GTECH Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- International Game Technology 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 since the announcement of the Company's entry into a merger agreement with GTECH S.p.A. ("GTECH"), various putative shareholder class action complaints have been filed by purported shareholders of the Company. As of August 1, 2014, the Company has received the following complaints, each filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County: Klein v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704058-B, filed July 18, 2014; Zak v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14- 704095-C, filed July 21, 2014; Steinberg v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704098-C, filed July 21, 2014; Kanter v. Satre, et al., Case No. A-14-704101-C, filed July 21, 2014; Tong v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A- 14-704140-B, filed July 21, 2014; MacDougall v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704147-C, filed July 22, 2014; Longo v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14- 704277-B, filed July 23, 2014; Kitchen v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704286, filed July 23, 2014; Lerman v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14- 704287-C, filed July 23, 2014; Gonzalez, et al. v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704288-C, filed July 23, 2014; Krol v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A- 14-704330-C, filed July 24, 2014; Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704334-B, filed July 24, 2014; Neumann v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704393-B, filed July 25, 2014; Taber v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14- 704403-B, filed July 25, 2014; Iron Workers District Council of Tennessee Valley & Vicinity Welfare, Pension & Annuity Plans v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704409-C, filed July 25, 2014; Aberman v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704454-B, filed July 27, 2014; Epstein, et al. v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704509-B, filed July 28, 2014; and Lowinger v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704759-B, filed July 30, 2014. The complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all similarly situated shareholders of the Company and generally allege that the members of the IGT board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to IGT shareholders by approving the proposed merger transaction for inadequate consideration, entering into a merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to IGT shareholders. The complaints also allege claims against IGT and GTECH, and, in some cases, certain of GTECH's subsidiaries, for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek preliminary and permanent injunctions against the completion of the transaction, or, alternatively, damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the class in the event that the transaction is completed. Certain of the complaints also seek, in the event that the transaction is completed, rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the class. IGT intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in these lawsuits. International Game Technology is a global gaming company specializing in the design, development, manufacture, and marketing of casino-style gaming equipment, systems technology, and game content across multiple platforms -- land-based, online real-money and online social. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Kleen Products Action in Discovery Stage ------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper 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 in September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004 through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged class is all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the period February 2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The Company disputes the allegations made and is vigorously defending the action. However, because the federal action is in the discovery stage, the Company said it is unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Tennessee Action in Preliminary Stage ---------------------------------------------------------- International Paper 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 in January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations made and is vigorously defending the action. However, because the Tennessee action is in a preliminary stage, the Company said it is unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: U.S. Cases in Discovery Phase -------------------------------------------------- International Paper 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 beginning in late December 2012, certain purchasers of gypsum board filed a number of purported class action complaints alleging civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Temple-Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers. The complaints were similar and alleged that the gypsum manufacturers conspired or otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of gypsum board either from 2008 or 2011 through the present; (2) avoid price erosion by ceasing the practice of issuing job quotes; and (3) restrict supply through downtime and limiting order fulfillment. The alleged classes are all persons who purchased gypsum board and/or gypsum finishing products directly or indirectly from any defendant. The complainants seek to recover unspecified treble actual damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported classes. On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered transfer of all pending cases to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013. The amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or agreement beginning in or before September 2011. The Company disputes the allegations made and intends to vigorously defend the consolidated actions. Because the U.S. cases are in the discovery phase, the Company said it is unable to predict an outcome or estimate its maximum reasonably possible loss. "However, we do not believe that any material loss is probable," the Company said. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Canadian Cases in Preliminary Stage -------------------------------------------------------- International Paper 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 in September 2013, purported class actions were filed in courts in Quebec, Canada and Ontario, Canada, with each suit alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act and seeking damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to dispute the allegations made and to vigorously defend the litigation. Because the Canadian cases are in a preliminary stage, the Company said it is unable to predict an outcome or estimate its maximum reasonably possible loss. "However, we do not believe that any material loss is probable," the Company said. J&R BAKER: Sued by EEOC Over Discrimination vs. African Americans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. J&R Baker Farms, LLC, and J&R Farms Partnership, Case No. 7:14-cv-00136-HL (M.D. Ga., August 28, 2014) is an action under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to correct alleged unlawful employment practices on the basis of national origin or race and to provide appropriate relief to Jeffrey Adams, Kathern Bentley, Jimmy Boatwright, Maleah Caldwell, Jonathan A. Daniels, Fiona Dawson, Rachel Flemming, Mary Jo Fuller, Johnny Gary, Denise Hopkins, Danny King, Eric B. Martin, Marcus D. Moore, Tyree Sinclair, Dana Spradley, Kashonda Walker (Sinclair), Andrea N. Ware, Victor B. Williams, Stephanie Jackson, Ashley Banks, Derrick Green, Kira Huntley, Tekoy Hutto, Domarnique Moore, Jamar Moore, and other similarly situated aggrieved individuals ("class members"). The class members worked for the Defendants in and around Colquitt County, Georgia, from September 2010 to the present and who were adversely affected by those practices. The EEOC alleges, among other things, that the Defendants violated the Civil Rights Act when they engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination by subjecting American or African American workers to different terms and conditions of employment based upon their national origin or race. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Defendants have continuously been a privately held partnership doing business in the state of Georgia and maintain their principal place of business in Norman Park, Georgia. The Defendants have continuously been an employer engaged in the packing and production of produce in around Colquitt County, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Dawkins, Esq. Ottrell Ferrell Edwards, Esq. U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Atlanta District Office 100 Alabama Street, SW, Suite 4R30 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 562-6818 Facsimile: (404) 562-6905 E-mail: robert.dawkins@eeoc.gov ottrell.edwards@eeoc.gov KELLOGG BROWN: Removed "Totten" Suit to California District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Totten v. Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC, et al., Case No. 1408596, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-01766 to the proceeding. In his complaint, Plaintiff David L. Totten alleges seven causes of action, including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the minimum wage rate and failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime and all time worked. Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC, is incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Houston, Texas. Molycorp Inc. is incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Greenwood Village, Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee R. Feldman, Esq. Alicia Olivares, Esq. Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq. FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2490 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-7812 Facsimile: (310) 552-7814 E-mail: lee@leefeldmanlaw.com alicia@leefeldmanlaw.com leonard@leefeldmanlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Karen Pazzani, Esq. MILLER LAW GROUP 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1375 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 943-8500 Facsimile: (310) 943-8501 E-mail: kjp@millerlawgroup.com - and - Samuel Zurik III, Esq. Rachel E. Linzy, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 524-4162 Facsimile: (504) 596-4189 E-mail: SZ@kullmanlaw.com REL@kullmanlaw.com LANNETT COMPANY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 28 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Lannett Company, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 14-cv- 05008, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Lannett securities between September 10, 2013 and July 16, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Lanett securities during the Class Period, you have until October 27, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Lannett develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes generic versions of branded pharmaceutical products in the United States. The Company sells its pharmaceutical products to generic pharmaceutical distributors, drug wholesalers, chain drug retailers, private label distributors, mail-order pharmacies, other pharmaceutical manufacturers, managed care organizations, hospital buying groups, governmental entities, and health maintenance organizations. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was fixing, maintaining, and controlling prices of digoxin in violation of Connecticut antitrust laws; (2) the Company was allocating and dividing customers and territories with competitors relating to the sale of digoxin in violation of Connecticut antitrust laws; (3) the Company's anticompetitive practices subjected Lannett to heightened regulatory scrutiny, including possible investigation by the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General ("CTAG"); and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Lannett's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 16, 2014, the Company issued a press release and filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing that the Company received interrogatories and a subpoena from the State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney General concerning its investigation into the Company's pricing and customer division of digoxin. On this news, shares of Lannett fell $8.05 or over 17%, on unusually heavy volume, to close at $39.04 on June 16, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Class Action Trial Scheduled for November 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Aug. 27 issued a statement regarding the In re Longtop Financial Technologies Limited Securities Litigation (NYSE:LFT): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE LONGTOP FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION No. 11 Civ. 3658 (SAS) ECF Case SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Longtop Financial Technologies Limited American Depository Shares ("ADSs") during the period from February 21, 2008 through May 17, 2011, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). 