/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140908.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 8, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 178 Headlines 1-800 FLOWERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages A PLUS LAMINATION: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act ABICO INC: Food Preparers Sue in Virginia Over Unpaid Overtime ABIOMED INC: First Circuit Appeal Process Ongoing ACCURATE COLLECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Claims Resolution Process Now Completed AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Australia Unit Faces Traffic Forecast Claims AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Facing Class Actions Over URS Corp Merger AVX CORPORATION: Parties Seek Modification of Class Definition BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Approves $32MM TCPA Class Action Settlement BISTRO 320: Faces "Altorre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Expects to Fund Settlement Notice Publication BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces 23,000+ Mesh Product Liability Claims CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Loan Interest CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Cir. Appeal on Stock Sale Fully Briefed CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Oklahoma Suit CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Provides Updates on Okla. and Pa. Class Suits CHUALAR HARVESTING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims CITI MORTGAGE: Homeowners Lose Bid to Revive Mortgage Fee Suit COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Couple Seeks Review of Class Action Dismissal CRAVATH SWAINE: Discriminates Against Haitian Employee, Suit Says CTOWN LLC: "Batista" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages DELCATH SYSTEMS: Securities Litigation Proceeding With Discovery DESJARDINS BANK: Fails to Give Equal Access, Disabled Person Says EASTERN ACCOUNT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims EBAY INC: Faces Class Action Over "Buyer Always Wins" Policy GATSO USA: Class Action Challenges Automated Traffic Cameras HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Has Reached $1.1-Bil. Deal Over Oil Spill HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Faces Suit Over Motorcycle Design Defect HEALTH NET: Washington Case Transferred to N.D. California HEALTH NET: Court Granted Final OK of Settlement in 3 Actions HOWARD LIPSTEIN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act HUGOTON ROYALTY: Decision Issued in XTO Dispute Arbitration HUGOTON ROYALTY: "Roderick" Case Certification Reversed HUGOTON ROYALTY: Chieftain Royalty Certification Reversed INTL FCSTONE: Filed Motion to Dismiss Securities Action J.C. EHRLICH: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Hayes" Suit Claims JTEKT CORPORATION: Accused of Manipulating Vehicle Bearing Prices KEURIG GREEN: 2nd Cir. Set October Oral Argument in LAMPERS Suit KEURIG GREEN: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Fifield" Case KEURIG GREEN: Preliminary Injunction Hearing Held KING SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Martin" Suit Says LA CASA ANAHEIM: Faces Suit Arising From ADA Non-Compliance LINDSEY MANAGEMENT: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT LOGMEIN INC: Faces "Handy" Suit Over Ignition App Subscription MADISON SQUARE: Court Denied Motions to Dismiss Antitrust Suits MDC MANUFACTURING: "Pacual" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime MIT TRUCKING: Removed "Fajardo" Suit to Florida District Court NVIDIA CORP: Appeal in Securities Suit Still Under Submission ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Reimbursement of Attorneys Fees PARKCENTRAL GLOBAL: Class Cert. Denied in Suit Over Fund Collapse PATRIOT PAWS: Faces "Fry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages POWERSECURE INT'L: Faces Securities Class Action in E.D.N.C. REED ELSEVIER: Terminated Client Manager Due to Race, Suit Claims SECURITY SERVICE: Sued for Not Having Handicap-Accessible Parking SPECTRUM CLUB: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fox" Suit Claims STATE FARM: Accused of Fraud by Long-Term Care Insurance Holder STATE FARM: Seeks Dismissal of Collision Repair Class Action SW GROUP: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TRINET GROUP: Facing Worksite Employees Class Actions UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Removed "Salovitz" Suit to W.D. Texas UNION BANKSHARES: Dist. Court Okayed MOU & Class Action Accord WALTER ENERGY: "Moore" Case in N.D. Ala. Currently Stayed WALTER ENERGY: Stay Relief Bid and Briefing Schedule Due WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, Action Claims ********* 1-800 FLOWERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Maria S. Navarrete, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. 1-800 Flowers Team Services, Inc., d/b/a The Popcorn Factory, Case No. 1:14-cv-06724 (N.D. Ill., August 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 1-800 Flowers Team Services, Inc. manufactures food and snack food. The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 South State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com A PLUS LAMINATION: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos M. Arias v. A Plus Lamination & Finishing, Inc., Florida corporation and Nubia Perez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-23199 (S.D. Fla., August 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A Plus Lamination & Finishing, Inc. is a Florida corporation that specializes in film laminating, spot U.V coating, U.V coating, die cutting, mounting, binding, gluing, and all types of finishing services for the printing industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin Eric Leach, Esq. FEILER & LEACH 901 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134-3009 Telephone: (305) 441-8818 Facsimile: 441-8081 E-mail: mel@flmlegal.com ABICO INC: Food Preparers Sue in Virginia Over Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Velarde, and Angel Deleon v. Abico, Inc., (d.b.a. Lebanese Taverna Market) and David Abi-Najim, Case No. 1:14-cv-01124-LMB- TCB (E.D. Va., September 2, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs at the premium rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for those hours worked. The Plaintiffs work as food preparers in the Defendants' restaurant -- the Lebanese Taverna Market, located in Arlington, Virginia. Abico is a Virginia corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Arlington, Virginia. Abi-Najim is the treasurer, a manager, and part-owner of the Company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phillip B. Leiser, Esq. THE LEISER LAW FIRM, PLLC 1749 Old Meadow Road, Suite 630 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Telephone: (703) 734-5000 Facsimile: (703) 734-6000 E-mail: pbleiser@leiserlaw.com ABIOMED INC: First Circuit Appeal Process Ongoing ------------------------------------------------- Abiomed 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 November 16 and 19, 2012, two purported class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by alleged purchasers of its common stock, on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired securities of the Company between August 5, 2011 and October 31, 2012. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to the FDA and the marketing and labeling of the Company's Impella 2.5 product and seek damages in an unspecified amount. The Court consolidated these complaints and a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on May 20, 2013. On July 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action. Oral arguments on the Company's motion to dismiss were conducted before the presiding district court judge on September 18, 2013. "On April 10, 2014, the U.S. District Court entered an order granting our motion and dismissed the consolidated and amended complaint. On May 9, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and subsequently filed their appellate brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on July 16, 2014. The appeal process remains ongoing," the company said. Abiomed, Inc. is a provider of mechanical circulatory support devices and offers a continuum of care in heart recovery to heart failure patients. The Company develops, manufactures and markets proprietary products that are designed to enable the heart to rest, heal and recover by improving blood flow and/or performing the pumping function of the heart. The Company's products are used in the cardiac catheterization lab, or cath lab, by interventional cardiologists and in the heart surgery suite by heart surgeons for patients who are in need of hemodynamic support prophylactically or emergently before, during or after angioplasty or heart surgery procedures. ACCURATE COLLECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Siegried, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Accurate Collection Services and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:14-cv-05471-FSH-JBC (D.N.J., September 2, 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 ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Claims Resolution Process Now Completed --------------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, 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 U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle Division) approved a class action settlement in January 2009 related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking for damages allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their decks. The settlement includes decking material purchased from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2007, along with decking material purchased after December 31, 2007 that was manufactured before October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced into the manufacturing process. In 2008, the Company accrued an estimated $2.9 million for resolving claims. In the third quarter of 2009, the Company increased its estimate of costs to be incurred in resolving claims under the settlement by $5.1 million. The estimate was revised due to events that occurred and information that became available after the second quarter of 2009 concerning primarily the number of claims received. The deadline for submitting new claims has now passed. The claim resolution process had an annual net cost limitation to the Company of $2.0 million. The claims resolution process is now completed. AERT, founded in 1988, recycles polyethylene plastic and develops, manufactures, and markets composite building materials that are used in place of traditional wood or plastic products for exterior applications in building and remodeling homes and for certain other industrial or commercial building purposes. The Company's products are made primarily from approximately equal amounts of waste wood fiber, which have been cleaned, sized and reprocessed, and recycled polyethylene plastics which have been cleaned, processed, and reformulated utilizing our patented and proprietary technologies. Its products have been extensively tested, and are sold by leading national companies such as BlueLinx Corporation (BlueLinx), Lowe's Companies, Inc. (Lowe's) and Therma-Tru Corporation. The Company's products are primarily used in renovation and remodeling by consumers, homebuilders, and contractors as an exterior environmentally responsible building alternative for decking, railing, and trim products. BlueLinx Corporation is the Company's primary distributor for its ChoiceDek(R) products, which are sold exclusively by Lowe's. AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Australia Unit Faces Traffic Forecast Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- In 2005 and 2006, AECOM Technology Corporation's main Australian subsidiary, AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast assignment for a client consortium as part of their project to design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in Australia. To fund the motorway's design and construction, the client formed certain special purpose vehicles (SPV) that raised approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately an additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank loans. The SPV (and certain affiliated SPVs) went into insolvency administrations in February 2011. KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPV and certain affiliated SPVs (the RCM Applicants), caused a lawsuit to be filed against AECOM Australia by the RCM Applicants in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012. Portigon AG (formerly WestLB AG), one of the lending banks to the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against AECOM Australia on May 18, 2012. Separately, a class action lawsuit, which has been amended to include approximately 770 of the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM Australia in the Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012. AECOM Technology 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 all of the lawsuits claim damages that purportedly resulted from AECOM Australia's role in connection with the traffic forecast. The RCM Applicants have claimed damages of approximately $1.68 billion Australian dollars (including interest, as of March 31, 2014). The damages claimed by Portigon as of June 17, 2014 were also recently quantified at approximately $76 million Australian dollars (including interest). This claim is duplicative of damages already included in the RCM Applicants' claim to the extent Portigon receives a portion of the RCM Applicants' recovery. The class action applicants claim that they represent investors who acquired approximately $155 million Australian dollars of securities. AECOM Australia disputes the claimed entitlements to damages asserted by all applicants and is vigorously defending the claims brought against it. The likely resolution of these matters cannot be reasonably determined at this time. However, if these matters are not resolved in AECOM Australia's favor then, depending upon the outcomes, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations. AECOM Technology Corporation provides professional technical and management support services for public and private clients around the world. AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Facing Class Actions Over URS Corp Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- AECOM Technology 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 connection with the definitive merger agreement entered on July 11, 2014, to acquire URS Corporation, beginning on July 21, 2014, five putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported URS Corporation stockholders: Falato v. URS Corp., et al., Case No. 9921; City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Creel, et al., Case No. 9924; Petroutson v. URS Corp., et al., Case No. 9938; Miller v. URS Corp., et al., Case No. 9939; and Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System v. Creel, et al., Case No. 9975. The actions name as defendants URS Corporation, the members of the URS Corporation board of directors, AECOM, and two merger subsidiaries of AECOM formed for purposes of effecting the merger. Two of the actions also names as a defendant JANA Partners LLC. The complaints allege, among other things, that AECOM and its merger subsidiaries aided and abetted alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by URS Corporation and its board of directors. The complaints seek, among other relief, class certification, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and damages. AECOM believe the lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against them. AECOM Technology Corporation provides professional technical and management support services for public and private clients around the world. AVX CORPORATION: Parties Seek Modification of Class Definition -------------------------------------------------------------- AVX 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 November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in South Carolina State Court by individuals as a class action with respect to property adjacent to the Company's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming property values have been negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants from the Company's property. "During the quarter ended June 30, 2014, the parties agreed to seek Court modification of the definition of the plaintiff class. In the event such modification is allowed by the Court, the parties have also agreed to jointly recommend to the Court a settlement the action. Any settlement will be subject to Court review and approval. Although the final amount of such settlement, if approved by the Court, depends on the number of participating class members, the maximum amount, if all class members participate, would be $1,200,000," the Company said. "Based on our estimate of potential outcomes, we accrued $1,000,000 and $1,200,000 with respect to this case as of March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014, respectively. We can give no assurance, however, that this action will be resolved on the terms indicated above. If it is not so resolved, we intend to continue to defend vigorously the claims asserted." AVX is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of a broad line of passive electronic components. The Company also manufactures and supplies high-quality electronic connectors and interconnect systems for use in electronic products. BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Approves $32MM TCPA Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Siegel and Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge has approved a $32 million settlement resolving a class action alleging Bank of America Corp. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, an amount the parties claim is the largest recovery ever obtained in a finalized TCPA settlement, according to an order filed on Aug. 29 approving the deal. U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila's approval of the settlement resolves claims that Bank of America and FIA Card Services NA violated the TCPA through the use of automatic telephone dialing systems and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice without obtaining prior express consent from the individuals contacted. However Judge Davila awarded lower attorneys' fees than the $8 million class counsel initially asked for, finding the lodestar multiplier used was unreasonable high. The ruling certifies a class for settlement purposes including all individuals who received allegedly unauthorized automated phone calls from Bank of America regarding mortgage loan and credit card accounts between 2007 and 2013. The class also includes recipients of allegedly unauthorized text messages from 2009 to 2010, for a total of roughly 7 million class members. Judge Davila said that given the scope of the litigation, the settlement agreement is the most reasonable and efficient way to settle potentially millions of claims. The defendants deny all liability or wrongdoing of any kind, according to the settlement agreement. "Even if plaintiffs prevailed at trial, the sheer size of the award against defendants, who could be liable for $500 or $1,500 per violation for potentially millions of violations, would likely raise significant post-trial concerns," Judge Davila said. "Such an award would almost certainly be appealed, potentially reversed and litigation would not be resolved for a significant amount of time." In addition to the monetary portion of the settlement, Bank of America has developed significant enhancements to its servicing systems which are designed to prevent the calling of a cellphone unless a loan servicing record is systematically coded to reflect the customer's prior express consent to receive calls via their cell phone. Jonathan D. Selbin of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, who represents the class plaintiffs, told Law360 that he welcomed the court's approval of the $32 million settlement, calling it the largest TCPA settlement to receive final approval of which he is aware. Earlier this year, Capital One Financial Corp. and three collections agencies agreed to pay almost $75.5 million to settle a consolidated TCPA class action, but that deal has yet to receive final approval. Mr. Selbin said the changes to Bank of America's calling practices will ensure greater TCPA compliance with respect to millions of its customers. "It will no longer be robo-calling people on their cellphones without their express consent," Mr. Selbin said. However, despite approving the settlement agreement, Judge Davila trimmed the class counsel's initial fee request of $8 million down to $2.4 million, saying that a fee of 25 percent of the total recovery amount was not warranted in this case, and that the class counsel's suggested lodestar multiplier was unreasonably high. Judge Davila noted that the plaintiffs' counsel had appeared to use a litigation strategy of attempting to "overwhelm" the defendants by filing multiple similar actions, thus forcing them to negotiate from a weaker position. As a result, Judge Davila said class members were inappropriately asked to pay the costs of litigating six separate actions with a total of 18 attorneys and eight paralegals working on similar cases. Judge Davila also said the coding changes Bank of America is implementing will classify a number of class members as having already provided express consent, so they will likely continue to receive phone calls and text messages. Combined with the fact class counsel provided an estimate that most class members will receive an average recovery of between $20 to $40 and not the maximum amount of $500 or $1,500, Judge Davila said the use of a high multiplier is unwarranted. Mr. Selbin told Law360 that he was disappointed in Judge Davila's fee ruling, saying it doesn't account for the significance of the changes to Bank of America's calling practices. "We are disappointed in the fee ruling, which, respectfully, we think is based upon a misunderstanding of the record and a misapplication of controlling Ninth Circuit law," Mr. Selbin said. "But we are pleased that he approved the settlement." Stephanie Rose is represented by Jonathan D. Selbin of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and the Law Office of Douglas J. Campion. Bank of America and FIA are represented by Felicia Yu -- fyu@reedsmith.com -- Marc Lackner -- mlackner@reedsmith.com -- and Abraham Colman -- acolman@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP. The case is Rose v. Bank of America Corp. et al., case number 5:11-cv-02390, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. BISTRO 320: Faces "Altorre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Alatorre, Rodolfo Castillo, and Wenceslao Adorno Otero individually and on behalf of others similarly under 29 U.S.C. v. Bistro 320 Inc. (d/b/a "Bistro Cafe"), Min Kim Cheol, In S Kim, In S Rim and Qwang Seok Song, Case No. 1:14-cv-07050 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation. The Defendants own and operate a deli and salad bar located at 320 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022 known as Bistro Cafe. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Expects to Fund Settlement Notice Publication ---------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific 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 fewer than ten individual lawsuits remain pending in various state and federal jurisdictions against Guidant Corporation (Guidant) alleging personal injuries associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in certain 2005 and 2006 product communications. "Further, we are aware of approximately 30 Guidant product liability lawsuits pending in international jurisdictions associated with defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices involved in the 2005 and 2006 product communications. Six of these suits are pending in Canada and were filed as class actions, four of which are stayed pending the outcome of two lead class actions," the Company said. On April 10, 2008, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. On May 8, 2009, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom pacemakers were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. The Company said, "In each case, these matters generally seek monetary damages from us. The parties in the defibrillator class action have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for approximately $3 million. The presiding judge approved the settlement at a hearing on March 24, 2014. We paid the initial required payments during the second quarter of 2014 and expect to fund the publication of the settlement notice during the third quarter of 2014." Boston Scientific Corporation is a worldwide developer, manufacturer and marketer of medical devices that are used in a broad range of interventional medical specialties. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces 23,000+ Mesh Product Liability Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific 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 as of August 5, 2014, there were over 23,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse pending against the Company. The cases are pending in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also less than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of three putative class actions, and less than 10 claims in the United Kingdom. The Company said, "Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 1,700 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts." "On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. "While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. We intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us; however, the final resolution is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity." Boston Scientific Corporation is a worldwide developer, manufacturer and marketer of medical devices that are used in a broad range of interventional medical specialties. CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Loan Interest ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jamelle Wells, writing for ABC News, reports that a Federal Court ruling has paved the way for a class action by 40,000 people against Australia's largest pawn broking service Cash Converters. Two class actions have been filed in the Federal Court on behalf of Cash Converters customers in NSW. Law firm Maurice Blackburn says the customers were charged illegal levels of interest of up to 633 per cent on personal loans. Cash Converters denies the allegation and has applied to have the case struck out. The company argued that its fees were legal and that western Sydney pensioner and grandmother Julie Gray -- who is leading the class action -- is only entitled to act on behalf of some customers, not all NSW customers, as she is doing. The full bench of the Federal Court, comprised of Justices Jacobson, Middleton and Gordon, allowed the Cash Converters application for leave to appeal an earlier decision but dismissed it with costs. The customers are seeking about $40 million compensation and their case is expected to be heard next year. Between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2013, the interest rate cap on loans in NSW was 48 per cent. Maurice Blackburn principal Ben Slade said the ruling was a victory for all class actions in Australia where one person lodges a case on behalf of others, including those who may not have a claim against each defendant. "[The] judgment is an important result in the Cash Converters process because it makes it clear that the class action can cover all Cash Converters customers that were subjected to these exorbitant interest rates statewide, rather than limiting it to customers of the one outlet in Penrith," Mr. Slade said. "It's a sensible decision, and it reinforces the role of class actions working as an efficient legal remedy for large numbers of people affected by the same mass wrong. "This ruling, and this case more broadly, are further examples of how a mature and effectively functioning class actions regime such as ours here in Australia is able to provide people with access to real remedies and real justice in circumstances where they wouldn't otherwise stand a chance." CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Cir. Appeal on Stock Sale Fully Briefed --------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action was filed on February 25, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock offering. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 11, 2009 alleging that the registration statement for the offering contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an unspecified amount and rescission. The action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on October 13, 2009. Chesapeake and the officer and director defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of loss causation and materiality on December 28, 2011, and the motion was granted as to all claims as a matter of law on March 29, 2013. Final judgment in favor of Chesapeake and the officer and director defendants was entered on June 21, 2013, and the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July 19, 2013 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed and oral argument was held on May 14, 2014. "We are currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss associated with this matter," the Company said. A derivative action relating to the July 2008 offering filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on September 6, 2011 is pending. Following the denial on September 28, 2012 of its motion to dismiss and pursuant to court order, nominal defendant Chesapeake filed an answer in the case on October 12, 2012. By stipulation between the parties, the case is stayed pending resolution of the Tenth Circuit appeal of the 2009 securities class action. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Oklahoma Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on July 8, 2014, affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and the time for further appeal has expired, Chesapeake Energy 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. A putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on April 26, 2012 against the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Aubrey K. McClendon. On July 20, 2012, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, which filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2012 against the Company, Mr. McClendon and certain other officers. The amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misrepresentations regarding the Company's asset monetization strategy, including liabilities associated with its volumetric production payment (VPP) transactions, as well as Mr. McClendon's personal loans and the Company's internal controls. On December 6, 2012, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. On April 10, 2013, the Court granted the motion, and on April 16, 2013, entered judgment against the plaintiff and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on July 8, 2014, and the time for further appeal has expired. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Provides Updates on Okla. and Pa. Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy 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 regarding royalty claims, Chesapeake and other natural gas producers have been named in various lawsuits alleging royalty underpayment. The Company said, "The suits against us allege, among other things, that we used below-market prices, made improper deductions, used improper measurement techniques and/or entered into arrangements with affiliates that resulted in underpayment of royalties in connection with the production and sale of natural gas and NGL. The Company has resolved a number of these claims through negotiated settlements of past and future royalties and has prevailed in various other lawsuits. We are currently defending lawsuits seeking damages for royalty underpayment in various states, including cases filed by individual royalty owners and putative class actions, some of which seek to certify a statewide class." "We believe losses are reasonably possible in certain of the pending royalty cases for which we have not made a loss accrual, but we are currently unable to estimate an amount or range of loss or the impact the actions could have on our future results of operations or cash flows. Plaintiffs have varying royalty provisions in their respective leases and oil and gas law varies from state to state. "Royalty owners and producers differ in their interpretation of the legal effect of lease provisions governing royalty calculations, an issue in a class action filed in 2010 on behalf of Oklahoma royalty owners asserting claims dating back to 2004. In July 2014, this case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings following the reversal on appeal of certification of a statewide class. "In Pennsylvania, two putative statewide class actions and one purported class arbitration were filed in 2014 on behalf of royalty owners asserting various claims for damages related to alleged underpayment of royalties as a result of the Company's divestiture of substantially all of its midstream business and most of its gathering assets in 2012 and 2013. These Pennsylvania cases include claims for violation of and conspiracy to violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Uncertainties in pending royalty cases generally include the complex nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class in class actions, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, and the applicable production years. "Based on management's current assessment, we are of the opinion that no pending or threatened lawsuit or dispute relating to the Company's business operations is likely to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The final resolution of such matters could exceed amounts accrued, however, and actual results could differ materially from management's estimates." CHUALAR HARVESTING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Chualar Harvesting stiffed workers for overtime and violated other labor laws, a class action claims in Monterey County Court. CITI MORTGAGE: Homeowners Lose Bid to Revive Mortgage Fee Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Fair, David McAfee and Jeff Overley, writing for Law360, report that a Pennsylvania federal judge on Aug. 29 nixed a bid by a pair of homeowners to revive a putative class action against Citi Mortgage Inc. over allegedly improperly foreclosure fees and costs after finding that the claims did not pass muster under the state's consumer protection law. U.S. District Court Judge Mark Hornak on Aug. 28 shot down the proposed second amended complaint after finding that bills for allegedly improper foreclosure-related fees and costs, which plaintiffs in the case said had acted as a lien that diminished the value of their home, did not trigger a claim under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law for a loss of money or property due to a defendant's deceptive conduct. "As the law now stands in Pennsylvania, there is no controlling legal authority to support plaintiffs' theory that sending a payment demand automatically put a 'lien' on their property, thereby diminishing their property's value and triggering a UTPCPL claim, nor do plaintiffs cite to any Pennsylvania law saying so," the opinion said. "Simply put, plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that they suffered any loss of 'money or property' through the mere issuance of payment demands on Citi's behalf." The amended complaint would have revived class claims against Citi, which Judge Hornack rejected in March after agreeing that the complaint was based on unique allegations concerning each of the plaintiffs' particular interactions with Citi. The case stems from a loan that plaintiffs Alexandra Trunzo and Anthony Hlista took out in 2007, and ultimately defaulted on in 2010, for a home in the Pittsburgh suburb of Bethel Park. According to court records, the couple talked to Citi about a new arrangement that would let them keep their home and within days submitted payment, only to receive a foreclosure notice declaring "all reasonable efforts afforded you to cure this default have failed." Soon after, Citi turned over its servicing rights to Seterus Inc., and questions about the foreclosure process were directed to law firm and debt collector Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg LLP. Both Seterus and Phelan Hallinan are likewise named as defendants in the case. According to court documents, the borrowers were subsequently deluged with "multiple conflicting reinstatement letters" and a "hodgepodge of conflicting numbers," many of which the couple disputes, about how to return their loan to good standing. The opinion cited the fact that another federal judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania in March rejected a similar argument leveled by the plaintiff's counsel in a separate case against Bank of America Corp. involving a separate pair of homeowners. As part of his opinion, Judge Hornak also granted a motion for reconsideration filed by Phelan Halinan asking that claims brought against both the firm and Seterus for alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law, also known as Act 6, over allegedly excessive fees and costs. Judge Hornak pointed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court's April decision in Glover v. Udren Law Offices PC, finding that Act 6 only allowed for plaintiffs to recoup unauthorized fees from residential mortgage lenders. While Hornack's decision affirmed that class claims against Citi could not move forward, several claims against Seterus and Phelan Hallinan under the Pennsylvania consumer protection law and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment, remain alive. Michael Malakoff, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told Law360 that he was pleased to have a chance to litigate the remaining claims against the three defendants. "We were happy that the district court retained virtually all of his favorable prior rulings against the three defendants," he said. "We look forward to establishing of record the facts necessary to obtain a judgment on the many claims we asserted in our complaint, including class claims, that the district court deemed viable." Plaintiffs are represented by Michael P. Malakoff of Michael P. Malakoff PC. Citi is represented by Thomas R. Johnson of K&L Gates LLP and Debra Bogo-Ernst -- dernst@mayerbrown.com -- and Lucia Nale -- lnale@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP. The case is Alexandra R. Trunzo et al. v. Citi Mortgage et al., case number 2:11-cv-01124, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Couple Seeks Review of Class Action Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Westney and Kaitlin Ugolik, writing for Law360, report that a Missouri couple has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Eighth Circuit's dismissal of their proposed class action against Countrywide Home Loans Inc. over allegedly unauthorized mortgage fees, claiming the decision permits defendants to dodge state law claims by removing cases to federal court. Attorneys for Jerry and Golda Washington claimed the circuit court created an unconstitutionally conflicting system of laws by rejecting a Missouri Court of Appeals decision applying a six-year statute of limitations under state law to civil claims, arguing that the decision promotes forum-shopping by defendants looking to escape such claims via a three-year federal court limit. The Eighth Circuit should have deferred to the Court of Appeals' decision, but wrongly relied on an earlier circuit court opinion that found Missouri's six-year limit applied only to criminal claims and predicted that the Supreme Court of Missouri would overturn the lower court judgment, according to the petition. "The Eighth Circuit has created and is now impermissibly and unjustly perpetuating a double system of conflicting laws within the same state, apparently without concern for the fact that its decision to cut a state statute of limitations in half has created a situation where state law claims timely filed in state court become barred by limitations upon removal to federal court," the petition states. The Washingtons filed a complaint in Missouri state court in May 2008, alleging that Countrywide had charged extra, unauthorized fees in connection with their April 2005 loan that were used to determine prepaid interest before eventually being returned, in violation of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act. The suit was filed within the six-year statute of limitations for state civil law claims under the Missouri Court of Appeals' 2006 decision in Schwartz v. Bann-Cor Mortgage, according to the petition. In June 2008, Countrywide removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, which possessed diversity jurisdiction in the case, the petition states. The trial court dismissed the Washingtons' claims as barred by a three-year statute of limitations, based on the Eighth Circuit's July 2012 decision in Rashaw v. United Consumers Credit Union that Missouri's six-year limit applied to criminal claims but not civil claims, according to the petition. In March, the Eighth Circuit upheld the district court decision and its reliance on Rashaw, which held that the Court of Appeals had misinterpreted Missouri law and predicted that the Missouri Supreme Court would overturn its decision in Schwartz, the petition states. The Eighth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc in May, the petition states. The Washingtons argue that the Eighth Circuit was constitutionally required to follow the Court of Appeals decision, as it provided binding precedent after the Supreme Court of Missouri declined to hear the case. A federal court should treat an intermediate appellate ruling as presumptively dispositive when a state's highest court hasn't decided the controlling issue of state law, the petition states. State intermediate appellate courts like the Missouri Court of Appeals are increasingly taking on the function of deciding state law rules that state supreme courts have historically performed, due to the high courts' workload, according to the petition. The Washingtons asked that the Supreme Court establish a definitive rule on the deference due to intermediate appellate courts, and on whether circuit courts have to follow their earlier predictions as precedent in the absence of an intervening state court opinion or legislation. Countrywide waived its right to respond to the petition on Aug. 28. The Washingtons are represented by Kip D. Richards -- krichards@wbsvlaw.com -- R. Frederick Walters -- fwalters@wbsvlaw.com -- J. Michael Vaughan and David M. Skeens -- dskeens@wbsvlaw.com -- of Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan PC. Countrywide is represented by Thomas M. Hefferon -- thefferon@goodwinprocter.com -- William M. Jay and Joseph Yenouskas -- jyenouskas@goodwinprocter.com -- of Goodwin Procter LLP and Mark A. Olthoff -- molthoff@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli PC. The case is Jerry W. Washington et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., case number 14-219 on petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. CRAVATH SWAINE: Discriminates Against Haitian Employee, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mireille Mesias v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Case No. 1:14-cv- 07070-KBF (S.D.N.Y., September 2, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff has been subjected to adverse employment actions, a hostile work environment, or an atmosphere of adverse employment actions due to her gender and national origin in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Executive Law, the Human Rights Law, and the New York City Administrative Code. Ms. Mireille is a Haitian female. She is 59 years old, and her birthday is January 29, 1955. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP is a corporate entity with a principal place of business located in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Ricotta, Esq. WHITE, RICOTTA & MARKS, P.C. 86-12 37th Avenue, Second Floor Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Telephone: (347) 464-8694 Facsimile: (516) 483-4508 E-mail: tricotta@NewYorkStateEmploymentAttorney.com CTOWN LLC: "Batista" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Santos Batista and all others non-exempt employees similarly situated v. Ctown, LLC a/k/a Ctown, Pedro Diaz and Jesus Diaz at al., Case No. 1:14-cv-05128 (E.D.N.Y., August 29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a supermarket, which maintains a principal place of business at 85-08 37th Avenue, Corona, New York 11368. The Plaintiff is represented by: Harley S. Fastman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HARLEY FASTMAN 2001 Marcus Avenue Suite S90 Lake Success, NY 11042 Telephone: (516) 437-7300 Facsimile: (516) 706-7774 E-mail: harley@harleyfastman.com DELCATH SYSTEMS: Securities Litigation Proceeding With Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Delcath Systems 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 8, 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bryan Green, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Green"), Case No. 1:13-cv-03116-LGS. On June 14, 2013, a substantially similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Joseph Connico, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Connico"), Case No. 1:13-cv-04131-LGS. At a hearing on August 2, 2013, the Court consolidated the Green and Connico actions under the caption In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-3116, appointed Lead Plaintiff, Delcath Investor Group, and approved Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as Lead Plaintiff's choice of counsel. On September 18, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming the Company and Eamonn P. Hobbs as defendants (the "Defendants"). The consolidated amended complaint asserts that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's New Drug Application for its Melblez Kit (Melblez (melphalan) for Injection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System), for the treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic ocular melanoma in the liver. The putative class period alleged in the amended complaint is April 21, 2010 through and including September 13, 2013. Lead Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On October 31, 2013, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, which was subsequently denied on June 27, 2014. On July 25, 2014, Defendants filed their respective answers to Lead Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint. On July 29, 2014, the Court held a scheduling conference setting forth a case management plan. The parties are proceeding with discovery. The Company believes that the In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation action lacks merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Delcath Systems, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company focused on oncology. Our proprietary product -- Melphalan Hydrochloride for Injection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System (Melphalan HDS) -- is designed to administer high dose chemotherapy to the liver, while controlling the systemic exposure to those agents. The Company's principal focus is on the treatment of primary and metastatic liver cancers. DESJARDINS BANK: Fails to Give Equal Access, Disabled Person Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tal Hilson v. Desjardins Bank N.A., Case No. 0:14-cv-61975-WJZ (S.D. Fla., August 28, 2014) arises from the Defendant's alleged failure and refusal to provide disabled persons with full and equal access to its facilities. The Plaintiff has a disability known as cerebral palsy resulting in an impairment in motor and sensory function of the lower half of his body, and requires use of a wheelchair for mobility. In August 2014, he visited the Defendant's facility located in Hallandale Beach, Florida. Desjardins Bank N.A. is the lessee, operator, owner and lessor of the real property where the facility is located. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Cohen, Esq. MARK D. COHEN, P.A. Presidential Circle, Suite #435 So. 4000 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 962-1166 Facsimile: (954) 962-1779 E-mail: mdcohenpa@yahoo.com EASTERN ACCOUNT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- The Estate of Theresa Torsiello by Vincent Torsiello Executor, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated v. Eastern Account System of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05460-JAP-DEA (D.N.J., August 29, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. McGinn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MCGINN 75 Raritan Avenue, Suite 220 New Brunswick, NJ 08904 Telephone: (732) 937-9400 Facsimile: (800) 931-2408 E-mail: mcginn.chris@gmail.com - and - Daniel Ivan Rubin, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 E-mail: drubin@wolflawfirm.net EBAY INC: Faces Class Action Over "Buyer Always Wins" Policy ------------------------------------------------------------ Ina Steiner, writing for EcommerceBytes.com, reports that an eBay seller filed a class action lawsuit against eBay and PayPal for, among other things, Breach of Contract and Unfair Business Practices, alleging that eBay has created a "buyer always wins" policy to the detriment of sellers, and touching upon several eBay and PayPal practices that are commonly criticized by sellers. The lawsuit alleges eBay fails to refund 100 percent of sellers' fees when a transaction is not completed, and alleges that PayPal deprives sellers access to their money by placing 21-day holds and reserves on sellers funds. The lawsuit also alleges that eBay forces buyers to bring their disputes with sellers into the eBay Resolution Center rather than allowing the buyer to settle his or her dispute directly with the seller, and it alleges that this practice adversely affects sellers' Detailed Seller Ratings. Buyer Always Wins in Disputes? Maggie Campbell sells bicycles and bicycle parts on eBay, according to her lawsuit, and has entered into approximately 4,500 legally binding contracts with buyers since 2007. Ms. Campbell alleges that under eBay's Buyer Protection Policy, the company is required to consider documentation provided by seller that show when a buyer's claim has no merit. "However, in these Buyer Protection Policy claims that are filed by buyers, Defendant eBay, Inc. has breached its User Agreement with the Plaintiff (and class) by refusing to consider documentation provided by the Plaintiff showing that buyers' claims are without merit." The lawsuit alleges that eBay has established a policy in deciding these buyers' claims that the buyer is always right. "The decisions made by eBay in the resolution center always favor the buyer. eBay does not and will not review the facts of the case to arrive at a fair resolution of the dispute between the buyer and the seller," the lawsuit alleges, which continues: "During the past 4 years, there have been in excess of 130 occasions wherein Plaintiff was damaged as a result of eBay enforcing its "Buyer Always Wins" policy." Ms. Campbell alleges eBay forces buyers to bring disputes with the seller into eBay's Resolution Center rather than allowing the buyer to settle his or her dispute directly with the seller. "Defendant eBay Inc. does not want buyers talking to sellers, and vice versa," according to the complaint. eBay Fails to Refund All Commission Fees for Rescinded Sales? The lawsuit also alleges that eBay fails to credit back to sellers Final Value Fees when sales are rescinded. "In the past 3 years, there have been many rescinded sales transactions in which Defendant eBay, Inc. has failed and refused to credit back to the Plaintiff (and class) the Final Value Fees that were associated with the rescinded sales." In addition, Ms. Campbell alleges that eBay has "nixed" international sales by refusing to allow international buyers to pay for her items through PayPal, and claimed that on at least 45 occasions over the last 2 years, eBay failed to reimburse her for Final Value Fees where it caused her sales agreements with her buyers to be rescinded. Ms. Campbell filed her fourth amended complaint on August 20, 2014. GATSO USA: Class Action Challenges Automated Traffic Cameras ------------------------------------------------------------ B.A. Morelli, writing for The Gazette, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed on Sept. 2 is challenging automated traffic cameras that Cedar Rapids officials say save lives and reduce crashes. The cameras came under fire after the Iowa Department of Transportation said two Interstate 380 speed cameras -- two of the most productive in the traffic enforcement program -- don't comply with state rules requiring at least 1,000 feet between a camera and speed limit change. The lawsuit claims the speed cameras fail to provide adequate notice to motorists, and that the cameras target certain motorists while thousands more are exempt from the rules. "I hope they have the traffic cameras banned entirely because I think they are unconstitutional," said plaintiff Gary Hughes of Marion. The lawsuit was filed in Linn County District Court against the City of Cedar Rapids and Gatso USA, a Delaware-based company that provides equipment and services for the camera program. The other plaintiff, Arash Yarpezeshkan of Cedar Rapids, did not have a listed phone number. Attorney James C. Larew, who is representing the plaintiffs, declined to comment. Officials from Cedar Rapids and Gatso USA did not return phone and email messages seeking comment. The speed cameras photograph motorists who violate the speed limit; from there, a civil penalty of at least $75 is issued. These violations are different from traditional speeding tickets, which go on a motorist's driving record. The lawsuit claims thousands of vehicles don't face enforcement by the cameras, creating unequal classes of citizens, some of whom are subject to the ordinance and others who are not. "That violates fundamental notions of fairness and equality under the law," the lawsuit states. According to the lawsuit: * At least 3,200 government vehicles are not listed in the database used by Cedar Rapids and Gatso to enforce the camera program. * The license plate database was purchased from the Iowa DOT, "thereby allowing, de facto, many thousands of vehicles owned and licensed by out-of-state residents to escape the imposition of civil penalties." * The technology allows only the photographing of rear-facing license plates, thus exempting more than 100,000 Iowa-based vehicles that aren't required to use rear-facing plates. The second argument claims the traffic enforcement program is "independently flawed" because Cedar Rapids has failed to provide drivers with minimally-required notice of speed limit changes, meaning drivers are denied "a reasonable and safe opportunity to reduce speeds without incurring civil penalties." The Iowa DOT notified Cedar Rapids that cameras on I-380 didn't appear to comply with the 1,000 foot rule that took effect on Feb. 12. Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett and Police Chief Wayne Jerman acknowledged the discrepancy -- 895 feet at J Avenue southbound and 860 feet at Diagonal Drive northbound -- but said the cameras will stay up and operating and ticket recipients will not be getting a refund. Mr. Corbett said he believed the cameras were "grandfathered" in. The lawsuit requests a temporary ban on enforcing the speed cameras until the conclusion of the proceeding; a permanent restriction on the automatic traffic enforcement program; and a refund for anyone fined under the program in the last two years. Cedar Rapids automated traffic cameras issued nearly 100,000 tickets worth $5.3 million in 2013, according to a report to the DOT. The city received $3.1 million of the revenue, while Gatso collected $2.1 million, according to Cedar Rapids. Since February, when the new rule took effect, the two cameras not in compliance with the DOT rules issued approximately 40,000 tickets. Mike Lahammer, a Cedar Rapids attorney, said a class action was the logical approach because of the vast amount of people affected combined with relatively small penalty amount. "I'm not sure it would pay to do it on an individual basis," he said. "Individually, how much is each person out? As a class, everybody has got a ticket and you are talking into the millions." HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Has Reached $1.1-Bil. Deal Over Oil Spill ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) spearheading the litigation emanating from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill announced on Sept. 2, 2014, that it has reached an approximately $1.1 billion settlement with Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (HESI) stemming from its role in the incident. The settlement, which will be overseen by Judge Carl A. Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana, includes two classes of eligible claimants. The first class is comprised of individuals and businesses that are class members in the existing BP Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement. As part of the PSC's settlement with BP, these class members were assigned certain of BP's claims and causes of action against HESI. The settlement with HESI resolves these "assigned" claims and provides additional benefits to members of the BP Economic and Property Damages Settlement Class. The second class is a new HESI Punitive Damages Settlement Class that includes any individual, business (including fishermen and charter boat operators), property owner, or governmental entity (excluding both state and federal government) that is deemed to have Robins Dry Dock standing under General Maritime Law. For the purposes of this settlement, this applies to commercial fishermen and charter boat operators that were in business at any time between April 20, 2009, and April 18, 2012; property owners, businesses and local governments that had oil touch their real estate or personal property any time between April 20, 2010 and April 18, 2012; and individuals that fished or hunted in specified areas and depended on their catch for subsistence, barter or trade. A claimant does not have to be a member of the BP Economic and Property Damages Settlement Class to receive benefits if they qualify as a Punitive Damages Settlement Class member. In addition, class eligibility is not mutually exclusive; certain claimants may be members of both the BP Economic and Property Damages Class and the new HESI Punitive Damages Class. "Halliburton stepped up to the plate and agreed to provide a fair measure of compensation to people and businesses harmed in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy," said Co-lead plaintiffs' attorneys, Stephen J. Herman and James P. Roy. Through the payment of this approximately $1.1 billion settlement, Halliburton has effectively resolved its liability to private plaintiffs and local governments for most of its exposure under both the OPA and General Maritime Law. Both Transocean and BP continue to have significant liabilities to private plaintiffs and state/local governmental entities. As part of the settlement process, the Court will appoint an "Allocation Special Master" who will determine what portion of the aggregate amount will be distributed to each of the two classes. Further, the Court will also appoint a claims administrator to develop a Distribution Model to determine how the funds will be distributed to individual class members. Courthouse News Service reports that Halliburton will pay $1.1 billion to settle claims related to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the company said September 2, 2014. The Houston-based oilfield services firm was named as a defendant along with BP in hundreds of lawsuits after the April 20, 2010 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, which killed 11 workers and unleashed the nation's worst offshore oil spill, from the Macondo well. Halliburton made the cement used to seal the well. The deal is subject to approval by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of New Orleans, who is set to issue a ruling on the amount of culpability that BP, Halliburton and Transocean, the rig owner, have for the disaster. Halliburton said in a statement that the settlement will take care of "a substantial majority of the plaintiffs' class claims" against the company, including punitive damage claims by property owners and commercial fishermen affected by the spill. HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Faces Suit Over Motorcycle Design Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that what was billed as a long-anticipated upgrade to Harley-Davidson Inc.'s elite custom motorcycles has become the subject of a proposed class action alleging the addition of liquid engine cooling has led to chronic leaks. Bloomingdale, Ill., plaintiff Robert Okon, owner of a 2014 FLHTKSE CVO Limited motorcycle, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 28 alleging that his $46,000 motorcycle and others in the same series have a design defect that causes coolant to constantly leak. Mr. Okon alleges that, shortly after he bought the motorcycle -- a product of Harley-Davidson's internal factory custom shop, Custom Vehicle Operations -- in September 2013, it began to leak from the area of the engine and its cooling system. He said he sought repairs six times at four authorized dealerships, but the service performed amounted to little more than refilling the coolant tank. The leak continued. Online motorcycle owner discussion boards, such as HDForums.com, indicate Mr. Okon is far from alone; there, some have given the motorcycle the sarcastic nickname "Shower Head." Until the introduction of the 2014 CVO Limited motorcycles, Harley-Davidson engines had remained air cooled even as other motorcycle brands switched to liquid cooling. Called by reviewers one of the most dramatic changes the famously conservative company has made in decades, the 2014 CVO Limited came with a Twin-Cooled High Output Twin Cam 103 engine, which is both air-and liquid- cooled. It is coolant from the new system that is leaking, which indicates a flaw in the design, owners contend. Mr. Okon alleges Harley-Davidson has violated the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty by breaching its written, 24-month, unlimited mileage warranty by not remedying the leak. He asks for actual economic damages and damages for aggravation and inconvenience. The plaintiffs are represented by Vincent DiTommaso, Peter Lubin and John Auchter of DiTommaso and Lubin P.C. HEALTH NET: Washington Case Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- Health Net Inc. is a defendant in three related litigation matters pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Northern District of California") relating to the independent contractor classification of counselors ("MFLCs") who contracted with our subsidiary, MHN Government Services, Inc. ("MHNGS"), to provide short-term, non- medical counseling at U.S. military installations throughout the country under our Military and Family Life Counseling (formerly Military and Family Life Consultants) program, the 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. On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and MHN Services d/b/a MHN Services Corporation (also a subsidiary), on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of current and former MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors in the state of Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors under Washington law and are entitled to the wages and overtime pay that they would have received had they been classified as non-exempt employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. "We moved to compel the case to arbitration, and the court denied the motion on September 30, 2011. We appealed the decision. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision on August 15, 2013. On February 26, 2014, we removed this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act," the Company said. On May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington action, as well as 12 other named plaintiffs, filed a proposed collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. They also seek penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court has since transferred the case to the Northern District of California to relate it to a virtually identical suit filed on October 2, 2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health Network, Inc. ("MHN") (also a subsidiary). The third October 2012 suit alleges misclassification under the FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class, as well under several state laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in California, New Mexico, Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and North Carolina. On October 24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll the statutes of limitations for overtime violations in the following states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The Company said, "On November 1, 2012, we moved to compel arbitration in the Northern District of California, and the court denied the motion on April 3, 2013. We noticed our appeal of that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 8, 2013. On April 25, 2013, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional FLSA collective action certification to allow notice to be sent to the FLSA collective action members. The court stayed all other proceedings pending an outcome in the Ninth Circuit appeal, which has not yet been scheduled for hearing." "On March 28, 2014, the original Washington case was transferred to the Northern District of California to relate it to the two FLSA suits pending there. On April 11, 2014, we moved to stay the suit pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. We also filed two alternative motions seeking an order to either compel the case to arbitration or dismiss Plaintiffs' class claims and California Labor Code section 226.8 claims. On June 3, 2014, the court granted our motion to stay, and denied the later alternative motions without prejudice to renewal after the stay is lifted. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims; however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties." Health Net is a publicly traded managed care organization that delivers managed health care services through health plans and government-sponsored managed care plans. HEALTH NET: Court Granted Final OK of Settlement in 3 Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Health Net Inc. is a defendant in three related litigation matters pending in California state and federal courts relating to information security issues, the 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. The Company said, "On January 21, 2011, International Business Machines Corp. ("IBM"), which handles our data center operations, notified us that it could not locate several hard disk drives that had been used in our data center located in Rancho Cordova, California. We have since determined that personal information of approximately two million former and current Health Net members, employees and health care providers is on the drives. Commencing on March 14, 2011, we provided written notification to the individuals whose information is on the drives. To help protect the personal information of affected individuals, we offered them two years of free credit monitoring services, in addition to identity theft insurance and fraud resolution and restoration of credit files services, if needed. "On March 18, 2011, a putative class action relating to this incident was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "Central District of California"), and similar actions were later filed against us in other federal and state courts in California. A number of those actions were transferred to and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (the "Eastern District of California"), and the two remaining actions are currently pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco ("San Francisco County Superior Court") and the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento ("Sacramento County Superior Court"). The consolidated amended complaint in the federal action pending in the Eastern District of California was filed on behalf of a putative class of over 800,000 of our current or former members who received the written notification, and also named IBM as a defendant. It sought to state claims for violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the California Customer Records Act, and sought statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each class member, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and other relief. "On August 29, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On January 20, 2012, the district court issued an order dismissing the consolidated complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their action in federal court. On April 20, 2012, an amended complaint with a new plaintiff was filed against us, but no longer asserted claims against IBM. The amended complaint asserted the same causes of action and sought the same relief as the earlier complaint. On June 18, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. "The San Francisco County Superior Court proceeding was instituted on March 28, 2011, and is brought on behalf of a putative class of California residents who received the written notification, and seeks to state similar claims against us, as well as claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeks similar relief. We moved to compel arbitration of the two named plaintiffs' claims. The court granted our motion as to one of the named plaintiffs and denied it as to the other. We have appealed the latter ruling, but subsequently dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the plaintiff as to whom our motion to compel arbitration was granted filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal seeking review of that ruling. On July 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Superior Court to vacate its order granting the motion to compel arbitration and to enter an order denying the motion to compel. "The Sacramento County Superior Court proceeding was instituted on April 3, 2012, and is brought on behalf of a putative class of California members whose information was contained on the unaccounted for drives. The action contains the same claims and seeks the same relief as the case pending in the Eastern District of California. On June 18, 2012, we filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of this complaint. "In July 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiffs in the three putative class actions. . . . On October 23, 2013, counsel for the named plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement with the Sacramento County Superior Court. The Court granted that motion on November 21, 2013. On June 23, 2014, the court granted final approval of the settlement. "As a result of the settlement, each of the three putative class actions described above will be dismissed with prejudice, and all class members who did not opt out will release all claims they may have related to or arising from the unaccounted-for server drives. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which covers all individuals whose personal information was identified as being on the unaccounted-for server drives, class members who did not previously accept our offer of the credit monitoring and related services described above are eligible to receive such credit monitoring and related services for a period of two years at no cost to them. Class members who previously accepted our original offer are eligible to receive one additional year of such services. In addition, under the Settlement Agreement, class members are eligible to receive reimbursement for certain unreimbursed losses arising from identity theft during a specified time period, up to a cap of $50,000 per class member, and $2 million in the aggregate. "The Settlement Agreement also provides that we will continue our ongoing activities to enhance our information security measures, including the encryption of data at rest on our servers and storage area networks. We are also responsible for the payment of the court's award of fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of approximately $2.3 million. Finally, we will be responsible for the costs of administering the Settlement Agreement. We do not expect that the terms of the Settlement Agreement will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. "We also have been informed that the incident involving the unaccounted-for server drives is under investigation by the California Department of Managed Health Care ("DMHC")." HOWARD LIPSTEIN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Donotto D. Prendergast, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Howard D. Lipstein, individually and in his official capacity; Taj Financial Services, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company; Jerome H. Zimmerman, individually and in his official capacity on behalf of TAJ Financial Services, LLC; Toby R. Zimmerman, individually and in his official capacity on behalf of Taj Financial Services, LLC; and John and Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 25, Case No. 2:14-cv- 05461-FSH-JBC (D.N.J., August 31, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: THOMASSON LAW LLC Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. 101 Hudson Street, 21st Floor Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 479-9969 Facsimile: (855) 479-9969 E-mail: andrew@thomassonllc.com HUGOTON ROYALTY: Decision Issued in XTO Dispute Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------- Hugoton Royalty Trust 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 an amended petition for a class action lawsuit, Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., was filed in January 2006 in the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma by certain royalty owners of natural gas wells in Oklahoma and Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has not properly accounted to the plaintiffs for the royalties to which they are entitled and seek an accounting regarding the natural gas and other products produced from their wells and the prices paid for the natural gas and other products produced, and for payment of the monies allegedly owed since June 2002, with a certain limited number of plaintiffs claiming monies owed for additional time. XTO Energy removed the case to federal district court in Oklahoma City. In April 2010, new counsel and representative parties, Fankhouser and Goddard, filed a motion to intervene and prosecute the Beer class, now styled Fankhouser v. XTO Energy Inc. This motion was granted on July 13, 2010. The new plaintiffs and counsel filed an amended complaint asserting new causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. On December 16, 2010, the court certified the class. Cross motions for summary judgment were filed by the parties and ruled on by the court. XTO Energy has informed Southwest Bank, as trustee, that after consideration of the rulings by the court in March and April of 2012, some benefiting XTO Energy and some benefiting the plaintiffs, and with due regard to the vagaries of litigation and their uncertain outcomes, XTO Energy and the plaintiffs entered into settlement negotiations prior to trial and reached a tentative settlement of $37 million on April 23, 2012. XTO advised the trustee that $1.4 million of the settlement was attributable to Kansas claims which predated the Trust. The settlement also included a new royalty calculation for future royalty payments. A fairness hearing was conducted on October 10, 2012 and the settlement was given final approval by the court. XTO Energy and the trustee disagreed as to whether the settlement should be charged to the trust net proceeds ($28.5 million; $23.4 million and $5.1 million affecting the net proceeds from Oklahoma and Kansas, respectively, in addition to a reduction in the net profits going forward). The matter was arbitrated by a three person tribunal and a decision was issued on April 21, 2014. As a result of the arbitration ruling, the May 2014 distribution included $4,386,396 which represents amounts withheld from the September and October 2012 distributions and $1,985,438 which represents attorney fees, arbitration expenses and interest. The amounts represent all of the required reimbursements per the arbitration ruling. The arbitration ruling also prohibits XTO Energy from charging any portion of the Fankhouser settlement (including the new royalty calculation for future royalty payments) to the trust, now or in the future. HUGOTON ROYALTY: "Roderick" Case Certification Reversed ------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. court reversed the certification of the class in the "Roderick" case and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings, Hugoton Royalty Trust 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. In September 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas. XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita, Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken post- production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from wells located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado. The plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class, including only Kansas and Oklahoma wells not part of the Fankhouser matter. After filing the motion to certify, but prior to the class certification hearing, the plaintiff filed a motion to sever the Oklahoma portion of the case so it could be transferred and consolidated with a newly filed class action in Oklahoma styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. This motion was granted. The Roderick case now comprises only Kansas wells not previously included in the Fankhouser matter. The case was certified as a class action in March 2012. XTO Energy filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 11, 2012 which was granted on June 26, 2012. The court reversed the certification of the class and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. HUGOTON ROYALTY: Chieftain Royalty Certification Reversed --------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. court reversed the certification of the class in the Chieftain Royalty Company case, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings, Hugoton Royalty Trust 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. In December 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests. The case expressly excludes those claims and wells prosecuted in the Fankhouser case. The severed Roderick case claims related to the Oklahoma portion of the case were consolidated into Chieftain. The case was certified as a class action in April 2012. XTO Energy filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012 which was granted on June 26, 2012. The court reversed the certification of the class and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. XTO Energy has informed Southwest Bank, as the trustee, that it believes that XTO Energy has strong defenses to these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend its position. However, XTO Energy has informed the Trustee that it is cognizant of other, similar litigation, such as Fankhouser, and other, unrelated entities. As these cases develop, XTO Energy will assess its legal position accordingly. If XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement payments or receives a judgment against it in Chieftain or Roderick, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that it believes that the terms of the conveyances covering the trust's net profits interests require the trust to bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment related to production from the underlying properties. Additionally, if the judgment or settlement increases the amount of future payments to royalty owners, XTO Energy has informed the trustee that the trust would bear its proportionate share of the increased payments through reduced net proceeds. In the event of any such settlement or judgment, the trustee intends to review any claimed reductions in payment to the trust based on the facts and circumstances of such settlement or judgment. In light of the arbitration tribunal's decision on treatment of the Fankhouser settlement, to the extent that the claims in Chieftain or Roderick are similar to those in Fankhouser, the trustee would likely object to such claimed reductions. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that, although the amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not presently determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is not currently expected to be material to the trust's financial position or liquidity though it could be material to the trust's annual distributable income. Additionally, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that any reductions would result in costs exceeding revenues on the properties underlying the net profit interests of the cases named above, as applicable, for several monthly distributions, depending on the size of the judgment or settlement, if any, and the net proceeds being paid at that time, which would result in the net profits interest being limited until such time that the revenues exceed the costs for those net profit interests. If there is a settlement or judgment and should XTO Energy and the trustee disagree concerning the amount of the settlement or judgment to be charged, if any, against the trust's net profits interests, the matter will be resolved by binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association under the terms of the Indenture creating the trust. INTL FCSTONE: Filed Motion to Dismiss Securities Action ------------------------------------------------------- INTL FCStone Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported class action was filed on January 13, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and claims that the Company has issued false and misleading information concerning the Company's business and prospects. The action seeks unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's shares between February 17, 2010 and December 16, 2013. During March 2014, three motions for appointment as lead plaintiff were filed; two were subsequently withdrawn, leaving a single unopposed bid for lead plaintiff appointment, an appointment that was approved by the court on April 29, 2014. The lead plaintiff's amended complaint was filed on June 13, 2014. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on July 28, 2014. The Company has not determined that losses related to this matter are probable. Because the matter is in the early stages of litigation and no discovery has been commenced, together with the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation generally, the Company does not have sufficient information to determine the amount or range of reasonably possible loss with respect to these matters. The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company's Directors' and Officers' insurance policy is expected to cover any liability and litigation costs in excess of the $0.5 million policy retention amount. INTL FCStone Inc. is a diversified, global financial services organization providing financial products and advisory and execution services that help clients access market liquidity, maximize profits and manage risk. J.C. EHRLICH: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Hayes" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian K. Hayes and William Darnell Primm, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. J.C. Ehrlich Co., Inc. d/b/a Gold Seal Termite & Pest Control Company and Elia Levin, Case No. 1:14-cv-01428 (S.D. Ind., August 29, 2014), alleges that the Defendants refused to properly pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. J.C. Ehrlich Co., Inc offers pest control services for residential and commercial purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Hunt, Esq. Philip J. Gibbons Jr., Esq. GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, PC 3091 E. 98th Street, Suite 280 Indianapolis, IN 46280 Telephone: (317) 706-1100 Facsimile: (317) 623-8503 E-mail: rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com JTEKT CORPORATION: Accused of Manipulating Vehicle Bearing Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rush Truck Centers of Arizona, Inc., Rush Truck Centers of California, Inc., Rush Truck Centers of Colorado, Inc. et al., v. JTEKT Corporation, Koyo Corporation of U.S.A., Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.; Nachi America Inc., NSK Ltd., NSK Americas, Inc., Schaeffler Group USA Inc., SKF USA, Inc., NTN Corporation; and NTN USA Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-13356 (E.D. Mich., August 29, 2014), arises from the lengthy conspiracy made by the Defendants to suppress and eliminate competition in the bearings industry by agreeing to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of vehicle bearings sold to truck manufacturers throughout the United States. The Defendants are foreign and US based manufacturers and sellers of vehicle bearings. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Manly Parks, Esq. Wayne A. Mack, Esq. DUANE MORRIS, LLP 30 S. 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4001 Telephone: (215) 979-1342 E-mail: jmparks@duanemorris.com wamack@duanemorris.com KEURIG GREEN: 2nd Cir. Set October Oral Argument in LAMPERS Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keurig Green Mountain, 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 28, 2014, that the putative securities fraud class action, captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its revenues and its inventory accounting practices. The amended complaint sought class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. Plaintiffs sought to represent all purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2, 2011 and November 9, 2011. The initial complaint filed in the action on November 29, 2011 included counts for alleged violations of (1) Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's underwriters in connection with a May 2011 secondary common stock offering; and (2) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and the officer defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer defendants. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until January 30, 2012 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class. Competing applications were filed and the Court appointed Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, Sjunde AP-Fonden, Board of Trustees of the City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System, Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands, and Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi as lead plaintiffs' counsel on April 27, 2012. Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 22, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint on November 5, 2012. Plaintiffs' amended complaint did not allege any claims under the Securities Act against the Company, its officers and directors, or the Company's underwriters in connection with the May 2011 secondary common stock offering. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 1, 2013 and on December 20, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal the court's December 20, 2013 order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Pursuant to a schedule entered by the appeals court, briefing on the appeal was completed on June 23, 2014. The Second Circuit has tentatively scheduled oral argument to occur during the week of October 27, 2014. The underwriters previously named as defendants notified the Company of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to their underwriting agreement dated May 5, 2011 in regard to the claims asserted in this action. Keurig Green sells Keurig(R) hot beverage system brewers and roast high-quality Arabica bean coffees including single-origin, Fair Trade Certified(TM), certified organic, flavored, limited edition and proprietary blends offered in K-Cup(R), Vue(R), and Rivo(R), and Bolt(TM) portion packs ("portion packs") for use with the Keurig(R) hot beverage system brewers. The Company also offers traditional whole bean and ground coffee in other package types including bags, fractional packages and cans. In addition, it produces and sells other specialty beverages in portion packs including hot apple cider, hot and iced teas, iced coffees, iced fruit brews, hot cocoa and other dairy-based beverages. KEURIG GREEN: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Fifield" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 8, 2014, issued a mandate affirming dismissal of the "Fifield" action, Keurig Green Mountain, 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 28, 2014. The putative securities fraud class action, captioned Fifield v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:12-cv-00091, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its forward guidance. The amended complaint included counts for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and for alleged violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer defendants. The amended complaint sought class certification, compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. Plaintiffs sought to represent all purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2, 2012 and May 2, 2012. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until July 6, 2012 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class. On July 31, 2012, the court appointed Kambiz Golesorkhi as lead plaintiff and approved his selection of Kahn Swick & Foti LLC as lead counsel. On August 14, 2012, the court granted the parties' stipulated motion for filing of an amended complaint and to set a briefing schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss. Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 23, 2012, adding William C. Daley as an additional lead plaintiff. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 17, 2013 and the briefing of their motions was completed on May 17, 2013. On September 26, 2013, the court issued an order granting defendants' motions and dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice and allowing plaintiffs a 30-day period within which to amend their complaint. On October 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal the court's September 26, 2013 order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 8, 2014, the Second Circuit issued a mandate affirming dismissal of the action. Keurig Green sells Keurig(R) hot beverage system brewers and roast high-quality Arabica bean coffees including single-origin, Fair Trade Certified(TM), certified organic, flavored, limited edition and proprietary blends offered in K-Cup(R), Vue(R), and Rivo(R), and Bolt(TM) portion packs ("portion packs") for use with the Keurig(R) hot beverage system brewers. The Company also offers traditional whole bean and ground coffee in other package types including bags, fractional packages and cans. In addition, it produces and sells other specialty beverages in portion packs including hot apple cider, hot and iced teas, iced coffees, iced fruit brews, hot cocoa and other dairy-based beverages. KEURIG GREEN: Preliminary Injunction Hearing Held ------------------------------------------------- TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed on February 11, 2014, a suit against Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv- 00905-VSB). The TreeHouse complaint asserts claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that the Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve coffee portion packs, including through its contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection with the launch of its next generation coffee brewer. The TreeHouse complaint seeks monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD). The claims asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint are substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse complaint. Beginning on March 10, 2014, twenty-six putative class actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief have been filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of the Company's products in various federal district courts. Keurig Green Mountain, 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 28, 2014, that on March 20, 2014, a motion was filed before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "Panel") to transfer these various actions, including the TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. On June 3, 2014, the Panel granted the transfer motion, transferring the actions to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pre- trial proceedings. The actions are now pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick in the Southern District of New York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB). A conference was held on June 19, 2014 in the Southern District of New York before Judge Broderick. Plaintiffs in the TreeHouse and JBR actions stated that they intended to seek expedited discovery in aid of possible preliminary injunction motions. On June 23, 2014, plaintiffs in the TreeHouse and JBR actions filed a joint motion to expedite discovery, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on July 23, 2014. On July 30, 2014, the Court directed that plaintiffs have until August 11, 2014 to move for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction hearing is provisionally scheduled for September 3, 2014. Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014. The Company's motions to dismiss these complaints and the complaints in the TreeHouse and JBR actions are currently due August 25, 2014 and will be fully briefed under the current schedule on October 8, 2014. The Company intends vigorously to defend all of the pending lawsuits, including by moving to dismiss the actions and opposing any motion for a preliminary injunction. Keurig Green sells Keurig(R) hot beverage system brewers and roast high-quality Arabica bean coffees including single-origin, Fair Trade Certified(TM), certified organic, flavored, limited edition and proprietary blends offered in K-Cup(R), Vue(R), and Rivo(R), and Bolt(TM) portion packs ("portion packs") for use with the Keurig(R) hot beverage system brewers. The Company also offers traditional whole bean and ground coffee in other package types including bags, fractional packages and cans. In addition, it produces and sells other specialty beverages in portion packs including hot apple cider, hot and iced teas, iced coffees, iced fruit brews, hot cocoa and other dairy-based beverages. KING SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Martin" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyrone Martin, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. King Supermarket Inc., Fifa Foods and Mohammad Hussein, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv- 06708 (N.D. Ill., August 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendants own and operate a full service grocery store within the State of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 513-9555 E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com LA CASA ANAHEIM: Faces Suit Arising From ADA Non-Compliance ----------------------------------------------------------- Marshall Loskot v. La Casa Anaheim Resort, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, dba Hotel Menage, and Does One to Ten, inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-01362-JVS-AN (C.D. Cal., August 25, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act arising from the Defendants alleged failure to provide tow away signs, failure to remove buildup ramp in the access aisle that would interfere with a wheelchair lift, and failure to post any handicap pole sign or handicap sign on the pillar in front of the parking spaces. The Plaintiff is a physically handicapped person and is severely limited in the use of his legs. La Casa Anaheim Resort, LLC, is a California Limited Liability Company. The Company and the Doe Defendants owned and operated Hotel Menage, which is located in Anaheim, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason K. Singleton, Esq. SINGLETON LAW GROUP 611 "L" Street, Suite "A" Eureka, CA 95501 Telephone: (707) 441-1177 Facsimile: (707) 441-1533 E-mail: jason@singletonlawgroup.com LINDSEY MANAGEMENT: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Torres, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Lindsey Management Company, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv- 00515 (E.D. Ark., August 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Lindsey Management Company, Inc. operates apartment complexes throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Sanford, Esq. Stephen Rauls, Esq. Vanessa Kinney, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM One Financial Center, 650 South Shackleford, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com steve@sanfordlawfirm.com vanessa@sanfordlawfirm.com LOGMEIN INC: Faces "Handy" Suit Over Ignition App Subscription -------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that after years of selling its remote access Ignition app for a one-time fee of $29.99, LogMeIn began requiring users to pay $99 or more a year to be able to keep using it, a class action claims in California Federal Court. Lead plaintiff Darren Handy sued Massachusetts-based LogMeIn on Aug. 28, alleging fraud and unfair competition. LogMeIn's Ignition app allows users to control all of their computers from their iPads or iPhones. LogMeIn advertises Ignition as "anywhere, anytime access to everything on your PC or Mac -- all your files, applications and desktops -- right at your fingertips," according to the lawsuit. For years, the Ignition app was sold for $29.99. But on Jan. 21 this year, LogMeIn "abruptly" informed users they would no longer be able to use the functions on Ignition unless they bought an account-level subscription of LogMeIn Pro, Handy says. The costs for the subscriptions range from $99 per year for individuals, up to $449 per year for small businesses. Consumers who do not pay for a subscription can no longer use the app, according to the complaint. "In inducing plaintiff to purchase defendant's app, defendant did not inform plaintiff that additional fees beyond the $29.99 already paid to download the app would ever be required to continue usage of Ignition," Handy says. He says his Ignition stopped working on Aug. 19. Handy seeks class certification, restitution and an injunction. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ml@kazlg.com MADISON SQUARE: Court Denied Motions to Dismiss Antitrust Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motions for summary judgment filed by Madison Square Garden Company and other defendants in two antitrust class action lawsuits, according to the Company's August 20, 2014 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30, 2014. In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the NHL and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports networks and cable and satellite distributors. The complaints, which are substantially identical, primarily assert that certain of the NHL's current rules and agreements entered into by defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to provide certain territorial and other exclusivities with respect to the television and online distribution of live hockey games, violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaints seek injunctive relief against the defendants' continued violation of the antitrust laws, treble damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. On July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated for procedural purposes). On December 5, 2012, the Court issued an Opinion and Order largely denying the motion to dismiss. On April 8, 2014, following the conclusion of fact discovery, all defendants filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaints in their entirety. On August 8, 2014, the Court denied the motions for summary judgment. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the claims against it. MDC MANUFACTURING: "Pacual" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Demetrio Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MDC Manufacturing, Inc., and Nersi Nasseri, in his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-05119 (E.D.N.Y., August 29, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. MDC Manufacturing, Inc. provides machine building, manufacturing, design and other support services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Robert Maguire, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com MIT TRUCKING: Removed "Fajardo" Suit to Florida District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Pedro Fajardo v. MIT Trucking, Inc., and Alexander Lowrey, Case No. 14-14718-CC-05, was removed from the County Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23232-CMA to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eddy O. Marban, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN, P.A. 1600 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 902 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-9292 Facsimile: (305) 448-9477 E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael L. Elkins, Esq. BRYANT MILLER OLIVE P.A. SunTrust International Center 1 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-7349 Facsimile: (305) 374-0895 E-mail: melkins@bmolaw.com NVIDIA CORP: Appeal in Securities Suit Still Under Submission ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of a consolidated securities suit against NVIDIA Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is currently under submission, according to the Company's August 20, 2014 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 27, 2014. In September 2008, three putative securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California arising out of the Company's announcements on July 2, 2008, that it would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of the Company's previous generation MCP and GPU products and that the Company were revising financial guidance for its second quarter of fiscal year 2009. The actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On January 22, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and seeking unspecified compensatory damages. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted the Company's motion with leave to amend. On December 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Company again moved to dismiss and on October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg again granted the Company's motion to dismiss, this time denying Plaintiffs leave to amend. On November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument was held on January 14, 2014, and the appeal is currently under submission. ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Reimbursement of Attorneys Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- According to an article posted by Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP at The National Law Review, the Delaware Court of Chancery recently held that certain stockholders who launched appraisal proceedings challenging a merger lacked standing to obtain reimbursement of attorneys' fees from a $10.7 million settlement in a separate class action challenging the same merger. In 2010, a group of stockholders (Appraisal Claimants) of Orchard Enterprises, Inc. perfected their appraisal rights after Orchard effected a cash-out merger with its controlling stockholder, Dimensional Associates, LLC. In 2012, while the appraisal proceeding was pending, a group of minority stockholders filed a class action alleging that Dimensional and members of Orchard's board of directors breached their fiduciary duty when they negotiated the merger. Although the Appraisal Claimants did not seek to intervene in or take part in the class action, after the settlement in the class action, they sought an award of attorneys' fees for their counsel in the initial appraisal proceeding. Although the court held that the appraisal proceeding contributed in some measure to the settlement in the class action, the court nevertheless held that the Appraisal Claimants lacked standing to obtain a fee award. The court found that the Appraisal Claimants pursued their own interests and chose not to join or take part in the class action. The court emphasized that the Appraisal Claimants chose not to represent a class or extend the benefits of their efforts to the other stockholders. The court stated, "That was a perfectly acceptable choice, but it carries a consequence: Under the circumstances, the Appraisal Claimants and their counsel lack standing to obtain a fee award." In re Orchard Enterprises Inc. Stockholder Litig., No. 7840-VCL (Del. Ch. Aug. 22, 2014). PARKCENTRAL GLOBAL: Class Cert. Denied in Suit Over Fund Collapse ----------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge refused to certify a class of investors fighting Ross Perot's company over its role in the $2.5 billion Parkcentral Global hedge fund collapse, reports David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service. Founded in 2002, Parkcentral Global purportedly gave outside investors access to the Perot family's money management team and proprietary trading strategies. The hedge fund was wiped out when AAA-rated positions in the CMBS market were devalued by 10 percent during the 2008 financial crisis. Levine Capital Ltd. and Southern Avenue Partners LP claimed in a 2009 lawsuit that Plano-based Perot Investments and its employees, Steven Blasnik and Peter Karmin, misled Parkcentral Global's limited partners. Instead of hedging its positions as represented, Parkcentral Global pursued a highly leveraged, open- long position in AAA-rated commercial mortgage-backed securities, the complaint alleged. U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn later dismissed the majority of the investors' claims in July 2012, but allowed claims the officers breached their fiduciary duties by misrepresentation and/or non-disclosure. In an Aug. 25 order unsealed on September 2, 2014, Lynn denied a motion for class certification. "The court concludes that this case raises pervasive individual questions pertaining to the content of information received, reliance, and damages, such that class treatment would be inappropriate," the 26-page opinion states. With evidence showing "significant differences in the amount and substance" of information given to the limited partners, Lynn said "individualized questions" over the receipt of false or misleading information will "predominate over common questions." "The differing views of limited partners, including on whether they found AAA CMBS positions appealing, suggest that reliance cannot be presumed for the putative class as a whole," Lynn added. "Because of the different investor views as to the advisability of Parkcentral's trading strategy, it is speculative to assume that the investors would have taken a uniform course of action had they had different information, and accordingly, the extent to which they relied on defendants' communications in deciding not to redeem is one that requires individual analysis. Because there are individualized issues as to what information different limited partners received, and the extent to which they relied on such information, common issues do not predominate." Perot Investments did not immediately respond to a request for comment on September 2 evening. The case is In Re: Parkcentral Global Litigation, Case No. 3:09- cv-765-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. PATRIOT PAWS: Faces "Fry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valerie Fry, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Patriot Paws Service Dogs, Case No. 3:14-cv- 03104 (N.D. Tex., August 29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, statutory liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Patriot Paws Service Dogs trains service dogs primarily for veterans with mobility disabilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa M. Fletcher, Esq. MORALES FLETCHER LAW, P.C. 115 E Travis, Suite 1530 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 225-0811 Facsimile: (210) 225-0821 E-mail: melissa@themoralesfirm.com - and - Lawrence Morales II, Esq. THE MORALES FIRM PC 115 E Travis, Suite 1530 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 225-0811 Facsimile: (210) 225-0821 E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com - and - Rodney Pat Ramsey, Esq. RAMSEY LAW OFFICE 201 E Main St, Suite 203 Waxahachie, TX 75165 Telephone: (972) 935-9111 Facsimile: (972) 935-0224 E-mail: occides@hotmail.com POWERSECURE INT'L: Faces Securities Class Action in E.D.N.C. ------------------------------------------------------------ PowerSecure International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed on May 22, 2014, against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Subsequently, in May and in July 2014, two additional purported securities class action lawsuits were filed against the same defendants in the United States District Courts, one in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the other in the Western District of North Carolina. The Company said, "We expect that all of these lawsuits will be consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. These actions were filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased our common stock during a class period that was originally between March 10, 2014 and May 7, 2014, and was subsequently extended to a class period between August 8, 2013 and May 7, 2014. The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that certain statements made during the applicable class period violated federal securities laws. The amount of damages has not been specified, and no determination has been made on the status of the lawsuits proposed as class actions." "We believe that the claims asserted in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against all such allegations. We have various insurance policies related to the risk associated with our business, including directors' and officers' liability insurance policies. However, there is no assurance that our insurance coverage will be sufficient or that our insurance carriers will cover all claims. The ultimate outcome of these proceedings cannot be accurately predicted due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation and the litigation is at a very early stage. Other than an immaterial amount for expected legal expenses, we have not accrued any costs for the securities class actions as we do not believe, based upon current information, that a loss relating to these matters is probable, and an estimate of a range of potential loss relating to these matters, cannot reasonably be made." PowerSecure International, Inc., headquartered in Wake Forest, North Carolina, is a provider of products and services to electric utilities, and their large commercial, institutional and industrial customers. REED ELSEVIER: Terminated Client Manager Due to Race, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Perry v. Reed Elsevier, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01422-LJM-DML (S.D. Ind., August 28, 2014) alleges that the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff -- a female African-American -- due to her race. The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendant as a client manager, contends that less qualified, similarly situated, non-African American employees were not terminated by the Defendant despite having less qualification and less seniority as compared to her. Reed Elsevier, Inc., is located within the Southern District of Indiana, and is the Plaintiff's former employer. The Plaintiff is represented by: John H. Haskin, Esq. Ryan C. Fox, Esq. Jason P. Cleveland, Esq. JOHN H. HASKIN & ASSOCIATES 255 North Alabama Street, 2nd Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 955-9500 Facsimile: (317) 955-2570 E-mail: jhaskin@jhaskinlaw.com rfox@jhaskinlaw.com jcleveland@jhaskinlaw.com SECURITY SERVICE: Sued for Not Having Handicap-Accessible Parking ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Tovar v. Security Service Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:14-cv-00170 (S.D. Tex., September 1, 2014) alleges that the Defendant refused to provide the Plaintiff and others similarly situated with sufficient handicap accessible parking in the parking lot that serves the Defendant's business at Harlingen, Texas. Juan Tovar is a Vietnam Veteran with a 100% Disability Rating. He has mobility impairments and uses a cane, walker, and wheelchair for mobility. Security Service Federal Credit Union owns and operates the store located in Harlingen, Texas. Security Service is a Texas State Financial Institution headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Omar W. Rosales, Esq. THE ROSALES LAW FIRM, LLC Federal No. 69067 402 South F St. Harlingen, TX 78550 Telephone: (956) 423-1417 Facsimile: (956) 524-5173 E-mail: talon_eye@yahoo.com SPECTRUM CLUB: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fox" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Ann Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spectrum Club Holding Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-06766 (C.D. Cal., August 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Spectrum Club Holding Company owns and operates a chain of athletic clubs that offers consumers group classes, personal training and corporate wellness through membership of their gym facilities in Southern California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gouya Askari Ranekouhi, Esq. Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: gouya@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com STATE FARM: Accused of Fraud by Long-Term Care Insurance Holder --------------------------------------------------------------- Madeline Silcox, as the successor-in-interest to the Estate of Philip Silcox, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 37-2014-00029253-CU-IC-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., August 29, 2014) challenges the Defendants' alleged deceptive/unlawful business practices, including the issuance of false and misleading advertisements. Ms. Silcox is a resident of the County of San Diego, California. He husband, Philip Silcox, passed away on August 28, 2014. The class she wants to represent is defined to include all individuals, who have purchased a long-term care insurance policy from State Farm intended to be a Qualified Long-Term Care Insurance Contract as defined by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. State Farm is an Illinois corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois. State Farm engages in continuous and regular commercial activity in the state of California, including the County of San Diego, consisting of the marketing and sale of insurance contracts and services to consumers by and through insurance agents located in San Diego County. The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian Fusselman, Esq. THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP 2550 Fifth A venue, 11th Floor San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 236-9363 Facsimile: (619) 236-9653 E-mail: fusselman@tbmlawyers.com - and - Jacques J. Kirch, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JACQUES J. KIRCH 2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 525-1630 Facsimile: (619) 525-1633 E-mail: jkirch@kirchlaw.com STATE FARM: Seeks Dismissal of Collision Repair Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Penny Stacey, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that several insurers have filed motions to dismiss a class action suit filed by a Downington, Pa.-based collision repair shop. Crawford's Auto Center filed the suit in April under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (the RICO Act) and names several insurers, including State Farm, Allstate, Geico, Progressive, Farmers, Liberty Mutual and Nationwide. The suit charges the insurers with market control, price-setting, steering, information-sharing and more. State Farm, Geico, Progressive and several others have filed motions for dismissal for a variety of reasons. " . . . Plaintiff must allege facts showing that its alleged injuries were caused by one or more of the alleged wire fraud violations forming the purported pattern of RICO activity," writes State Farm in its memo in support of the motion to dismiss. Additionally, State Farm alleges that CAC "gives no specific details of the alleged transactions" (particularly in regard to payment issues). "Plaintiff merely alleges that State Farm's payment amount differs from the amount charged by plaintiff and conclusorily asserts that its number is correct and State Farm's number is incorrect and fraudulent," writes State Farm. "Plaintiff does not give any specifics as to what components of State Farm's estimates and supplements it claims are incorrect or why they are incorrect." The motion continues, "Furthermore, although plaintiff apparently is alleging that State Farm's misrepresentations consist in asserting that plaintiff's charges are not consistent with prevailing rates, plaintiff does not allege what the prevailing rates would or should have been or even that plaintiff's charges were consistent with the prevailing rates." State Farm also alleges that "the purported fraud boils down to no more than plaintiff's frustration with competitive market forces and its agreements with State Farm's and the other defendants' methods of determining prevailing rates." Geico also addresses the prevailing rate allegations in its motion to dismiss -- but in a different way. "If the amount Geico pays is, in some way, too low, then the result would be that Geico's customer allegedly would not be receiving the benefit of the bargain (i.e., auto insurance coverage in exchange for premiums), and would have to pay more to plaintiff for body work for a quality repair, and thus would have a claim against Geico," writes the company. Similarly, the insurance company claims that CAC "has failed to allege that [it] acted in a manner that harms [the] plaintiff." Other insurers, including Progressive, Farmers, 21st Century, Allstate and Liberty Mutual also have filed a joint motion to dismiss. Crawford's is seeking certification of the class; judgments against each of the defendants; actual and compensatory damages; restitution; punitive damages; court costs; and prejudgment and post-judgment interest. At press time, the court had not yet ruled on the motions. In response to the motions, Crawford's had amended its complaint and added another named plaintiff, K&M Collision LLC, based in Hickory, N.C. Stay tuned to glassBYTEs.com(TM) for more information as it becomes available. SW GROUP: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Gabrielle Jackson on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SW Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-02772 (D. Md., August 29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and statutory damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. SW Group, LLC own and controls 37 stores under the trade name of Shoppers World. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Christopher Gauvey, Esq. THE LAW PRACTICE OF KEN C. GAUVEY, LLC 111 South Calvert Street, Suite 2700 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 385-5264 Facsimile: (866) 487-1154 E-mail: kgauvey@gauveylaw.com TRINET GROUP: Facing Worksite Employees Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------- TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company has been named as a defendant in various class action lawsuits arising from the nature of the Company's relationship with its worksite employees. At this stage of the lawsuits, management believes an unfavorable outcome to the Company is not probable. There are significant uncertainties involved in any class action litigation. Management is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss for these class action lawsuits. TriNet Group, Inc. provides a comprehensive human resources solution for small to medium-sized businesses. The Company's solution includes payroll processing, human capital consulting, employment law compliance and employee benefits, including health insurance, retirement plans and workers compensation insurance. The Company provides its services through co-employment relationships with its customers, under which the Company and its customers each take responsibility for certain portions of the employer-employee relationship for worksite employees (WSEs). The Company is the employer of record for most administrative and regulatory purposes, including the following: (i) compensation through wages and salaries; (ii) employer payroll-related taxes payment; (iii) employee payroll-related taxes withholding and payment; (iv) employee benefit programs including health and life insurance, and others; and (v) workers compensation coverage. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Removed "Salovitz" Suit to W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Heiwa Salovitz v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. D-1-GN-14-002501, was removed from the 53rd Judicial District of Travis County Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00823 to the proceeding. Mr. Salovitz alleges that the Defendant denied him the ability to use and enjoy its services, and failed to provide accessible cabs or equivalent transportation service, in violation of his rights under the Texas Human Resources Code. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph B. Berra, Esq. James C. Harrington, Esq. Wayne Krause Yang, Esq. TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT 1405 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741-3438 Telephone: (512) 474-5073 Facsimile: (512) 474-0726 E-mail: joe.tcrp@gmail.com jch@mail.utexas.edu waynekrauseyang@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Vicki L. Gillette, Esq. Jonathan G. Rector, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1500 Lock Box 116 Dallas, TX 75201-2931 Telephone: (214) 880-8100 Facsimile: (214) 880-0181 E-mail: vgillette@littler.com jrector@littler.com UNION BANKSHARES: Dist. Court Okayed MOU & Class Action Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- A federal district court on May 19, 2014, approved a memorandum of understanding and class action settlement in the lawsuit over Union Bankshares Corporation's acquisition of StellarOne Corporation, Union Bankshares 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. In response to the initial announcement of the definitive merger agreement for the acquisition of StellarOne Corporation, Jaclyn Crescente, individually and on behalf of all other StellarOne shareholders, filed on June 14, 2013, a class action complaint against StellarOne, its current directors, StellarOne Bank, and the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division (the "District Court") (Case No. 3:13-cv-00021-NKM). The complaint alleged that the StellarOne directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger with the Company and that the Company aided and abetted in such breaches of duty. The complaint sought, among other things, money damages. StellarOne and the Company believe that the claims were without merit; however, in order to eliminate the expense and uncertainties of further litigation, all the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in order to settle the litigation prior to the merger. Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the plaintiffs agreed to settle the lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims, subject to approval by the District Court. On May 19, 2014, the District Court approved the memorandum of understanding and the class action settlement in the case. Headquartered in Richmond, Union Bankshares Corporation is the largest community banking organization headquartered in Virginia and operates in all major banking markets of the Commonwealth. Union Bankshares Corporation is the holding company for Union First Market Bank, which provides banking, trust, and wealth management services and has a statewide presence of 131 bank branches and 200 ATMs. Non-bank affiliates of the holding company include: Union Investment Services, Inc., which provides full brokerage services; Union Mortgage Group, Inc., which provides a full line of mortgage products; and Union Insurance Group, LLC, which offers various lines of insurance products. WALTER ENERGY: "Moore" Case in N.D. Ala. Currently Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- Walter 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, that in 2011, the Company and Walter Coke Inc. were named in a suit filed by Louise Moore (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and Walter Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. This is a putative civil class action alleging state law tort claims arising from the alleged presence on properties of substances, including arsenic, BaP, and other hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of current and/or historic operations in the area conducted by the defendants and/or their predecessors. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint eliminating Walter Energy as a defendant and amending the claims alleged against Walter Coke to relate to Walter Coke's alleged conduct for the period commencing after March 2, 1995. Thereafter, Walter Coke filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. On September 28, 2012, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the motion. In partially granting Walter Coke's motion, the Court held that the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was not valid and that class action-related claims must be dismissed (with leave to re- plead) due to an improperly defined class. In partially ruling for the plaintiff, the Court held that at the pleading stage the plaintiff's claims could not be dismissed on rule of repose grounds or due to insufficient pleading. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 29, 2012. On November 19, 2012, Walter Coke filed an answer and motion for partial dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Court held a hearing on Walter Coke's motion for partial dismissal of the second amended complaint on January 10, 2013. On September 30, 2013, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order denying the motion. On November 1, 2013, a joint motion to stay the proceeding was filed with the Court, which the Court granted on November 21, 2013. As a result of the Court's action, the case is currently stayed. The Company believes that there is no merit to the claims alleged in this action and intends to vigorously defend this matter. Walter Energy, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a producer and exporter of metallurgical coal for the global steel industry from underground and surface mines with mineral reserves located in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The Company also extracts, processes, markets and/or possesses mineral reserves of thermal coal and anthracite coal, as well as produces metallurgical coke and coal bed methane gas. WALTER ENERGY: Stay Relief Bid and Briefing Schedule Due -------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the class action Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et al. had until August 22, 2014 to file a motion with the court requesting the stay be lifted and to submit a jointly proposed briefing schedule on a second motion for class certification, if such a motion is desired by Plaintiffs, Walter 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. On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are: Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President of Walter's Canadian and U.K. Operations (collectively the "Individual Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011. These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The complaints further allege that the Company and the Individual Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claimed violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C. Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for the consolidated action. On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in this action. The consolidated amended complaint names as an additional defendant Joseph Leonard, a current director and former interim CEO of Walter Energy, in addition to the previously named defendants. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on October 4, 2012. On January 29, 2013, the court denied that motion without prejudice. Defendants answered the complaint on February 15, 2013. The parties are now in the process of discovery. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on August 15, 2013. On March 18, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice to refiling and rebriefing and stayed this litigation pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Halliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. ("Halliburton II"). Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Halliburton II on June 23, 2014, the parties had until August 22, 2014 to file a motion with the Court requesting the stay be lifted and also to submit a jointly proposed briefing schedule on a second motion for class certification, if such a motion is desired by Plaintiffs. Walter Energy and the other named defendants believe that there is no merit to the claims alleged and intend to vigorously defend these actions. Walter Energy, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a producer and exporter of metallurgical coal for the global steel industry from underground and surface mines with mineral reserves located in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The Company also extracts, processes, markets and/or possesses mineral reserves of thermal coal and anthracite coal, as well as produces metallurgical coke and coal bed methane gas. WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Grodnick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07035 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2014), alleges that the amount of sugar on the Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt label and that the actual sugar content of the product was many times higher than the 2 grams per serving falsely stated on the label. Whole Foods Market, Inc. owns and operates a food supermarket chain specializing in natural and organic food. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP 1200 Avenue of theAmericas, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 354-0030 Facsimile: (973) 629-1246 E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.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 * * *