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 Southern District of New York, that the above- captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION. A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action ("Notice") is currently being mailed to nominees and known Class members. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice, you may obtain a copy by contacting the Notice Administrator at: Longtop Financial Technologies Limited Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA 19063, (866) 274-4004, info@strategicclaims.net You may also obtain a copy of the Notice from the website www.strategicclaims.net Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class Counsel: Gregory M. Castaldo and Kimberly A. Justice of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, (610) 667-7706, info@ktmc.com If you are a Class member, you have the right to decide whether to remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in Longtop ADSs. You will automatically be included in the Class. If you are a Class member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in this Action, including all past, present and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any order or judgment of the Court in this Action, and you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later than October 3, 2014 in accordance with the instructions set forth in the full printed Notice. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is within the Court's discretion as to whether a second opportunity to request exclusion from the Class will be allowed if there is a settlement or judgment in the Action. The trial of this Action has been scheduled by the Court to begin on November 17, 2014. To conform the case to the best evidence obtained in discovery, at trial Lead Plaintiffs will pursue claims based on Defendant Derek Palaschuk's alleged misrepresentations during the period February 10, 2010 through May 17, 2011. Only shareholders who purchased Longtop ADSs during this time period will be entitled to share in any recovery Lead Plaintiffs achieve against Defendant Palaschuk at trial. Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in writing to the Notice Administrator. Dated: July 29, 2014 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: United States District Court For the Southern District of New York MBZ COLLECTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Goncalves, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MBZ Collections, LLC, Marisela Zecca and John Does 1- 25, Case No. 2:14-cv-05422-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., August 28, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: 3 Class Action Lawsuits Filed ------------------------------------------------------ Measurement Specialties, 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 July 2014, three separate class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of shareholders of the Company against the Company, certain present and former directors of the Company and TE Connectivity Ltd. alleging violations of fiduciary duties in connection with TE's proposed acquisition of the Company. It is not possible at this time to predict the precise timing or probable outcome of any lawsuits related to the proposed acquisition of the Company by TE and the Company cannot make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of losses at this time, the Company said. Measurement Specialties is a global leader in the design, development and manufacture of sensors and sensor-based systems for original equipment manufacturers ("OEM") and end users, based on a broad portfolio of proprietary technology and typically characterized by the MEAS brand name. MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Colorado Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Molycorp 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 February 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Colorado Federal District Court against Molycorp and certain of its current and former executive officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on July 31, 2012 also names most of Molycorp's Board members and some of its stockholders as defendants, along with other persons and entities. The Company said, "That Complaint alleges 18 claims for relief arising out of alleged: (1) securities fraud in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, during the proposed class period from February 11, 2011 through November 10, 2011; and (2) materially untrue or misleading statements in registration statements and prospectuses for our public offering of preferred stock in February 2011 and of common stock in June 2011, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933." "Our motion to dismiss that Complaint was filed in October 2012 and is pending. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims," the Company said. Molycorp is a rare earths producer that operates a vertically integrated, global supply chain that combines a world-class rare earths resource with manufacturing facilities on three continents that can produce a wide variety of custom engineered, advanced rare earth materials from all of the lanthanide elements, plus yttrium. MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss NY Class Action Due to Be Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Molycorp 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 August 2013, two purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. "A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on May 19, 2014, also names us and certain of our current and former executive officers. The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint alleges claims for relief arising out of alleged securities fraud in violation of the Exchange Act, during a purported class period from February 21, 2012 through October 15, 2013," the Company said. "Our Motion to Dismiss the consolidated lawsuit is due to be filed on August 13, 2014. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims." Molycorp is a rare earths producer that operates a vertically integrated, global supply chain that combines a world-class rare earths resource with manufacturing facilities on three continents that can produce a wide variety of custom engineered, advanced rare earth materials from all of the lanthanide elements, plus yttrium. MONTREAL: Judge Certifies Eight Kettling Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------ CTV Montreal reports that a Superior Court judge has certified eight class action lawsuits leveled against the City of Montreal by a wide variety of protesters. The lawsuits concern eight different instances of kettling by Montreal police between 2012 and 2014. The suit says the demonstrations were peaceful, yet police rounded up protesters and allegedly detained them in an abusive fashion, despite there being no criminal activity. Protesters allege they were then detained abusively; hands tie-wrapped, unable to move, sometimes in the cold, and prevented from using the bathroom. "It's alleged they were arrested for a duration of between an hour to six hours. In one of the cases actually the protesters didn't even get tickets after, they were just held and then let go," said attorney Sibel Ataogul. An estimated 1,600 people are included in the eight class action lawsuits. Together, the suits are asking the city for C$21 million in damages. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Aug. 28 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 consumers who purchased or leased certain model year 2013-2014 Nissan and Infiniti vehicles. The complaint arises out of a dangerous defect in the affected vehicles' occupant classification system ("OCS") which causes the front passenger airbag in these vehicles to deactivate despite the fact that a passenger is sitting in the seat. This puts the front seat passenger at greater risk of injury in the event of a crash. The complaint asserts claims for, among other things, breach of warranty, as well as violations of the New York consumer protection statutes and the Magnusson Moss Act. The litigation is captioned Zaccagnino v. Nissan North America, Inc., 1:14 cv 3690. If you now own or lease one of the following Nissan or Infiniti models and you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please contact Greg Stone at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800) 575-0735, or via e-mail at gstone@whafh.com All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "Nissan Defect Litigation." 2013-2014 Nissan Altima 2013-2014 Nissan Leaf 2013-2014 Nissan Pathfinder 2013-2014 Nissan Sentra 2013 Nissan NV200 cargo van (also known as the Nissan taxi) 2013-2014 Nissan Maxima 2013 Nissan Rogue 2013 Nissan Versa 2013 Infiniti JX35 2014 Infiniti Q50 2014 Infiniti QX60 cars 2013 Infiniti FX35 2012-2013 Infiniti G37 2013 Infiniti JX 2014 Infiniti QX50 Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of consumer and class action litigation in state and federal courts across the country. The firm has over 70 attorneys and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. OASIS PETROLEUM: Defending Against Train Derailment Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- On July 6, 2013, a freight train operated by Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMA") carrying crude oil (the "Train") derailed in Lac-M‚gantic, Quebec. In March 2014, Oasis Petroleum Inc. and OP LLC were added to a group of over fifty named defendants, including other crude oil producers as well as the Canadian Pacific Railway, MMA and certain of its affiliates, owners and transloaders of the crude oil carried by the Train, several lessors of tank cars, and the Attorney General of Canada, in a motion filed in Quebec Superior Court to authorize a class-action lawsuit seeking economic, compensatory and punitive damages, a well as costs for claims arising out of the derailment of the Train (Yannick Gagne, etc., et al. v. Rail World, Inc., etc., et al., Case No. 48006000001132). The motion generally alleges wrongful death and negligence in the failure to provide for the proper and safe transportation of crude oil. The Company believes that all claims against Oasis Petroleum Inc. and OP LLC in connection with the derailment of the Train in Lac- M‚gantic, Quebec are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them, Oasis Petroleum 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. Oasis Petroleum is an independent exploration and production company focused on the acquisition and development of unconventional oil and natural gas resources in the Williston Basin. PALISADES COLLECTION: Sued in Arkansas Alleging FDCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Terry L. Reed, for himself and all Arkansas Residents similarly situated v. Palisades Collection LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00209-DPM (E.D. Ark., August 27, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey Darnell McGaha, Esq. Scott E. Poynter, Esq. William Thomas Crowder, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP The Rozelle-Murphy House 1301 Scott Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 Facsimile: (501) 907-2556 E-mail: cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com scott@emersonpoynter.com wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com - and - John G. Emerson, Jr., Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com - and - Daniel Odell Turner, Esq. Todd Martin Turner, Esq. ARNOLD, BATSON, TURNER & TURNER, P.A. Post Office Box 480 Arkadelphia, AR 71923 Telephone: (870) 246-9844 E-mail: dan@arnoldbatsonturner.com todd@abtt.us - and - Joel G. Hargis, Esq. CRAWLEY & DELOACHE, PLLC 533 West Washington Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 972-1127 Facsimile: (501) 915-0410 E-mail: joel@crawleydeloache.com - and - Kathy A. Cruz, Esq. CRUZ LAW FIRM, PLC 1325 Central Avenue Hot Springs, AR 71901 Telephone: (501) 624-3600 E-mail: kathycruzlaw@gmail.com PELLA CORP: "Dineen" Suit Consolidated in Designer Windows MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Dineen, et al. v. Pella Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-01306, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston). The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 03479-DCN to the proceeding. The case is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: Pella Corporation Architect and Designer Series Windows Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2514. The Plaintiffs alleges that Pella's Architect Series and Designer Series aluminum clad windows are defective in that they permit water to enter behind the windows, resulting in premature wood rot and deterioration and causing damage to both the windows and other property, including drywall, window frames, and floor coverings. More specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the windows all suffer from a defect in the design of the sill extrusion and sill nailing fin attachment as well as a defect in the design of allowing a gap between the jamb gasket and the sill gasket. The Plaintiffs are represented by: April Goodwin, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP 27300 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 301 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 290-1000 Facsimile: (239) 390-0055 E-mail: agoodwin@yourlawyer.com - and - Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP 3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 390-1000 E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com The Defendant is represented by: John P. Mandler, Esq. FAEGRE, BAKER LAW FIRM 90 South Seventh Street 2200 Wells Fargo Center Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 Facsimile: (612) 766-1600 E-mail: john.mandler@faegrebd.com PELLA CORP: "Naparala" Suit Moved From Wisconsin to S. Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Ted Naparala, Sr. v. Pella Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00581, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston). The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 03465-DCN to the proceeding. The case is brought on behalf of consumers, who own structures containing Pella Architect and Designer series windows. The lawsuit concerns Pella's alleged failure to disclose to purchasers of its Windows, the builders of the purchaser's structures, and owners of the Windows, that the windows were defective in material and workmanship as a result of the design and manufacturing practices of Pella. As a result of the alleged defect there is a high probability those Windows will fail, and likely already have developed wood rot in the Window sashes, according to the complaint. Pella Corporation is an Iowa Corporation. The Company designs and manufactures the Windows. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq. COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC 513 Central Ave., Suite 300 Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (847) 433-4500 Facsimile: (847) 433-2500 E-mail: jeff@complexlitgroup.com - and - Richard J. Burke, Esq. COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC 1010 Market Street, Suite 1320B St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (847) 433-4500 Facsimile: (847) 433-2500 E-mail: richard@complexlitgroup.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market St., Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com The Defendant is represented by: John P. Mandler, Esq. FAEGRE, BAKER LAW FIRM 90 South Seventh Street 2200 Wells Fargo Center Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 Facsimile: (612) 766-1600 E-mail: john.mandler@faegrebd.com PFIZER INC: Class Action Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Oct. 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- If You Purchased, Paid for, Administered and/or Reimbursed for Branded or Generic Gabapentin Sold by Pfizer and Its Subsidiaries A Class Action Settlement Could Affect You A proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Pfizer Inc. and Warner-Lambert Company LLC (collectively "Defendants") regarding the marketing of the prescription drug Neurontin. The lawsuit claims that Defendants' marketing of the drug Neurontin violated federal law. Defendants deny they have done anything wrong. Both sides have agreed to the Settlement to resolve the controversy and to avoid the cost and expense of further litigation. The lawsuit is not about the safety of Neurontin. Who is included? Third-Party Payors ("TPPs") in the United States and its territories who purchased, paid for, administered, and/or reimbursed for Neurontin sold by Defendants or gabapentin sold by Greenstone LLC at any time from their first sale in the United States through the Effective Date of the Settlement for any purpose other than resale. What does the Settlement Provide? Defendants will pay $325 million into a Settlement Fund to settle TPP claims. Class Counsel will ask for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus interest, litigation expenses and compensation awards to the Class Representatives. After these deductions, the remainder of the Settlement Fund will be distributed proportionally to Class Members based on the amount of purchases claimed. What can I get from the Settlement? The amount of money you are eligible to receive will depend on how much you paid and/or reimbursed for Neurontin (or gabapentin sold by Greenstone LLC) and on how much other Class Members paid and/or reimbursed. Some members of the Class who belong to a subclass of TPPs will be paid at a 1.80 multiplier of actual purchases in recognition of the fact that members of this subclass timely filed claims against Defendants that were not asserted in the class lawsuit. How do I get a payment? You must submit a Claim Form electronically on this website by October 15, 2014 to get a payment. Class Members submitting claims for purchases over $300,000 must provide documentation with their Claim Form. What are my other rights? If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement. The exclusion deadline is September 30, 2014. If you stay in the Settlement you will not be able to sue the Defendants for any claims relating to the Settlement. You will be bound by all the Court's orders. However, if you stay in the Settlement, you may object to all or part of it by September 30, 2014 and you may appear at the hearing described below in support of your objection. The Court will hold a hearing on October 22, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees. The Court has appointed attorneys to represent the Class. You may also hire your own attorney, at your own expense. For more information or a Claim Form: 1-855-793-1372 www.NeurontinSettlement.com PHOENIX COMPANIES: "Strougo" Litigation Dismised in June -------------------------------------------------------- The Phoenix Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the fiscal year ended Decemer 31, 2013, that Robert Strougo, et al. filed on April 17, 2013, a complaint against the Company, James D. Wehr and Peter A. Hofmann in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Case No. 13-CV-547-RNC) (the "Strougo Litigation"). On November 1, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint joining Michael E. Hanrahan as an additional individual defendant. The plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of themselves and a class defined as all persons (other than the defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 5, 2009 and August 14, 2013 for claims arising out of the Company's announced intent to restate previously filed financial statements. The plaintiffs allege that, throughout the class period, the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. The plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys' fees and other litigation costs. On June 2, 2014, prior to moving to certify a class, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs. The Phoenix Companies, Inc., is a holding company incorporated in Delaware. Its operating subsidiaries provide life insurance and annuity products through independent agents and financial advisors. Its principal insurance company subsidiaries are Phoenix Life Insurance Company ("Phoenix Life"), domiciled in New York, and PHL Variable Insurance Company ("PHL Variable"), domiciled in Connecticut. PHOENIX COMPANIES: Court Denied Fleisher Summary Judgment Motion ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Phoenix Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the fiscal year ended Decemer 31, 2013, that by order dated July 12, 2013, two separate classes were certified in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (C.A. No. 1:11-cv-08405-CM-JCF (U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) brought by Martin Fleisher and another plaintiff (the "Fleisher Litigation"), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against Phoenix Life. By subsequent order dated August 26, 2013, the court decertified one of the classes. The complaint in the Fleisher Litigation, filed on November 18, 2011, challenges Cost of Insurance rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix Life, which Phoenix Life maintains were based on policy language permitting such adjustments. The complaint seeks damages for breach of contract. The class certified in the court's July 12, 2013 order, as limited by the court's August 26, 2013 order, is limited to holders of Phoenix Life policies issued in New York and subject to New York law. By order dated April 29, 2014, the court denied Martin Fleisher's motion for summary judgment in the Fleisher Litigation its entirety, while granting in part and denying in part Phoenix Life's motion for summary judgment. The Phoenix Companies, Inc., is a holding company incorporated in Delaware. Its operating subsidiaries provide life insurance and annuity products through independent agents and financial advisors. Its principal insurance company subsidiaries are Phoenix Life Insurance Company ("Phoenix Life"), domiciled in New York, and PHL Variable Insurance Company ("PHL Variable"), domiciled in Connecticut. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Stayed TCPA Litigation ------------------------------------------------ Portfolio Recovery Associates, 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 Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers' cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On December 21, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi- District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one consolidated proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"). On November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action"). On May 20, 2014, the Court stayed this litigation until such time as the FCC has ruled on various petitions concerning the TCPA. Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is a financial and business service company operating principally in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Company's primary business is the purchase, collection and management of portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables. The Company also services receivables on behalf of clients and provides class action claims settlement recovery services and related payment processing to corporate clients. PRIMERICA LIFE: Removed "Hawk" Insurance Suit to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Larry Hawk v. Primerica Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 30-2014-00734284, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv- 01374-CJC-SH to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lyle W. Cook, Esq. Stuart C. Talley, Esq. William A. Kershaw, Esq. KERSHAW CUTTER AND RATINOFF LLP 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 448-9800 Facsimile: (916) 669-4499 E-mail: lcook@kcrlegal.com stalley@kcrlegal.com wkershaw@kcrlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: David Allen Taylor, Esq. Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq. Sean Eskovitz, Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683-9223 Facsimile: (213) 683-4023 E-mail: david.taylor@mto.com glenn.pomerantz@mto.com sean.eskovitz@mto.com REXNORD CORP: Insurer Paid Lump Sum in Exchange for Release ----------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord 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 Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC ("Zurn Industries"), were named as defendants in a number of individual and class action lawsuits in various United States courts. The plaintiffs in these suits claimed damages due to the alleged failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX plumbing systems in homes and other structures. In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the liability underlying this litigation. The settlement is designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims independently. The settlement received final court approval in February 2013, and utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is capped at $20 million, and is funded in installments over the seven year period based on claim activity and minimum funding criteria. The settlement also covers class action plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $8.5 million, which were paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2014. Historically, the Company's insurance carrier had funded the Company's defense in the above referenced proceedings. The Company, however, reached a settlement agreement with its insurer, whereby the insurer paid the Company a lump sum in exchange for a release of future exposure related to this liability. Rexnord is a growth-oriented, multi-platform industrial company with what it believes are leading market shares and highly trusted brands that serve a diverse array of global end-markets. ROUGE VALLEY: May Face Class Action Over Patient Info Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ CBC News reports that the privacy breach that compromised the information of thousands of new mothers at the Rouge Valley Hospital in Scarborough continues to grow. Personal data of 8,300 new moms sold to financial firm in hospital security breach Thousands more are learning that their privacy was breached at another hospital in the Rouge Valley health network. The news has one mother worried about how her personal information may have been used. First-time mother Gayle Smith has been taking in the joys of motherhood with her daughter Layla. But on Aug. 27 she received a letter. It said her personal information may have been used by two staff members at the hospital where she had her baby. "It's definitely unsettling to know that our information is out there," she told CBC News. "I definitely would be looking at the hospital to take steps so that it doesn't happen again," she said. More than 6,000 mothers who gave birth at the Rouge Valley Ajax and Pickering site between July 2009 and April 2014 were notified of the privacy breach. Their information may have been used to sell registered education savings plans (RESPs) to new parents. "Thinking back I did receive a call, probably about a month after my daughter was born, and they were trying to sell me RESPs," said Smith. Earlier this summer 8,000 other mothers at Rouge Valley's Scarborough location received the same troubling news. A class-action lawsuit is already in the works. Officials at Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner's office say they are working with the hospitals and will release findings on their investigation this fall. SC ACADEMY: Sued by Insurer Over Medical Certification Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. SC Academy Holdings, Inc., SC Academy, Inc., Culinary Academy of Long Island, Inc. and Culinary Academy of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07025 (S.D.N.Y., August 28, 2014) is an action for declaratory judgment concerning the Defendants' claims for insurance coverage under 12 insurance policies issued by Philadelphia relating to seven lawsuits (the "Medical Certification Suits") initiated by students with respect to certain medical industry-related technology programs, including the alleged failure to provide certain certifications as promised. The Defendants have demanded that Philadelphia defend and potentially indemnify them with respect to the Medical Certification Suits under certain policies of insurance issued by Philadelphia, according to the complaint. Philadelphia, thus, files the lawsuit in order to obtain a declaration as to its obligation to defend or indemnify its insureds with respect to the Medical Certification Suits, which include a class action lawsuit. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business located in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. SC Academy Holdings, Inc. and SC Academy, Inc. are Delaware corporations headquartered in Wellesley, Massachusetts. Culinary Academy of Long Island, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive office located in New York City. Culinary Academy of New York, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive office located in Syosset, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher T. Bradley, Esq. MARSHALL CONWAY & BRADLEY, P.C. 45 Broadway, Suite 740 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 619-4444 Facsimile: (212) 962-2647 E-mail: mcw@mcwpc.com - and - Katelin B. O'Rourke Gorman, Esq. SEDGWICK LLP 225 Liberty Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 422-0202 Facsimile: (212) 422-0925 E-mail: katelin.gorman@sedgwicklaw.com - and - Martin J. O'Leary, Esq. SEDGWICK LLP 333 Bush Street, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 627-1463 E-mail: martin.oleary@sedgwicklaw.com SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Motions to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Scientific Games 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 complaints challenging the merger with WMS Industries Inc. were filed in early 2013 in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois. The actions are putative class actions filed on behalf of WMS stockholders. The complaints generally allege that the WMS directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger and in connection with their public disclosures concerning the merger. The complaints allege that other defendants, including WMS, Scientific Games Corporation and certain affiliates of Scientific Games Corporation, aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The plaintiffs sought equitable relief, including to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). The plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the Delaware Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had conferred with the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed to stay the consolidated Delaware action. The Lake County, Illinois actions have been transferred to Cook County. All of the Illinois actions have been consolidated in Cook County with Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013 CH 3540). In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on the merger. Following that, in April 2013, lead counsel in the Gardner action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all actions in Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion for preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote in return for WMS's agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger. WMS made those supplemental disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 29, 2013. The plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed a claim for interim attorney fees of $0.85 million. In November 2013, the court granted the Company's motion to stay the plaintiffs' claim for an interim award of attorney fees. In January 2014, the plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed an amended complaint seeking damages for the alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and the alleged aiding and abetting of those breaches by WMS and Scientific Games Corporation. In February 2014, WMS and Scientific Games Corporation filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which is pending. The Company believes the claims in the Illinois and Delaware actions are without merit. SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Final Approval of Settlement in "Conlee" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Scientific Games 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 May 2011, a putative class action was filed against WMS Industries Inc. and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Wayne C. Conlee. In October 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the lawsuit seeking unspecified damages. As amended, the lawsuit alleged that, during the period from September 21, 2010 to August 4, 2011 (the date WMS announced its 2011 fiscal year financial results), WMS made material misstatements and omitted material information related to its 2011 fiscal year guidance in violation of federal securities laws. WMS filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in December 2011 and, in July 2012, the Court granted the motion without prejudice. In September 2012, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint, which WMS moved to dismiss in October 2012. In April 2013, the District Court granted WMS's motion to dismiss with prejudice. In May 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In October 2013, the parties advised the court that they had reached a proposed settlement on a class basis and sought the District Court's approval of the proposed settlement. In January 2014, the District Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement. In May 2014, final approval of the settlement was received and the case was dismissed with prejudice. "The settlement did not have a material impact on our results of operations," the Company said. SILVER STATE: Six Insurance Brokers File New Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Roerink, writing for Las Vegas Sun, reports that a group of six insurance brokers are headlining a new class action lawsuit filed against the Silver State Exchange and the tech contractor Xerox. The class represents at least 1,200 insurance brokers who say the exchange and Xerox owe them money for enrolling Nevada residents into health plans offered on the exchange, said Matthew Callister, legal counsel for the insurance brokers. Agents or brokers who enrolled consumers into health plans were entitled to a commission. But due to glitch-ridden payment and billing software for the exchange, they never received compensation. Xerox "repeatedly failed" to forward information from "thousands of Nevada brokers and agents to the selected insurance carriers," according to the lawsuit, ". . . thereby denying brokers and agents commissions to which they were entitled." "The vast majority of brokers have not been compensated," Mr. Callister said. The exchange board fired Xerox but will be working with the company until April. The relationship began in 2012 when the exchange awarded Xerox what ultimately became a $75 million contract. Xerox was hired to build software to enroll Nevada consumers and create a payment processing system for distributing compensation to insurance companies, which were then supposed to pay brokers. Nevada was the only state to build its own payment and billing infrastructure rather than having insurance companies handle it. Having the state collect payments from consumers has been a principal complaint of brokers since the exchange launched in October. Insurance companies traditionally collected money from consumers and then paid brokers. But Xerox's system changed that. "It's another example of an inept system that fails," said Las Vegas insurance broker Pat Casale. No broker has been more vocal about the failures of the exchange than Mr. Casale. He's spent countless unpaid hours working with state and Xerox officials to enroll Nevadans who paid for coverage but didn't receive it. Mr. Casale recently received his first check for the Nevada Health Co-Op after spending months enrolling consumers into their plans without getting paid. He said other brokers haven't been as lucky. One broker, he said, has enrolled 40 Nevadans and not received any compensation. "You're working and putting in hours and you still have to chase your money," he said. The lawsuit from the brokers is the latest legal action taken against the exchange and Xerox. Mr. Callister is legal counsel in another class action lawsuit representing Nevadans who claim they paid but didn't receive coverage. The Las Vegas Sun asked Xerox in June how many consumers paid but didn't receive coverage. The company's response: "We're not at liberty" to disclose. Nevada was one of 17 states to build its own exchange as a way to comply with the Affordable Care Act. Gov. Brian Sandoval was the only Republican governor whose state opted to build its own exchange. He and other state leaders were leery of using the federal system, healthcare.gov. Mr. Sandoval's office was warned of serious flaws in the software that runs the exchange in the weeks before its Oct. 1 launch, according to an internal report from an outside auditor. But the exchange still opened for business. For the exchange's upcoming enrollment period, Nevadans will have to enroll on healthcare.gov -- the very system that Mr. Sandoval and other state officials wanted to avoid. The 38,000 Nevadans who successfully enrolled, along with those who didn't, will be forced to sign up using the federal system this November. SLOAN VALVE: Judge Approves $18-Mil. Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge has approved an $18 million class action settlement involving defects that caused hundreds of toilets to explode. In 2012, more than 2.3 million Flushmate flushing systems were recalled following more than 300 reports of toilet tanks exploding. The flushing systems use air pressure to conserve water. On Aug. 25, U.S. District Judge S. James Otero of the Central District of California approved a settlement that would reimburse owners of toilets with a Flushmate system for repairs and replacements. Sloan Valve Co., the Franklin Park, Ill., parent company of Flushmate, and the other defendants -- AS America Inc., which does business as American Standard Brands; Kohler Co.; Gerber Plumbing Fixtures LLC, part of Globe Union Industrial Corp.; Mansfield Plumbing Products LLC; and The Home Depot USA Inc. -- did not admit liability as part of the settlement. Judge Otero also approved $4.5 million in attorney fees, plus $134,000 in costs and expenses, to eight law firms: Birka-White Law Offices in Danville, Calif.; San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; New York's Parker Waichman; Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia; Audet & Partners of San Francisco; Chicago's Wexler Wallace; Holland Groves in St. Louis; and Geragos & Geragos in Los Angeles. He also gave $1,000 to each of the class representatives. SOUTH FLORIDA DIALYSIS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Rate, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carmen Diaz Lopez v. South Florida Dialysis Center, Corp., and Yizel Amador, Case No. 1:14-cv-23150-JLK (S.D. Fla., August 27, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed and refused to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages calculated at time and one-half of her regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 hours in a given workweek. Ms. Diaz Lopez worked for the Defendants as a nurse, who utilized medications, medical supplies, machinery, materials, and supplies that were provided to her by the Defendants. South Florida Dialysis Center, Corp., is a sui juris Florida for- profit business with its principal place of business and registered agent in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Yizel Amador is the owner and operator of the Company. The Defendants provide medical care and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 230-4884 Facsimile: (305) 230-4844 E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com SPACE EXPLORATION: Faces Class Action Over July Mass Layoff ----------------------------------------------------------- Allissa Wickham, Jessica Corso, Vin Gurrieri and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, report that Space Exploration Technologies Corp. was hit with another proposed class action in California state court on Aug. 27 over the aerospace company's alleged failure to give workers notice of a mass layoff in July, marking at least the second suit over the firings. Former SpaceX employee Laura Barragan claims the Elon Musk-founded company neglected to give her and other workers a written warning of the July 21 mass layoffs at its Hawthorne, California, facility, in violation of the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act's 60-day written notice requirement. The suit comes roughly three weeks after two other ex-SpaceX workers -- both former structural technicians -- hit the spacecraft company with a proposed class action over its alleged failure to warn workers about the firings, which were estimated to have affected between 200 and 400 people. Like the plaintiffs in the earlier suit, Ms. Barragan was also employed at SpaceX's Hawthorne headquarters, where she worked for about a year and a half as a "tube bending expeditor," according to her LinkedIn profile. In addition to not giving workers sufficient written notice of the layoffs, Ms. Barragan claims SpaceX failed to pay workers all of their owed wages at the time of the firings, didn't provide them with their final earned wages in a timely manner and engaged in unfair business practices. The suit currently seeks to certify four putative classes, consisting of the Cal WARN class, two classes related to SpaceX's alleged wage payment violations and a final class of workers employed by the rocket company during a time period when it purportedly engaged in unfair or fraudulent business acts. As for damages, Ms. Barragan's suit is seeking back-pay and 60- days pay for class members, as well as civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The damages are similar to those sought by the two other ex-SpaceX workers in their Aug. 4 suit, who pointed out that the Cal WARN Act requires employers to provide 60 days' written notice to affected employees of layoffs involving 50 or more employees in a 30-day period. Employers who fail to do so must pay the affected employees up to 60 days of average regular rate of compensation or final rate of compensation, whichever is higher, the suit said. Although representatives for SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment on Aug. 27, the company's president, Gwynne Shotwell, said in July that the firings were related to an annual performance review, according to the website SpaceNews. An attorney for Barragan also did not return a request for comment. Founded by billionaire Musk in 2002, SpaceX was created with the goal of "enabling people to live on other planets," according to the company. The spacecraft manufacturer states on its website that it employs more than 3,000 workers in Texas, Washington D.C., Florida and California. SpaceX is also currently fighting another suit accusing the rocket producer of failing to provide rest breaks or pay full wages, as well as another action alleging the company fostered a racist working environment in which certain workers were subjected to slurs and passed over for promotions. Ms. Barragan is represented by Kevin T. Barnes and Gregg Lander of the Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes, as well as Bruce Kokozian of Kokozian Law Firm APC. Attorney information for SpaceX was not immediately available. The suit is Laura Barragan et al v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., case number BC555840, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. SUNTRUST BANKS: Provides Updates on Lehman Brothers Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., along with other underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants in several individual and putative class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas, California, Texas, and Washington. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or state law for allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") and sought unspecified damages. All cases were transferred for coordination to the multi-district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the class action. On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the claims against STRH and the other underwriter defendants in the class action. A settlement with the class plaintiffs was approved by the Court and the class settlement approval process was completed. A number of individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actions remained following the class settlement. SunTrust Banks 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 STRH settled two such individual actions. The other individual lawsuits were dismissed. The appeal period for two of the individual actions will not expire until the plaintiffs' claims against a third party have been resolved. SUNTRUST BANKS: Provides Updates on Colonial BancGroup Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., certain other underwriters, the Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation. The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality. On August 28, 2009, the Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy. The defendants' motion to dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the Court subsequently ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. This amended complaint was filed and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In October 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part this motion, SunTrust Banks 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. SUNTRUST BANKS: Denial of Class Cert in "Bickerstaff" on Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who have incurred such overdraft fees within the last four years where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. SunTrust filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms. The Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out for the putative class members. SunTrust filed an appeal of this decision, but this appeal was dismissed based on a finding that the appeal was prematurely granted. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014. Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification on February 26, 2014, SunTrust Banks 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. SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal of Stock Class Action Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ SunTrust Banks 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 in July 2008, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock. The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November 2008. On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for the District Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for immediate interlocutory appeal. On January 3, 2011, the District Court granted both motions. On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit Court"). On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of its decision in The Home Depot case. On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court. SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid for Reconsideration Pending in 11th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks 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 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiff purports to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seeks to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court"). On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company substituting two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. SunTrust filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted. On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit. This motion remains pending. SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces "Brown" Action in District of Columbia ------------------------------------------------------------ SunTrust Banks 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 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. SUNTRUST BANKS: October 17 Final Approval Hearing ------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks 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 SunTrust Mortgage Inc. has been named in three putative class actions similar to those that other financial institutions are facing which allege that the Company acted improperly in connection with the practice of force placing homeowners' insurance in certain instances. Generally, the plaintiffs in these actions allege that STM violated various duties by failing to properly negotiate pricing for force placed insurance and by receiving kickbacks or other improper benefits from the providers of such insurance. The first case, Timothy Smith v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. STM filed a motion to dismiss this case and this motion was granted in part and denied in part. The second case, Carina Hamilton v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The third case, Yaghoub Mahdavieh et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. STM has filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case. The Court granted the motion to transfer this case to the Southern District of Florida. STM has entered into an agreement to settle these cases in the context of a nationwide settlement class. This proposed settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court and a hearing for the final approval of the settlement has been scheduled for October 17, 2014. SUNTRUST BANKS: Limited Discovery Allowed in "Thurmond" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ SunTrust Banks 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 SunTrust Mortgage Inc. and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal "captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers. More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure loans referred to them by SunTrust with Twin Rivers results in illegal "kickbacks" in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of borrowers. The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. The second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the Edwards case also. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases were lifted. The plaintiffs in Acosta voluntarily dismissed this case. A motion to dismiss was filed in the Thurmond case. In June 2014, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss in part and denied in part, allowing limited discovery surrounding the argument that the statute of limitations for certain claims should be equitably tolled. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Oct. 7 Final Approval Hearing of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees' Retirement System filed suit against Synovus Financial Corp., and certain of Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action"); and on June 11, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and the named individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in violation of the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs' allegations are based on purported exposure to Synovus' lending relationship with the Sea Island Company and the impact of such alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition. Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified amount. On May 19, 2011, the Court ruled that the amended complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The Court also ruled that Lead Plaintiffs would be allowed the opportunity to submit a further amended complaint. Lead Plaintiffs served their second amended complaint on June 27, 2011. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss that complaint on July 27, 2011. On March 22, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part that Motion to Dismiss. On April 19, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its March 22, 2012 order. On September 26, 2012, the Court issued a written order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants filed their answer to the second amended complaint on May 21, 2012. On March 7, 2013, the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On May 23, 2013, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted Defendants permission to appeal the District Court's certification of the class. On October 4, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs and the Defendants reached a settlement-in-principle to settle the Securities Class Action. Under the settlement-in-principle, the Defendants shall cause to be paid $11.8 million to the Lead Plaintiffs (the "Securities Class Action Settlement Payment") in exchange for broad releases, dismissal with prejudice of the Securities Class Action and other material and customary terms and conditions. On March 17, 2014, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court for preliminary approval of the Securities Class Action Settlement Payment. The District Court granted preliminary approval of the Securities Class Action Settlement Payment on June 4, 2014, and the hearing date for the final approval is scheduled for October 7, 2014, Synovus 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. Synovus expects that, subject to execution of an appropriate release of the Defendants' insurance carriers and other customary acknowledgments by the Defendants, the Securities Class Action Settlement Payment will be fully covered by insurance. There can be no assurance that the settlement-in-principle will be finally approved by the District Court. In the event the settlement-in- principle of the Securities Class Action is not approved by the District Court and finally settled, Synovus and the individually named defendants collectively intend to vigorously defend themselves against the Securities Class Action. Synovus Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services company and a registered financial holding company headquartered in Columbus, Georgia. Synovus provides integrated financial services including commercial and retail banking, financial management, insurance, and mortgage services to its customers through locally-branded banking divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Preliminary Hearing on Class Cert. Held ---------------------------------------------------------- On September 21, 2010, Synovus Financial Corp., Synovus Bank and CB&T were named as defendants in a putative multi-state class action relating to the manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers. The case, Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs' accounts. On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was transferred to a multi- district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 21, 2011. The Synovus entities filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 22, 2011. On July 26, 2012, the court denied the motion as to Synovus and Synovus Bank, but granted the motion as to CB&T. Synovus and Synovus Bank filed their answer to the amended complaint on September 24, 2012. The case is currently in discovery. A preliminary hearing regarding class certification was scheduled for August 13, 2014, Synovus 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. Synovus Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services company and a registered financial holding company headquartered in Columbus, Georgia. Synovus provides integrated financial services including commercial and retail banking, financial management, insurance, and mortgage services to its customers through locally-branded banking divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: "Griner" Settlement Approved by Court -------------------------------------------------------- Synovus Financial 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 Synovus Bank was named as a defendant in a putative state-wide class action in which the plaintiffs allege that overdraft fees charged to customers constitute interest and, as such, are usurious under Georgia law. The case, Griner et. al. v. Synovus Bank, et. al. was filed in Gwinnett County State Court (State of Georgia) on July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury, conversion and money had and received for alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards used to access customer accounts ("the Griner Overdraft Litigation"). Plaintiffs contend that such overdraft charges constitute interest and are therefore subject to Georgia usury laws. Synovus Bank contends that such overdraft charges constitute non-interest fees and charges under both federal and Georgia law and are otherwise exempt from Georgia usury limits. On September 1, 2010, Synovus Bank removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On July 22, 2011, the federal court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the Gwinnett County State Court. Synovus Bank subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2012, the state court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss. On March 1, 2012, the state court signed and entered a certificate of immediate review thereby permitting Synovus Bank to petition the Georgia Court of Appeals for a discretionary appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss. On March 12, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its application for interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals. On April 3, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals granted Synovus Bank's application for interlocutory appeal of the state court's order denying Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its notice of appeal. Oral arguments were heard in the case on September 19, 2012. On March 28, 2013, the Georgia Court of Appeals entered an order affirming the denial of Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss and remanding the case back to the State Court of Gwinnett County for further proceedings. On April 8, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a motion requesting that the Court of Appeals reconsider its March 28, 2013 order. On April 11, 2013, the Court of Appeals entered an order denying Synovus Bank's motion for reconsideration. On April 19, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a notice of its intent to petition the Supreme Court of Georgia for a writ of certiorari. On May 1, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Georgia. On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court of Georgia accepted certiorari and vacated the March 28, 2013 order of the Georgia Court of Appeals instanter with direction that the Court of Appeals remand the case to the trial court for further consideration in light of the effect, if any, of the July 3, 2013 Declaratory Order issued by the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance, which declares that to provide parity with national banks, overdraft fees imposed by state-chartered banks in connection with deposit accounts are not subject to Georgia's usury laws. The trial court held a hearing for consideration of this issue on November 21, 2013, and a decision is pending. On February 3, 2014, the Gwinnett County State Court (State of Georgia) issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement (the "Griner Settlement") by and among Synovus Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank (collectively referred to herein as "Synovus"), and the plaintiffs in the Griner Overdraft Litigation. Under the terms of the Griner Settlement, Synovus has agreed to (1) establish a fund to pay eligible class member claims and (2) pay an agreed-upon amount of fees to counsel for the plaintiffs in the Griner Overdraft Litigation. In exchange, each purported class member in the Griner Overdraft Litigation will give Synovus a full and final general release of all claims alleged or that could be alleged in the Griner Overdraft Litigation. The final fairness hearing on the Griner Settlement was held on May 20, 2014, and the Griner Settlement was approved by the Court. Synovus Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services company and a registered financial holding company headquartered in Columbus, Georgia. Synovus provides integrated financial services including commercial and retail banking, financial management, insurance, and mortgage services to its customers through locally-branded banking divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee. TRANSOCEAN LTD: Faces Suits Over Wrongful Death & Personal Injury ----------------------------------------------------------------- Transocean 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 as of June 30, 2014, the Company has been named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in nine complaints that were pending in state and federal courts in Louisiana and Texas involving multiple plaintiffs that allege wrongful death and other personal injuries arising out of the Macondo well incident. Nine complaints involve fatalities and 63 complaints seek recovery for bodily injuries. A number of these lawsuits have been settled. Per the order of the Multidistrict Litigation Panel ("MDL"), all claims but one have been centralized for discovery purposes in the MDL Court. The complaints generally allege negligence and seek awards of unspecified economic damages and punitive damages. BP Plc, MI- SWACO, Weatherford International Ltd. and Cameron International Corporation ("Cameron") and certain of their affiliates, have, based on contractual arrangements, also made indemnity demands upon the Company with respect to personal injury and wrongful death claims asserted by the Company's employees or representatives of the Company's employees against these entities. TRANSOCEAN LTD: Facing 199 Putative Class-Action Complaints ----------------------------------------------------------- Transocean 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 as of June 30, 2014, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in 962 pending individual complaints as well as 199 putative class-action complaints that were pending in the federal and state courts in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida and possibly other courts. The complaints generally allege, among other things, potential economic losses as a result of environmental pollution arising out of the Macondo well incident and are based primarily on the OPA and state OPA analogues. The plaintiffs are generally seeking awards of unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. No classes have been certified at this time. Most of these actions have either been transferred to or are the subject of motions to transfer to the MDL. TRANSOCEAN LTD: Second Circuit Stayed Plaintiff's Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Transocean 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 a federal securities proposed class action was filed on September 30, 2010, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, naming the Company and former chief executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of its acquired companies as defendants. The Company said that, "In the action, a former shareholder of the acquired company alleged that the joint proxy statement related to our shareholder meeting in connection with our merger with the acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff claimed that the acquired company's shareholders received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of itself and the proposed class members." "In connection with that action, we were obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual defendants, which may be covered by our directors' and officers' liability insurance, subject to a deductible. "On October 4, 2012, the court denied our motion to dismiss the action. On June 27, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") ruled in the unrelated action on an issue that could be relevant to the disposition of this case in a manner that supported our position that the plaintiff's existing claims alleged in the action are time-barred. "On August 30, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the claims are time-barred, citing the ruling of the Second Circuit. On September 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss and on September 24, 2013, we filed a reply to that opposition. On March 11, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the claims as time-barred. On March 13, 2014, judgment was entered and the case was closed. On March 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit. On April 23, 2014, the Second Circuit granted plaintiff's motion to stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS Inc., in which certiorari was granted at 134 S. Ct. 1515 (2014). U.S. BANCORP: Has $19MM Liability Related to VISA Case at June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions to the conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by Visa U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account for the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation. The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in other liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa Litigation contingent liability. Visa U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard International (collectively, the "Card Associations") are defendants in antitrust lawsuits challenging the practices of the Card Associations (the "Visa Litigation"). Visa U.S.A. member banks have a contingent obligation to indemnify Visa Inc. under the Visa U.S.A. bylaws (which were modified at the time of the restructuring in October 2007) for potential losses arising from the Visa Litigation. The indemnification by the Visa U.S.A. member banks has no specific maximum amount. On October 19, 2012, Visa signed a settlement agreement to resolve class action claims associated with the multi-district interchange litigation, the largest of the remaining Visa Litigation matters. The settlement has been approved by the court, but has been challenged by some class members and is being appealed. In addition, a number of class members opted out of the settlement and have filed actions against the Card Associations. U.S. Bancorp 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 at June 30, 2014, the carrying amount of the Company's liability related to the Visa Litigation matters, net of its share of the escrow fundings, was $19 million. During the second quarter of 2014, the Company sold 3.0 million of its Class B shares. This sale does not impact the Company's liability for the Visa Litigation matters or the receivable related to the escrow account. The remaining 9.6 million Class B shares held by the Company will be eligible for conversion to Class A shares of Visa Inc., and thereby become marketable, upon final settlement of the Visa Litigation. UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Immigration Practices Settled -------------------------------------------------------------- The American Civil Liberties Union and Cooley LLP on Aug. 28 announced an historic settlement in a class action lawsuit, Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson, that alleged deceptive and coercive practices by immigration enforcement officers. Significant reforms to the process known as "voluntary departure" are in effect immediately, including major revisions to the information immigration officers must disclose to people choosing between voluntary departure and a hearing before an immigration judge. The settlement also includes class provisions that, if approved by the court, would allow certain Mexican nationals who have been expelled from Southern California pursuant to flawed voluntary departure procedures over the last several years to seek to reunite with their families here. The settlement relates to a lawsuit filed in June 2013 in which nine Mexican nationals and three organizations that work with immigrants challenged deceptive tactics used by Border Patrol agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to convince the plaintiffs to sign their own expulsion orders. All of the plaintiffs would have had strong claims to remain in the United States had they gone before an immigration judge instead of being pressured to choose voluntary departure. "This is a substantial reform of how Border Patrol and ICE do business," said Sean Riordan, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. "If the agencies implement the agreement fully, never again should families be driven apart based on immigration enforcement practices that rely upon misinformation, deception, and coercion." If ultimately approved by the court, the settlement will provide potentially hundreds or thousands of people who meet the class requirement the opportunity to reunite with family members that they were torn apart from by voluntary departure. The complaint in Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson alleged that as a matter of regular practice, Border Patrol agents and ICE officers pressure undocumented immigrants to sign what amounts to their own summary expulsion documents. The procedure is formally known as "administrative voluntary departure," but is often referred to as "voluntary return," and has been used to summarily expel hundreds of thousands of non-citizens from Southern California in recent years. Because of the coercive and deceptive tactics immigration officers employ, it regularly results in the involuntary waiver of core due process rights. An individual who signs for voluntary departure forfeits his or her right to a hearing before an immigration judge and is usually expelled to Mexico within a matter of hours. The class action portion of the lawsuit (and settlement) addresses the limited number of persons who were given voluntary departure but would have had strong claims to stay in the United States if they had gone before an immigration judge. "The United States derives its core strength from embracing the notions of fairness and due process under our Constitution," said Darcie Tilly, an associate in Cooley LLP's San Diego office who worked on the project with the ACLU. "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 ultimately approved by the court, the settlement will provide potentially hundreds or thousands of people who meet the class requirement the opportunity to reunite with family members that they were torn apart from by voluntary departure. The settlement will also impose key changes to how immigration enforcement agencies handle AVD procedures, including: Requiring immigration enforcement agencies to give detailed information -- in writing and orally -- about what it really means to take AVD to anyone forced to choose between AVD and a hearing before an immigration judge. Requiring immigration enforcement agencies to maintain a 1-800 hotline that gives information about an individual's rights regarding AVD and the consequences of taking AVD. Prohibiting immigration enforcement agencies from "pre-checking" the box selecting AVD on the forms the agencies provide to immigrants. Requiring immigration enforcement agencies to allow people to use a phone, provide them with a list of legal service providers, and allow them two hours to reach someone before deciding whether or not to take AVD. Requiring immigration enforcement agencies to give lawyers meaningful access to their clients who are detained by BP or ICE. Preventing immigration enforcement agencies from relying on pressure or other coercion to convince someone to accept voluntary departure. Requiring immigration enforcement agencies to allow ACLU attorneys to monitor compliance and ensure transparency and accountability for three years. The class action lawsuit was filed by the ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, and Cooley LLP on behalf of the aforementioned plaintiffs, none of whom has a serious or violent criminal background and many of whom were approached by immigration officers while doing routine daily activities, such as waiting for a bus. All of these individuals have close family members in the United States and could have obtained relief against removal from an immigration judge or under Department of Homeland Security programs, but immigration officers affirmatively misstated the consequences of voluntary departure and pressured them to sign their own expulsion documents. The lawsuit is also filed on behalf of three organizational plaintiffs: the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, and the San Bernardino Community Service Center, which have been forced to divert their scarce resources in response to these unlawful practices. The class action portions of the settlement must now go through an approval process before the court. The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class claims on August 18, 2014. A preliminary approval hearing is set in federal court in Los Angeles on September 8, 2014. If the court grants preliminary approval, there will likely be a final approval hearing in early 2015. If the court grants final approval of the settlement, class members who meet the settlement's criteria -- Mexican nationals who signed administrative voluntary departure forms between June 1, 2009 and August 18, 2014 in the San Diego Border Patrol sector and the San Diego and Los Angeles ICE field office areas, and would have qualified for certain forms of relief from removal -- will be able to apply to be a class member and seek to return to their families. VOICESHOT LLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Text Message TCPA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Siegel, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal judge refused to throw out a proposed class action on Aug. 26 claiming a realty company and telecommunications services company Voiceshot LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, finding the fact that Voiceshot's computer servers were located outside the state is not grounds to dismiss the case. In an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Voiceshot, U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow ruled that despite being a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Michigan, Voiceshot's contracting with Illinois-based Kale Realty LLC was sufficient for it to remain a defendant in the case. Plaintiff Rusty Payton, an Illinois resident, filed the proposed class action in 2013 claiming Kale Realty violated the TCPA by sending him and possibly hundreds of other individuals unsolicited text message advertisements. Mr. Payton amended his complaint in April to include Voiceshot, alleging that Kale used Voiceshot's services to send unsolicited advertisements to prospective customers' cellular phones, including Mr. Payton's. "By contracting with an Illinois corporation and then performing its business within Illinois, Voiceshot purposely availed itself of the benefits of doing business within this state," Judge Lefkow wrote. "In addition, Payton's alleged injury arises directly out of these contacts with Illinois." Judge Lefkow found that under the Illinois long-arm statute, personal jurisdiction may be general or specific and noted that Payton had not argued for general jurisdiction. Judge Lefkow added it would not be appropriate to exercise general jurisdiction over Voiceshot based on the allegations in the complaint. In determining that specific jurisdiction applied in this case, Judge Lefkow cited the fact that courts have repeatedly held that sending a message into a state in violation of the TCPA is sufficient to confer specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant in that state. "After Kale, an Illinois corporation, purchased Voiceshot's services, Voiceshot sent text messages into Illinois that allegedly violate the TCPA," Judge Lefkow wrote. Judge Lefkow said the fact that Voiceshot's servers were located outside of Illinois was irrelevant, as Voiceshot had reached inside the state to contact Payton -- and potentially other Illinois residents -- by performing the marketing services purchased by Kale. Judge Lefkow also ruled that the court exercising personal specific jurisdiction over Voiceshot in this case would not "offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice," because while Voiceshot may be burdened by having to defend an action in the state, out-of-state defendants always face such a burden. "Moreover, Illinois -- like all states -- has an interest in providing a forum for its residents to seek redress for injuries inflicted by out-of-state actors and injuries suffered within the state," Judge Lefkow added. Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr. of Zimmerman Law Offices PC, who represents Payton, told Law360 he and his client are pleased with the court's ruling. "Judge Lefkow's ruling was well-reasoned and consistent with other judicial decisions around the country," Zimmerman said. "We are now engaged in discovery and are pursuing certification of the class." Attorneys for the defendants did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Law360. Mr. Payton is represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Adam M. Tamburelli and Frank J. Stretz of Zimmerman Law Offices PC. Kale Realty is represented by Peter C. Morse -- pmorse@morseandbolduc.com -- and Joseph D. Ackerman -- jackerman@morseandbolduc.com -- of Morse Bolduc & Dinos and Jeffrey H. Bunn -- jbunn@llflegal.com -- of Latimer LeVay Fyock. Voiceshot is represented by Kellie L. Mitchell -- kmitchell@cckc-law.com -- of Copilevitz & Canter LLC. The case is Rusty Payton v. Kale Realty LLC and Voiceshot LLC, case number 1:2013-cv-08002, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Conran v. Walsh Construction Company, Case No. 3:14-cv- 01251 (D. Conn., August 28, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act to recover, along with other damages, wages owed, but never paid, to the Plaintiff. Chicago, Illinois-based Walsh is a construction company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen B. Kravetz, Esq. Philip G. Kent, Esq. SUSMAN, DUFFY & SEGALOFF, PC 59 Elm Street, 5th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone: (203) 624-9830 Facsimile: (203) 562-8430 E-mail: kkravetz@susmanduffy.com pkent@susmanduffy.com WASHINGTON: Trial Court to Decide on Class Action Damages --------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the Washington Supreme Court has rejected the state's contention that the correct measure of damages for part-time public employees wrongfully denied health benefits is the immediate medical expenses the workers had to pay out-of-pocket. The justices left it up to the trial court to decide on remand what the appropriate measure of damages should be in the class action. The reason that the workers' out-of-pocket expenses are not the appropriate measure of their damages, Justice Susan Owens wrote for the court, is that "evidence shows that people denied health care benefits suffer additional damage. They avoid going to the doctor for preventive care, and they defer care for medical problems. This results in increased long-term medical costs and a lower quality of life." An expert for the plaintiffs said that "the economic value of the healthier and longer life that an uninsured child or adult forgoes because he or she lacks health insurance ranges between $1,645 and $3,280 for each additional year spent without coverage," according to the court. The justices also said the immediate medical expenses people have to pay out-of-pocket when wrongfully denied health insurance could be the best damages measure in other cases. The trial court refused to grant summary judgment to either side, including because more information needs to be developed on whether any class members would have opted out of coverage and what level of coverage class members likely would have chosen. The employees suggest that their damages should be measured by the amount the state should have paid to provide health benefits, the amount that the state unlawfully retained by failing to provide health benefits, or the amount that the state would have paid in health care costs for the class if they have been covered. WATTS WATER: Final Approval of "Trabakoolas" Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- On March 8, 2012, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Watts Regulator Co., and Watts Plumbing Technologies Co., Ltd., among other companies, were named as defendants in a putative nationwide class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of toilet connectors. The complaint sought among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Trabakoolas et al., v, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al. On December 12, 2013, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims. The total settlement amount is $23.0 million, of which the Company would be responsible for $14.0 million after insurance proceeds of $9.0 million. The settlement was subject to review by the Court at a preliminary approval hearing held on February 12, 2014. The Court granted preliminary approval on February 14, 2014. On July 18, 2014, the Court granted final approval of the class settlement at a fairness hearing, and issued a subsequent written order formalizing the approval on August 5, 2014, Watts Water Technologies, said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2014. "The order will become final unless an appeal is taken within thirty days. The Company will vigorously contest any appeal that is taken. If the order becomes final without an appeal, the litigation will be terminated," the Company said. During the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a liability of $22.6 million related to the Trabakoolas matter, of which $12.7 million was included in current liabilities and $9.9 million in other noncurrent liabilities. In addition, a $9.0 million receivable was recorded in current assets related to insurance proceeds due under a separate settlement agreement if the class action settlement is approved and becomes final. The liability was reduced by $1.3 million for notice and claims administrator payments made during the first half of 2014 and as of June 29, 2014, the remaining total liability was $21.3 million. WELLS FARGO: Court of Appeals Affirmed Judgment in July ------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & 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 on July 8, 2008, a class action complaint captioned Stacey and Bradley Petry, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., was filed. The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo and others violated the Maryland Finder's Fee Act in the closing of mortgage loans in Maryland. On March 13, 2013, the Court held the plaintiff class did not have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, which was previously set for March 18, 2013. On June 20, 2013, the Court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants on July 10, 2014. WELLS FARGO: Final Approval Hearing of Accord Held in August ------------------------------------------------------------ Wells Fargo & 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 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is involved in five separate pending actions brought by securities lending customers of Wells Fargo and Wachovia Bank in various courts. In general, each of the cases alleges that Wells Fargo violated fiduciary and contractual duties by investing collateral for loaned securities in investments that suffered losses. One of the cases, filed on March 27, 2012, is composed of a class of Wells Fargo securities lending customers in a case captioned City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On April 12, 2014, the parties reached a settlement in principle of the class action case. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on June 5, 2014. A hearing on final approval was set for August 14, 2014. WINDAMIR DEVELOPMENT: Faces "Lawson" Class Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Lawson, Anthony D. Ciorciari and Rodney Blitch, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. Windamir Development, Inc., and Hamlin Air Conditioning & Sheet Metal, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02790-RWS (N.D. Ga., August 28, 2014) alleges violations of the Miller Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amanda A. Farahany, Esq. Benjamin F. Barrett, Jr., Esq. Elizabeth Lorraine Brown, Esq. BARRETT & FARAHANY, LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 214-0120 Facsimile: (404) 214-0125 E-mail: amanda@bf-llp.com ben@bf-llp.com lbrown@bf-llp.com WORLD WRESTLING: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky on Aug. 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of investors who purchased World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. common stock between October 31, 2013 and May 16, 2014. For more information, visit: http://zlk.9nl.com/world-wrestling-entertainment-wwe The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants violated securities laws by failing to disclose the Company's true ability to command a premium fee in upcoming negotiations to renew its television license agreement. On May 16, 2014, the Company disclosed that it had reached a multiyear deal with NBCUniversal for its television programs Raw and SmackDown, stating that the annual value of its television distribution agreements is expected to reach $200 million, far below investor expectation. On a May 19, 2014 earnings call, Chairman and CEO Vince McMahon stated "We were a little disappointed in our NBCU deal, quite frankly . . ." If you suffered a loss in WWE you have until September 23, 2014 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit http://zlk.9nl.com/world-wrestling-entertainment-wwe Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's 26 attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Files a Class Action on Behalf of Consumers Who Purchased or Leased Certain Model Year 2013-2014 Nissan and Infiniti Vehicles WPX ENERGY: Conducts Accounting in Royalty Litigation ----------------------------------------------------- In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield County, Colorado, alleging WPX Energy, Inc. improperly calculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account for proceeds received from the sale of natural gas and extracted products, improperly charged certain expenses and failed to refund amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of royalty interest owners, recover underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected payments related to calculation errors. "We entered into a final partial settlement agreement. The partial settlement agreement defined the class for certification, resolved claims relating to past calculation of royalty and overriding royalty payments, established certain rules to govern future royalty and overriding royalty payments, resolved claims related to past withholding for ad valorem tax payments, established a procedure for refunds of any such excess withholding in the future, and reserved two claims for court resolution," WPX Energy, 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. "We have prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on the first reserved claim regarding whether we are allowed to deduct mainline pipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain lease agreements. The remaining claim related to the issue of whether we are required to have proportionately increased the value of natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline transmission lines and, if required, whether we did so and are entitled to deduct a proportionate share of transportation costs in calculating royalty payments. "Plaintiffs had claimed damages of approximately $20 million plus interest for the period from July 2000 to July 2008. The court issued pretrial orders finding that we do bear the burden of demonstrating enhancement of the value of gas in order to deduct transportation costs and that the enhancement test must be applied on a monthly basis in order to determine the reasonableness of post-production transportation costs. "Trial occurred in December 2013 on the issue of whether we have met that burden. Following that trial, the court issued its order rejecting plaintiffs' proposed standard and accepting our position as to the methodology to use in determining the standard by which our activity should be judged. "We are in the process of conducting an accounting under that standard. However, we continue to believe our royalty calculations have been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual arrangements and Colorado law." WPX ENERGY: Facing 2 Class Actions by Interest Owners ----------------------------------------------------- In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against WPX Energy, Inc. in the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint presently alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent concealment, conversion, misstatement of the value of gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market hydrocarbons in Colorado, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and a declaratory judgment enjoining activities relating to production, payments and future reporting. This matter has been removed to the United States District Court for New Mexico. In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against WPX Energy in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado. Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both in Colorado and New Mexico, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act and seek declaratory judgment, accounting and injunction. "At this time, we believe that our royalty calculations have been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual arrangements and applicable laws. We do not have sufficient information to calculate an estimated range of exposure related to these claims," WPX Energy 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. ZOCDOC INC: "Geismann" Suit Transferred From Missouri to New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Geismann v. ZocDoc, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00472, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-07009-LLS to the proceeding. Plaintiff Radha Geismann alleges that she received two unsolicited faxes that advertised ZocDoc's services and failed to contain legally proper opt-out notices, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Max G. Margulis, Esq. MARGULIS LAW GROUP 28 Old Belle Monte Rd. Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: (636) 536-7022 Facsimile: (636) 536-6652 E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: BWanca@andersonwanca.com The Defendant is represented by: Bryan K. Clark, Esq. Blaine C. Kimrey, Esq. VEDDER AND PRICE 222 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 609-7810 E-mail: bclark@vedderprice.com bkimrey@vedderprice.com - and - Matthew Allen Jacober, Esq. LATHROP & GAGE LLP 7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 500 Clayton, MI 63105 Telephone: (314) 613-2800 Facsimile: (314) 613-2801 E-mail: mjacober@lathropgage.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200. * * * End of Transmission * * *