/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140909.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 9, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 179 Headlines 99 MILES: Faces "Lopez" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Okays Voluntary Case Dismissal AMERICAN LEISURE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tarrizo" Suit Says AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Ranekouhi" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Provides Update on Shareholder Class Suit ATLANTA INDEPENDENT: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT AVENTURA'S FINEST: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Silver Price-Fixing BANK OF THE OZARKS: Evidentiary Hearing Expected in Q3 2014 BLUCORA INC: Securities Class Action Filed in W.D. Washington CAREER EDUCATION: Awaiting Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Ross" Suit CAREER EDUCATION: Mediation Session Held in Student Litigation CAREER EDUCATION: Order Striking Class Allegations Under Appeal CAREER EDUCATION: Oral Argument Heard on Appeal in "Surrett" Case CAREER EDUCATION: 97 of Plaintiffs Not Part of Settlement CAREER EDUCATION: Fact Discovery Must Be Completed by Nov. 30 CRACKER BARREL: Faces "Perzan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CTI INDUSTRIES: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT DEMCO OF RIVERDALE: "Benitez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in O&R Construction Case DUN & BRADSTREET: Investigating Allegations in Die-Mension Case DUN & BRADSTREET: Investigating Allegations in Vinotemp Case DUN & BRADSTREET: Filed Motion to Transfer Flow Sciences Action DUN & BRADSTREET: Filed Motion to Transfer Altaflow Action DUKE ENERGY: Attempt to Mediate Class Action Claims Unsuccessful DUKE ENERGY: Trial in RSP Case Set to Begin in July 2015 DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 3 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit FREDDIE MAC: Defenants Filed Motion to Dismiss OPERS Class Action FREDDIE MAC: Court Ordered Dismissal of "Kreysar" Case FREDDIE MAC: Treasury Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Actions HILLSHIRE BRANDS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties HOLLISTER CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Buzzi" Action Claims I.Q. DATA: Sued Over Breach of Telephone Consumer Protection Act IOD INCORPORATION: Sued Over Excessive Medical Records' Fees JUI LI ENTERPRISE: Manipulates Prices of Metal Sheets, Suit Says KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Judgment KNOWLES ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LA FE FOODS: Faces "Lorenzo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LAGGAN REST: Faces "Alonso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LIGHTENING ROADSIDE: "Ramotar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT MEDIVATION INC: District Court's Dismissal Order Now Final MID-ATLANTIC WAREHOUSE: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Action Claims MRC EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Artola" Suit Claims NEVSUN RESOURCES: October 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set NORDSTROM INC: Sued Over Deceptive Labeling of Nordstrom Products NOVATION COMPANIES: Class Action Litigation in Early Stage NOW COURIER: Faces "Bonet" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NRG ENERGY: Petition for Certiorari Granted in Nevada Case NRG ENERGY: Petition for Certiorari Denied in Pennsylvania Case OCWEN LOAN: Sued in Pennsylvania Over Misleading Loan Agreement OCWEN LOAN: Sued in Wis. Over Violation of Debt Collection Law PALERO MEAT: "Pareja" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages RICHARD G. EHRLICH: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal of 2011 Power Outage Suit on Appeal STERLING BANCORP: NY State Supreme Court Okays Final Settlement SUN-TEC INSTALLATION: "Owens" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Class Vehicles' Engine TRITON SUPERMARKET: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime TROPICAL SAILING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages VITAMIN SHOPPE: Falsely Marketed Vitamin Products, Suit Claims W.P. CAREY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action Over Merger WALGREEN CO: December 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set WEIGHT WATCHERS: Dec. 2014 Final Hearing on Class Suit Settlement WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Litigation Consolidated YAHOO! INC: Dismissal of Stockholder Class Actions on Appeal ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Completed in "Reyes" Case ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Meridian Funds Case ********* 99 MILES: Faces "Lopez" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Salvador Lopez and Jose Ramos, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 99 Miles to Philly, Inc. (d/b/a 99 Miles to Philly), John Doe Inc. (d/b/a 99 Miles to Philly) and Neil Barshy, Case No. 1:14-cv-07001 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation. The Defendants own and operate two Philly Cheese steak sandwich takeout shops located at 94 3rd Ave, New York, NY 10003. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Okays Voluntary Case Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on May 5, 2014, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuit originally filed in October 2013 against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut voluntarily dismissed all of their claims without prejudice. The Court approved the voluntary dismissal and closed the case on May 6, 2014. A dismissal without prejudice does not prevent the litigation of the same claims in a subsequent action. Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated on August 17, 1998 in Delaware. The Company is seeking to discover, develop and commercialize innovative drug therapies. The Company is devoting substantially all of its efforts towards product research and development. AMERICAN LEISURE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tarrizo" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Tarrizo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Leisure Group, LLC, Case No. 2:14- cv-06850 (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. American Leisure Group, LLC is a travel incentive marketing company, doing business in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr. #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866)633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Ranekouhi" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Gouya Ranekouhi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Medical Collection Agency a.k.a. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01404 (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. American Medical Collection Agency provides medical collection services, medical billing services and commercial debt recovery to healthcare and corporations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr. #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866)633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Provides Update on Shareholder Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported class action lawsuit was filed on February 3, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the caption Thomas Lauria, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Stephen M. Simes, naming BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and ANI's former President and Chief Executive Officer, Stephen M. Simes, as defendants. The complaint alleges that certain of ANI's disclosures relating to the efficacy of LibiGel(R) and its commercial potential were false and/or misleading and that such false and/or misleading statements had the effect of artificially inflating the price of ANI's securities resulting in violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Although a substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court on February 21, 2012, such complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in April 2012. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of persons who purchased ANI's securities between February 12, 2010 and December 15, 2011, and sought unspecified compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and reasonable costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees on behalf of such purchasers. On November 6, 2012, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On December 28, 2012, ANI and Mr. Simes filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On September 11, 2013, the Illinois district court judge granted defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice, and gave plaintiffs 28 days to file an amended complaint. The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint and the matter has been concluded. On May 7, 2012, Jerome W. Weinstein, a purported stockholder of BioSante, filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the caption Weinstein v. BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., naming ANI's directors as defendants and BioSante as a nominal defendant. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court on May 22, 2012 and another substantially similar complaint was filed in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, on June 27, 2012. The suits generally related to the same events that are the subject of the class action litigation. The complaints alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and unjust enrichment as causes of action occurring from at least February 2010 through December 2011. The complaints sought unspecified damages, punitive damages, costs and disbursements, and unspecified reforms and improvements in ANI's corporate governance and internal control procedures. On September 24, 2012, the United States District Court consolidated the two shareholder derivative cases before it and on November 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint. On January 11, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 11, 2013, the Illinois district court judge granted defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice, and gave plaintiffs 28 days to file an amended complaint. The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint and the district court matter has been concluded. On November 27, 2012, the plaintiff in the shareholder derivative action pending in Illinois state court filed an amended complaint. On January 18, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 1, 2013, the Illinois state court judge granted defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice, and gave plaintiffs until July 31, 2013 to file an amended complaint. On September 9, 2013, the Illinois state court judge granted defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On October 9, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to Illinois state appellate court. The plaintiffs reached a settlement with the Company's insurance carrier in June 2014, which consisted of a one-time payment of $60,000. On July 2, 2014, the Illinois state appellate court granted the plaintiffs motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice, which concluded the matter. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an integrated specialty pharmaceutical company developing, manufacturing and marketing branded and generic prescription pharmaceuticals. ATLANTA INDEPENDENT: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Daniels, and Janekia Barnes, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Atlanta Independent School System, a/k/a Atlanta Public Schools, Case No. 1:14-cv-02781 (N.D. Ga., August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours over 40 each week. Atlanta Independent School System is controlled and managed by the Atlanta Board of Education. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Chichester IV, Esq. Steven Eric Wolfe, Esq. BUCKLEY LAW FIRM, LLC 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 781-1100 E-mail: pchichester@buckleylawatl.com sewolfe@buckleylawatl.com AVENTURA'S FINEST: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Enrique Cabrera Garcia and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Aventura's Finest Hand Car Wash at Brickell.LLC and Guillermo Freile, Case No. 1:14-cv-23223 (S.D. Fla., September 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a car wash shop in Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: K. David Kelly, Esq. Jamie H. Zidell J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Ste. 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 E-mail: david.kelly38@rocketmail.com ZABOGADO@AOL.COM BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Silver Price-Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Don Tran, on behalf of himself and all others v. Bank of Nova Scotia, Deutsche Bank, AG, HSBC Bank U.S.A. N.A.; HSBC Bank PLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07004 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2014) alleges that the Defendants conspired and agreed with one another to intentionally manipulate the price of silver and of silver derivative in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The Defendants are the three of the world's largest silver bullion banks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 61 Broadway, Suite 501 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 Facsimile: (212) 719-4775 E-mail: fisquith@lshllp.com - and - Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4669 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: burt@whafh.com BANK OF THE OZARKS: Evidentiary Hearing Expected in Q3 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------- An evidentiary hearing has not been scheduled in trial court, but one is expected to be conducted in the third quarter of 2014, in a purported class action pending against Bank of the Ozarks, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. On January 5, 2012, the Company and the Bank were served with a summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. CV-2011-777. In addition, on December 21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons and complaint filed on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v. Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV 12-6043. The complaint in each case alleges that the Company and/or Bank have harmed the plaintiffs, current or former customers of the Bank, by improper, unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive overdraft fees from the plaintiffs. According to the complaints, plaintiffs claim that the Bank employs sophisticated software to automate its overdraft system, and that this system unfairly and inequitably manipulates and alters customers' transaction records in order to maximize overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing a practice of posting of items in "high-to-low" order, despite the actual sequence in which such items are presented for payment. Plaintiffs claim that the Bank's deposit agreements with customers do not adequately disclose the Bank's overdraft assessment policies and are ambiguous, deceptive, unfair and misleading. The complaint in each case alleges that these actions and omissions constitute breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionable conduct, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The complaint in the Walker case also includes a count for conversion. Each of the complaints seeks to have the cases certified by the court as a class action for all Bank account holders similarly situated, and seeks a declaratory judgment as to the wrongful nature of the Bank's overdraft fee policies, restitution of overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class (defined as all Bank customers residing in Arkansas) as a result of the actions cited in the complaints, disgorgement of profits as a result of the alleged wrongful actions, and unspecified compensatory and statutory or punitive damages, together with pre- judgment interest, costs and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The Company and Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration in the Walker case. The trial court denied the motion and found that the arbitration provision contained in the controlling Consumer Deposit Account Agreement was unconscionable and thus unenforceable on the grounds that the provision was the result of unequal bargaining power. The Company and Bank appealed the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Court of Appeals on an interlocutory basis. On September 18, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case to the trial court for the purpose of entering an order compelling arbitration. On October 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed petitions for reconsideration and review before the Arkansas Court of Appeals and Arkansas Supreme Court, respectively. On October 30, 2013, the Arkansas Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' petition for reconsideration. In January 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for review. Oral arguments were presented to the Arkansas Supreme Court on May 1, 2014. On May 15, 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court vacated the Arkansas Court of Appeals' decision, reversing and remanding the case to the trial court to determine, in the first instance, whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate disputes between the named plaintiffs and the Bank. At this stage, the trial court must determine (i) whether there is a valid and binding agreement to arbitrate between the named plaintiffs and the Bank, (ii) whether the dispute at issue in the Walker case falls within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate, and, then, (iii) whether the named plaintiffs have a defense, such as unconscionability, to invalidate the agreement to arbitrate. The parties are in the process of conducting discovery related to the issue of arbitration in preparation for an evidentiary hearing to be conducted by the trial court on this issue. To date, an evidentiary hearing has not been scheduled, but one is expected to be conducted in the third quarter of 2014. The Plaintiff in the Muzingo case has agreed to stay the proceedings in that case pending the outcome of the hearing in the Walker case. The Company and the Bank believe the Plaintiffs' claims in each of these cases are unfounded and subject to meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. BLUCORA INC: Securities Class Action Filed in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- Blucora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on May 12, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company and certain of its officers. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court on May 14, 2014. These cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the period between November 5, 2013, and February 20, 2014. The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws during this period of time by, among other things, issuing false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The Plaintiffs claim that, as a result of these alleged wrongs, the price of the Company's common stock was artificially inflated during the purported class period. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages, interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Blucora, Inc. operates three primary businesses: an internet search and content business, an online tax preparation business, and an e-commerce business. The Search and Content business, InfoSpace, provides search, content, and other services to users of its owned and operated and distribution partners properties. The Tax Preparation business consists of the operations of TaxACT, Inc. ("TaxACT") and provides online tax preparation service for individuals, tax preparation software for individuals and professional tax preparers, and ancillary services. The E-Commerce business consists of the operations of Monoprice, Inc. ("Monoprice"), which the Company acquired on August 22, 2013, and provides self-branded electronics and accessories to both consumers and businesses primarily through its website, http://www.monoprice.com/ CAREER EDUCATION: Awaiting Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Ross" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Axis Insurance Company filed on December 11, 2013, a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants in connection with coverage for the recently settled Ross, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. securities class action and shareholder derivative actions that were previously disclosed. Axis seeks a declaration of no coverage. On March 11, 2014, the Company and the individual defendants responded to Axis's complaint and asserted counterclaims pursuant to which the Company claims approximately $10.0 million in coverage. On April 22, 2014, Axis responded to the Company's counterclaims and moved to dismiss the Company's count alleging that Axis has acted in bad faith. That motion to dismiss is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the Court. The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of career- oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career Education serves students from campuses throughout the United States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and certificates. CAREER EDUCATION: Mediation Session Held in Student Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that these four actions are pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court: Abarca v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al. (filed June 3, 2011; 115 plaintiffs); Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al (filed June 15, 2011; 31 plaintiffs); Aprieto, et al. v. California Culinary Academy (filed August 12, 2011; five plaintiffs); Coleman, et al. v. California Culinary Academy (filed January 18, 2013; two plaintiffs). The actions generally allege fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract and violation of the repealed California Education Code. Plaintiffs contend that California Culinary Academy ("CCA") made a variety of misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process. The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the admissions process, and the students' employment prospects upon graduation, including the accuracy of statistics published by CCA. The plaintiffs in these actions seek damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. All of the plaintiffs in these four actions either opted out of or did not fit the class definition in a previously settled class action captioned Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation; Adams, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation. None of these four actions are being prosecuted as a class action. All of these cases have been deemed related and have been transferred to the same judge who handled the Amador case. The parties participated in a mediation session on April 2, 2014. At that time, there were 79 individual plaintiffs remaining who had not previously settled or dismissed their claims. At the mediation, the Company agreed to settle with 77 of the remaining plaintiffs. Since the mediation, three additional plaintiffs have dropped out of the settlement, and one of those claims has been settled for an immaterial amount. The Company has agreed to pay approximately $2.2 million plus an as yet undetermined amount of attorneys' fees to settle the claims of 74 plaintiffs. Accordingly, for the quarter ended June 30, 2014, the Company is maintaining a reserve of $3.0 million which is the current estimate of the total amount of the settlement and based on its assessment that the settlement is probable. The parties have agreed to arbitrate one of the remaining cases, and the other three cases, if they cannot also be settled, will be set for trial at a later date. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in the future with respect to the two remaining cases, the outcome in those cases is uncertain. Accordingly, we have not recognized any future liability associated with these actions," the Company said. The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of career- oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career Education serves students from campuses throughout the United States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and certificates. CAREER EDUCATION: Order Striking Class Allegations Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- A California state court has stayed a purported class action lawsuit pending a ruling on the plaintiffs' appeal, Career Education Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. Plaintiffs filed the putative class action, Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc., in the Superior Court State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service providers, represented that the culinary schools were well- regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school provided graduates with career placement services for life. The plaintiffs or putative class members co-signed the loans for students to attend CCA, some of whom were Amador class members. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two separate orders granting the motion to strike the class allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders. On May 9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of plaintiffs' claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the Court's ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class allegations. The Court has stayed the case pending a ruling on the appeal. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because, among other things, our potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and, if so, the composition and size of any such class, as well as on an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action," the Company said. The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of career- oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career Education serves students from campuses throughout the United States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and certificates. CAREER EDUCATION: Oral Argument Heard on Appeal in "Surrett" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument on appeal in the Surrett class action was heard on May 9, 2014 and Career Education Company is awaiting the Court's decision, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. The complaint, Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation, was filed on March 5, 2008, in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic reasons. Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7, 2010, which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett. Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately 2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI. On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6, 2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and the Company is awaiting the Court's decision. All proceedings with the trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the number of class members who might be entitled to recover damages, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action," the Company said. The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of career- oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career Education serves students from campuses throughout the United States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and certificates. CAREER EDUCATION: 97 of Plaintiffs Not Part of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit was filed on June 23, 2008, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in connection with the admissions process during the alleged class period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who purchased educational services from California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods applicable to the alleged causes of action (including, without limitation, the period following the filing of the action)." Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it. Defendants also successfully demurred to plaintiffs' claims based on alleged violations of California's former Private Postsecondary and Vocational Educational Reform Act of 1989 ("the Reform Act"). Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied by the Court on March 6, 2012. Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related "multiple plaintiff actions" originally involving a total of approximately 1,000 former students entitled Banks, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Abrica v. California School of Culinary Arts; Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts; Ackerman, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Arechiga, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Anderson, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; and Allen v. California School of Culinary Arts. All eight cases are pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the allegations in these cases are essentially the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action case. The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. All of these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class action and therefore are pending before the same judge who is presiding over the Vasquez case. On June 15, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Vasquez action consolidating all eight of the separate actions referenced above. The complaint was thereafter amended to add additional plaintiffs. As a result of these amendments, there were at one time approximately 1,438 plaintiffs, the majority of whom enrolled between 2003 and 2008 (about 10 of the plaintiffs enrolled in 2009 and 2010). On June 22, 2012, defendants filed motions to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims. On August 10, 2012, the Court granted the motions with respect to approximately 54 plaintiffs. Nine arbitration demands were filed before the American Arbitration Association, one of which was tried to a final award and eight of which were settled. The remaining plaintiffs' claims were settled prior to arbitration demands being filed. The total liability for all of these claims was an immaterial amount. Following the resolution of these claims, other settlements, and the voluntary dismissal of certain claims, there are approximately 1,047 remaining plaintiffs in the consolidated action. The Company and plaintiffs' counsel have executed an agreement regarding the framework for individual settlements with approximately 950 of the remaining individual plaintiffs. Pursuant to this settlement arrangement, defendants paid $17.5 million to fund the individual plaintiff settlements, attorneys' fees and administrative costs of the settlement, subject to certain excluded costs which defendants will be separately responsible for. The settlement amounts for each individual plaintiff have been determined by a third party. If any plaintiff decides not to accept the settlement, then the amount allocated to that plaintiff will be returned to defendants. Defendants have the right not to proceed with the settlement if a specified number of plaintiffs do not accept the settlement. Defendants' ultimate liability pursuant to the settlement is estimated to be $15.5 million to $17.5 million; however, defendants do not have a reasonable basis to estimate where in that range the liability is likely to be. Approximately 97 of the remaining plaintiffs are not within the purview of the settlement arrangement. Because these plaintiffs have not cooperated with their counsel, their claims have been or will be dismissed by the Court, without prejudice. Any liability to these plaintiffs is expected to be an immaterial amount. The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of career- oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career Education serves students from campuses throughout the United States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and certificates. CAREER EDUCATION: Fact Discovery Must Be Completed by Nov. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the Wilson lawsuit, which is on remand, are to complete fact discovery as to the issue of liability by November 30, 2014, Career Education Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. Riley Wilson, a former admissions representative based in Minnesota, filed on August 11, 2011, a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Company said, "The two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from our decision to terminate our Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan. In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan." "On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012. "On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for rehearing to seek review of the panel's decision on the breach of contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition was denied. "The case now is on remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. CEC has answered the complaint, and the parties have exchanged initial disclosures. On February 19, 2014, the Court ordered the parties to complete fact discovery as to the issue of liability by November 30, 2014. "Because the matter is in its early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action," the Company said. The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of career- oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career Education serves students from campuses throughout the United States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and certificates. CRACKER BARREL: Faces "Perzan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lukasz Perzan, David Koch, Nathaniel Garrett, Lenore Landry, and Ronald Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., Case No. 4:14- cv-40125 (D. Mass., September 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. owns and operates a nationwide chain of more than 600 Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, which is a restaurant that serves breakfast, lunch and dinner, as well as a gift shop. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael N. Litrownik, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 29th Floor, 3 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 248-7906 Facsimile: (212) 248-7908 E-mail: mlitrownik@outtengolden.com CTI INDUSTRIES: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Amada Gonzalez and Leticia Ocampo, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons v. CTI Industries Corp., Ron's Temporary Help Services, Inc., Prime Staffing, Inc. and Extreme Staffing Solution Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-06752 (N.D. Ill., September 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation. The Defendants own and operate staffing agencies in Barrington, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvar Ayala, Esq. Jenee Gaskin, Esq. Christopher J. Williams, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C. 401 S. LaSalle, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (312) 795-9121 Facsimile: (312) 929-2207 E-mail: aayala@wagetheftlaw.com jgaskin@wagetheftlaw.com cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com DEMCO OF RIVERDALE: "Benitez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Eder David Benitez a/k/a David Benitez and Gerson Venites, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Demco of Riverdale, LLC d/b/a Planet Wings, and Demco of Ossining, LLC d/b/a Planet Wings, and Demco of Wappingers Falls, LLC d/b/a Planet Wings, and Planet Wings Enterprises, INC., and Planet Wings Inc., and Planet Wings Management, Inc., and Demetrio Petrizzo, and Franco Fidanza, and Paula Fidanza, each in their individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-07074 (S.D.N.Y., September 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are New York limited liability companies that provide library supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, New York 11021 Telephone: (516)248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in O&R Construction Case ------------------------------------------------------------ The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against D&B and an unaffiliated entity. The complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages and equitable relief. On February 18, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped the antitrust claims and retained the class action and deceptive practices allegations. The Company filed a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motion and granted it. Specifically, the Court dismissed a contract claim with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining claims without prejudice. On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and unfair business practices under Washington state law against the Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports. The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint venture or agency theory for practices relating to CreditBuilder. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the Company's motion and dismissed with prejudice the claims based on a joint venture or agency liability theory brought against the Company. The Court denied the motion with respect to the negligence, defamation and unfair practices claims. On January 23, 2014, the Company answered the SAC. On May 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a Notice Regarding Scope of Class Definition, noting its intention to revise its class definition to exclude small businesses from the states of Ohio and California from its motion for class certification. The parties exchanged initial disclosures and completed the initial case management process in March 2013. Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to investigate the allegations. The case is, O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is the world's leading source of commercial data, analytics and insight on businesses. DUN & BRADSTREET: Investigating Allegations in Die-Mension Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is in the initial stages of investigating the allegations in a putative class action filed by Die-Mension Corporation, Dun & Bradstreet said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. Die-Mension filed on February 20, 2014, a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company and DBCC, an unaffiliated entity, purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in the United States or in such state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As against the Company, the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, defamation, and negligence. The complaint alleged deceptive trade practices, negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the court, Die- Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder product. On March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the amended complaint. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 30, 2014, the parties filed a stipulated motion in the Western District of Washington extending the Company and DBCC's time to file a motion to dismiss or otherwise answer the amended complaint until 30 days after the Flow Sciences case is transferred to the Western District of Washington. The Company is in the initial stages of investigating the allegations. The case is, Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.)) The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is the world's leading source of commercial data, analytics and insight on businesses. DUN & BRADSTREET: Investigating Allegations in Vinotemp Case ------------------------------------------------------------ The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation ("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed on March 24, 2014, a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and DBCC, an unaffiliated entity. Vinotemp and CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of Sec.17200 and Sec.17500 of the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information on credit reports in violation of Sec. 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and defamation claims. On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint. On June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On June 30, 2014, the parties filed a stipulated motion in the Western District of Washington extending the Company and DBCC's time to file a motion to dismiss or otherwise answer the complaint until 30 days after the Flow Sciences case is transferred to the Western District of Washington. On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. The Company is in the initial stages of investigating the allegations. The case is, Vinotemp International Corporation and CPrint(R), Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal.)) The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is the world's leading source of commercial data, analytics and insight on businesses. DUN & BRADSTREET: Filed Motion to Transfer Flow Sciences Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences") filed on June 13, 2014, a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation ("DBCC"), an unaffiliated entity. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint. Pursuant to a June 30, 2014 stipulation between the parties filed in the Die-Mension matter, the Company's time to file a motion to dismiss or otherwise answer the complaint in this case has been extended until 30 days after the transfer of this case to the Western District of Washington. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. The Company is in the initial stages of investigating the allegations. The case is, Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 7:14-cv-128 (E.D. North Carolina) The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is the world's leading source of commercial data, analytics and insight on businesses. DUN & BRADSTREET: Filed Motion to Transfer Altaflow Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that plaintiff Altaflow, LLC ("Altaflow") filed on June 20, 2014, a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation ("DBCC"), an unaffiliated entity. Altaflow purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint. Pursuant to a June 30, 2014 stipulation between the parties filed in the Die-Mension matter, the Company's time to file a motion to dismiss or otherwise answer the complaint in this case has been extended until 30 days after the transfer of the Flow Sciences case (discussed above) to the Western District of Washington. On July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey Court granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. The Company is in the initial stages of investigating the allegations. The case is, Altaflow, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., (W.D. Wash.) (case number pending) (filed as No. 2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.)) The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is the world's leading source of commercial data, analytics and insight on businesses. DUKE ENERGY: Attempt to Mediate Class Action Claims Unsuccessful ---------------------------------------------------------------- An attempt on May 14, 2014, to mediate claims in a securities class action lawsuit was unsuccessful, Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. Duke Energy, the 11 members of the Duke Energy Board of Directors who were also members of the pre-merger Duke Energy Board of Directors (Legacy Duke Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy officers are defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidates three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal Securities Act and Exchange Act claims based on allegations of materially false and misleading representations and omissions in the Registration Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly incorporated into other documents, all in connection with the post-merger change in CEO. The claims are purportedly brought on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Duke Energy securities between June 11, 2012 and July 9, 2012. On July 26, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended the District Court Judge deny the defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 2, 2013, the District Judge heard defendants' objections to this recommendation. A decision is pending on the motion to dismiss. An attempt on May 14, 2014, to mediate the claims was unsuccessful. Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Duke Energy operates in the United States (U.S.) and Latin America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries. DUKE ENERGY: Trial in RSP Case Set to Begin in July 2015 -------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into non-public option agreements in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's Rate Stabilization Plan (RSP) implemented in early 2005. In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a class action. Trial has been set to begin on July 27, 2015. It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy Ohio will incur any liability or to estimate the damages which may be incurred in connection with this lawsuit. Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Duke Energy operates in the United States (U.S.) and Latin America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries. DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 3 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dynavax Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the first of two substantially similar securities class action complaints was filed on June 18, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 12, 2013, the Lead Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Complaint"); Dynavax moved to dismiss the Complaint on January 10, 2014. On April 7, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint adds a new plaintiff and several new defendants, and alleges that, between April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and entities related to certain of its directors, violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with statements related to our product candidate, HEPLISAV-B. Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Company made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions regarding the manufacture of HEPLISAV-B and that certain insiders unlawfully profited from such misrepresentations or omissions. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 6, 2014, and Lead Plaintiff had until August 8, 2014 to file an opposition. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for October 3, 2014. Dynavax Technologies, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, develops products to prevent and treat infectious and inflammatory diseases and cancer based on Toll-like Receptor ("TLR") biology and its ability to modulate the innate immune system. Its lead product candidate is HEPLISAV-BTM (also known as "HEPLISAV"), an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine in Phase 3 clinical development. FREDDIE MAC: Defenants Filed Motion to Dismiss OPERS Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al., a putative securities class action lawsuit, was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. FHFA later intervened as Conservator. The Company said, "The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements concerning our business, risk management, and the procedures we put into place to protect the company from problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees. The plaintiff amended its complaint on several occasions. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second and third amended complaints, which the Court denied. "On April 13, 2013, the judge who had presided over the case since 2008 recused himself, and the case was reassigned to a new judge. On August 23, 2013, the new judge granted defendants' motion to vacate the previous judge's orders denying defendants' motions to dismiss. Defendants filed new motions to dismiss the complaint on October 8, 2013. "At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation; the fact that the Court has not yet ruled upon defendants' new motion to dismiss the complaint; and the fact that the Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class certification or summary judgment. In particular, absent the certification of a class, the identification of a class period, and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss." Freddie Mac is a GSE chartered by Congress in 1970 with a public mission to provide liquidity, stability, and affordability to the U.S. housing market. FREDDIE MAC: Court Ordered Dismissal of "Kreysar" Case ------------------------------------------------------ Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a plaintiff filed on September 23, 2008, a putative class action securities lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Mark vs. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. On January 29, 2009, another plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit in the same Court styled Kreysar vs. Syron, et al. The cases, which were subsequently consolidated by the Court, concern the company's November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock. In the consolidated complaint, plaintiffs alleged that three former Freddie Mac officers (including Syron and former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Anthony S. Piszel), certain underwriters and Freddie Mac's auditor violated federal securities laws by making material false and misleading statements in connection with the company's November 2007 public offering. The complaint further alleged that certain defendants and others made additional false statements following the offering. After a series of motions and amendments to the complaint, only Syron and Piszel remained as defendants. The plaintiffs moved for class certification, which motion was ultimately denied by the Court. On May 31, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal on an interlocutory basis the denial of class certification. In August 2012, plaintiffs sought leave to file another motion for class certification, which request the Court denied on September 25, 2012. On June 19, 2014, the Court ordered dismissal of the Kreysar case after Syron, Piszel and the named plaintiff entered into a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice disposing of all of plaintiff's individual claims. Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the consolidated lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution under the underwriting agreement in the Kreysar case, including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel. "We do not expect that the consolidated lawsuit or the indemnification and contribution request will have a material effect on our results of operations or financial condition," the Company said. Freddie Mac is a GSE chartered by Congress in 1970 with a public mission to provide liquidity, stability, and affordability to the U.S. housing market. FREDDIE MAC: Treasury Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in July and September 2013, four lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia concerning the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement with Treasury. It is possible that similar lawsuits will be filed in the future. The lawsuits are as follows: * A putative class action lawsuit filed on July 29, 2013 styled Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA; * A putative class action lawsuit filed on July 30, 2013 styled American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA; * A putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit filed on September 18, 2013 styled Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury, Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; and * A lawsuit filed on September 20, 2013 styled Arrowood Indemnity Company vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, FHFA and Treasury. The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who held stock prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of time. Plaintiffs in the Arrowood lawsuit allege that they are holders of junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. (For purposes of this discussion, junior preferred stock refers to the various series of preferred stock of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae other than the senior preferred stock issued to Treasury.) In the lawsuits, plaintiffs allege that the amendment to the Purchase Agreement in August 2012 (which implemented the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock) breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such contracts. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees. Plaintiffs in the Arrowood lawsuit also request that, if injunctive relief is not granted, the Arrowood plaintiffs be awarded damages against the defendants in an amount to be determined including, but not limited to, the aggregate par value of their junior preferred stock, the total of which they state is $42,297,500. Plaintiffs in the Marneu and Arrowood lawsuits also make certain claims against, and seek certain remedies from, Treasury and FHFA. The Court consolidated three of the cases (Cacciapelle, American European Insurance Company and Marneu) together in a new case styled In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2013. The consolidated amended complaint makes essentially the same allegations against Freddie Mac as the original complaints described above. FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and the other related cases (including Arrowood) on January 17, 2014. Treasury filed a motion to dismiss the same day, which plaintiffs have opposed. Freddie Mac is a GSE chartered by Congress in 1970 with a public mission to provide liquidity, stability, and affordability to the U.S. housing market. HILLSHIRE BRANDS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Southerland and Gwendolyn Dozier, as Individuals and as Representatives on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hillshire Brands Company, and Does 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case No. 4:14-cv-00165 (E.D.N.C., September 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, interest, penalties and attorney fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Hillshire Brands Company is engaged in the production and national distribution of perishable consumer products from its operation in the State of North Carolina, County of Edgecombe. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvin L. Pittman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALVIN L. PITTMAN 5933 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 230 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 337-3077 Facsimile: (310) 337-3080 E-mail: office@apittman-law.com HOLLISTER CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Buzzi" Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Anamaria Chimeno-Buzzi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hollister Co., and Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Case No. 1:14-cv-23120 (S.D. Fla., August 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone without prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants own and operates a global clothing and lifestyle company, which maintain their headquarters at 6301 Fitch Path, New Albany, Ohio 43054. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Philip Milian, Esq. Frank S. Hedin, Esq. CAREY RODRIGUEZ GREENBERG O'KEEFE, LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-7474 Facsimile: (305) 372-7475 E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com fhedin@careyrodriguez.com I.Q. DATA: Sued Over Breach of Telephone Consumer Protection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sherri Cruz, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. I.Q. Data International, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-03982 (N.D. Cal., September 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. I.Q. Data International, Inc. is a California corporation that owns and operates multi-residential apartment complexes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Gouya Askari Ranekouhi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com gouya@kazlg.com IOD INCORPORATION: Sued Over Excessive Medical Records' Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Alisia Morris v. Iod Incorporated and South Nassau Communities Hospital, Case No. 1:14-cv-07073 (S.D.N.Y., September 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Public Health Law, specifically for charging copies of medical records in excess of the statutory maximum allowable fee. Iod Incorporated and South Nassau Communities Hospital is a hospital located in the County of Nassau, State ofNew York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward S. Goodman, Esq. SIMONSON GOODMAN PLATZER PC 111 John Street, Suite 1400 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212)233-5001 E-mail: esg@simonsonlegal.com JUI LI ENTERPRISE: Manipulates Prices of Metal Sheets, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- National Trucking Financial Reclamation Services, LLC, individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Jui Li Enterprise Company, Ltd., Tong Yang Industry Co. Ltd., TYG Products, L.P., Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., Ltd., Auto Parts Industrial, Ltd., and Cornerstone Auto Parts, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01061 (E.D. Wis., August 29, 2014), arises from the anticompetitive conspiracy among the Defendants to illegally inflate the prices of AM Sheet Metal Parts throughout the United States. The Defendants are manufacturers, distributors, and importers of metal sheets throughout the United States and internationally. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Roberts, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM PA 20 Rahling Cir, PO Box 241790 Little Rock, AR 72223 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 Facsimile: (501) 821-4474 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------- The lead plaintiff in a consolidated shareholder class action did not appeal judgment for the defendants, and this matter is now concluded, Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. The lawsuit was filed on February 1, 2013, against the Company and its chief executive officer on behalf of a putative class of all of the Company's shareholders (other than the defendants) who acquired the Company's shares between June 1, 2009 and April 1, 2012. Smith v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-0755-TPG (S.D.N.Y.). On February 26, 2013, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed against the Company and the chief executive officer as well as the Company's chief financial officer. Park v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-1307-TPG (S.D.N.Y.). On June 10, 2013, the Court entered an Order consolidating the two lawsuits and appointing a lead plaintiff. The case was styled In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-CV-0755-KBF (S.D.N.Y.). On July 10, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint that, in substance, repeated the claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuits. The Company said, "The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserted claims against (i) us for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) our chief executive officer for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The claims in the Consolidated Amended Complaint were premised on general allegations that we and the individual defendant participated directly or indirectly in the preparation and/or issuance of purportedly false and misleading earnings reports, SEC filings, press releases, and other public statements, which allegedly caused our stock to trade at artificially inflated prices." "On August 26, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On February 14, 2014, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting the motion to dismiss. The Court entered Judgment for the Defendants on February 24, 2014. The lead plaintiff did not appeal the Judgment and this matter is now concluded." Keryx Biopharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on bringing innovative therapies to market for patients suffering from renal disease. KNOWLES ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Ann Kilburn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Knowles Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv- 01119 (E.D. Va., August 29, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Knowles Enterprises, LLC owns and operates Mom's Kitchen restaurant in Front Royal, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 836 Bonifant Street Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 581-9373 Facsimile: (310) 587-9397 E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com LA FE FOODS: Faces "Lorenzo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Raimundo Lorenzo and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. La Fe Foods, Inc. and Juan C. Pena, Case No. 1:14-cv- 23231 (S.D. Fla., September 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. La Fe Foods, Inc. owns and operates a food processing and distribution company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM LAGGAN REST: Faces "Alonso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Alvaro Baeza Alonso, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Laggan Rest., Inc. (d/b/a Murphy's Pub & Restaurant), Laggan Restaurant LLC (d/b/a Murphy's Pub & Restaurant) and Anthony Meegan, Case No. 1:14-cv-06998 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation. Laggan Rest., Inc. and Laggan Restaurant LLC own and operate a bar and restaurant owned by Anthony Meegan, located at 977 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10022. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com LIGHTENING ROADSIDE: "Ramotar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Ramotar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly- situated v. Lightening Roadside Assistant, Corp., d/b/a Lightening Roadside, and Stuart Hornik, in his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-07011 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Roadside Assistant, Corp. is an automotive roadside assistance service located in Levittown, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Arthur Biggs, Esq. BORAH, GOLDSTEIN, ALTSCHULER, NAHINS, & GOIDEL, P.C. 377 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 E-mail: aab@employmentlawyernewyork.com - and - Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq. Michael John Borrelli, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com MEDIVATION INC: District Court's Dismissal Order Now Final ---------------------------------------------------------- Medivation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in March 2010, the first of several putative securities class action lawsuits was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits were largely identical and alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The actions were consolidated in September 2010 and, in April 2011 the court entered an order appointing Catoosa Fund, L.P. and its attorneys as lead plaintiff and lead counsel. In March 2012, after the court dismissed the lead plaintiff's first and second amended complaints with prejudice, the court entered judgment in favor of defendants. Lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2012. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on March 7, 2014. As of the date of Form 10-Q filing, the district court's order dismissing this matter with prejudice is final, and the matter has been formally concluded. "We believe we are entitled to coverage under our relevant insurance policies with respect to the putative securities class action lawsuits, subject to a $350,000 retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient," the Company said. The Company is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the rapid development and commercialization of novel therapies to treat serious diseases for which there are limited treatment options. MID-ATLANTIC WAREHOUSE: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Lasso Estrada, Gonzalo Garcia Paulino, Eleuterio Mendoza Ramirez, Ana Campos, Blanca Campos Rivera, Nelson Munoz, Enrique Garcia Paulin, Alejandro Mendoza, and Ulmi Pozo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mid-Atlantic Warehouse Services, Inc., Regency Furniture of Brandywine Inc., Regency Furniture Inc. and Abdelrahman Ayyad, Case No. 8:14-cv- 02795 (D. Md., September 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to properly pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per work week. The Defendants own and operate a home furnishing company, with their principal place of business in Prince George's County, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Deyka Williams Spencer, Esq. THE SPENCER FIRM LLC 200A Monroe St. Suite 305 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (301) 637-2866 Facsimile: (866) 686-2126 E-mail: dspencer@spencer-firm.com MRC EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Artola" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Orlando A. Artola and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. MRC Express, Inc., Alpha Logistics Service, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-23219 (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. MRC Express, Inc. and Alpha Logistics Service own and operate a courier company that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZUNDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM NEVSUN RESOURCES: October 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE NEVSUN RESOURCES LTD. SECURITIES CLASS ACTION Read this notice carefully as it may affect your rights. PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE This notice is directed to all persons, other than certain persons associated with the defendants, who acquired securities of Nevsun Resources Ltd. ("Nevsun") during the period from March 31, 2011 to and including February 6, 2012 ("Class Period") and held some or all of those shares at the close of trading on February 6, 2012 ("Class Members"). In 2012, a proposed class action was commenced against Nevsun and certain others in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court"). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants knew, or ought to have known, that the stated gold reserves at the Bisha mine were materially overstated. A proposed settlement has been reached, without admission of liability, which is subject to the approval by the Court. The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims. The defendants have denied and continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage in respect of the claims alleged in the class action. This notice provides a summary of the proposed settlement. THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The defendants will pay US $5,350,000 in full and final settlement of all claims against them and the other defendants. The settlement funds, less the lawyers' fees approved by the Court and administration costs, will be distributed to or on behalf of the Class Members. The Settlement Agreement may be reviewed at www.nevsun.com/fricke-settlementagreement.pdf LAWYERS' FEES, DISBURSEMENTS AND TAXES The lawyers for the Class Members will ask the Court to approve legal fees in the amount of 25 percent of US $5,350,000, plus disbursements, plus taxes. THE COURT HEARINGS The Court will be asked to certify the action as a class action and approve the proposed settlement and the lawyers' fees, disbursements and taxes at hearings to be held on October 6, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. E.T., at the Court House, 245 Windsor Avenue, Windsor, Ontario for the Ontario action. Class Members who do not oppose the proposed settlement need not appear at the hearing or take any other action at this time to indicate their desire to participate in the proposed settlement. Class Members who consider it desirable or necessary to seek the advice and guidance of their own lawyers may do so at their own expense. OBJECTIONS At the hearing, the Court will consider any objections to the proposed settlement by the Class Members if the objections are submitted in writing, by prepaid mail or e-mail to: Gregory D. Wrigglesworth, Kirwin Partners LLP, 423 Pelissier Street, Windsor, Ontario, N9A 4L2, fax: 519.790.0106, email: nevsun@kirwinpartners.com Attention: Nevsun Class Action, by no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 2, 2014. A written objection should include the following information: (a) the Class Member's name, current mailing address, telephone number, fax number and email address; (b) the number of shares purchased during and held at the close of the Class Period; (c) a brief statement of the nature of and reasons for the objection; and (d) whether the Class Member intends to appear at the hearing in person or by counsel, and, if by counsel, the name, address, telephone number, fax number and email address of counsel. IF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED If the proposed settlement is approved, there will be another notice published that will advise Class Members how to make a claim for settlement monies and how to decline to participate in the class action (i.e. opt-out). QUESTIONS Questions for the Class Members' lawyers may be directed to: Jay Strosberg Sutts, Strosberg LLP 600-251 Goyeau Street Windsor, ON N9A 6V4 Telephone: 800.229.5323 ext 8296 Fax: 866.316.5308 E-mail: nevsun@strosbergco.com This notice has been approved by the Court. Questions about matters in this notice should NOT be directed to the Court. NORDSTROM INC: Sued Over Deceptive Labeling of Nordstrom Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Branca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nordstrom, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02062 (S.D. Cal., September 2, 2014), arises from the deceptive and misleading labeling and marketing of Nordstrom Rack Products sold at the company-owned Nordstrom Rack stores. Nordstrom, Inc. owns and operates retail outlet stores, with its principal place of business at 1617 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98101. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE S. KREGER, P.A. 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 940 Santa Monica, California 90401 Telephone (310) 917-1083 Facsimile (310) 917-1001 E-mail: wayne@kregerlaw.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 L Street, NW, Suite 808 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone (202) 973-0900 Facsimile (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com - and - Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com NOVATION COMPANIES: Class Action Litigation in Early Stage ---------------------------------------------------------- Novation Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported class action case was filed on May 21, 2008, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and its individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not invested. Given the early stage of the litigation, the Company cannot provide an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the case and expects them to defend the case vigorously. Novation Companies acquires and operates technology-enabled service businesses, with a focus on building and developing these businesses to create long-term value. NOW COURIER: Faces "Bonet" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Edgardo G. Bonet and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Now Courier Inc., Alexander Mola, Case No. 1:14-cv-23217 (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Now Courier Inc. owns and operates a courier company that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell J.H. ZINDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM NRG ENERGY: Petition for Certiorari Granted in Nevada Case ---------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that GenOn Energy Inc. is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy companies unaffiliated with NRG. In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, which is handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the District Court. On August 26, 2013, GenOn along with the other defendants in the lawsuit filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeal's decision. On July 1, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari. In September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which is handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada of all plaintiffs' claims against GenOn. In February 2013, the plaintiffs in the Nevada case filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby ending one of the five lawsuits. GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint against certain losses relating to these lawsuits. NRG Energy produces, sells and delivers energy and energy services in major competitive power markets in the United States. NRG owns and operates power generation facilities; engages in the trading of energy, capacity and related products; transacts in and trades fuel and transportation services and directly sells energy, services, and innovative, sustainable products to retail customers. The Company sells retail electricity products and services under the name "NRG" and various brands owned by NRG. Finally, NRG is a leader in the deployment and commercialization of potentially transformative technologies, like electric vehicles, Distributed Solar and smart meter/home automation technology that collectively have the potential to fundamentally change the nature of the power industry and the role of the national electric transmission grid and distribution system. NRG ENERGY: Petition for Certiorari Denied in Pennsylvania Case --------------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against GenOn Energy Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania alleging that emissions from the Cheswick generating facility have damaged the property of neighboring residents. The Company disputes these allegations. Plaintiffs have brought nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability claims seeking both damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class that consists of people who own property or live within one mile of the Company's plant. In July 2012, the Company removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In October 2012, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, which plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 20, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the District Court. On September 3, 2013, the Company filed a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeals which was subsequently denied. In February 2014, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review and reversal of the Court of Appeals decision. On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. NRG Energy produces, sells and delivers energy and energy services in major competitive power markets in the United States. NRG owns and operates power generation facilities; engages in the trading of energy, capacity and related products; transacts in and trades fuel and transportation services and directly sells energy, services, and innovative, sustainable products to retail customers. The Company sells retail electricity products and services under the name "NRG" and various brands owned by NRG. Finally, NRG is a leader in the deployment and commercialization of potentially transformative technologies, like electric vehicles, Distributed Solar and smart meter/home automation technology that collectively have the potential to fundamentally change the nature of the power industry and the role of the national electric transmission grid and distribution system. OCWEN LOAN: Sued in Pennsylvania Over Misleading Loan Agreement --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa A. Abraham, Lisa Cave and Scott Cave, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-04977 (E.D. Pa., August 25, 2014), arises from the Defendant's in-house modification agreements containing the Balloon Disclosure are unfair, deceptive, and misleading because the agreements do not advise the homeowner as to the amount of the balloon payment that they will owe at the end of the term of their loan, or even the method by which such a balloon payment will be calculated. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is a mortgage bank and home mortgage loan servicer, servicing mortgages on behalf of lenders and investors, including pooled mortgage-backed securities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Todd S. Collins, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: 215-875-4613 E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net tcollins@bm.net - and - Ann Miller, Esq. ANN MILLER, LLC 261 Old York Road, Suite 524 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: 215-238-0468 Facsimile: 215-405-2653 E-mail: am@attorneyannmiller.com OCWEN LOAN: Sued in Wis. Over Violation of Debt Collection Law -------------------------------------------------------------- Iris Orta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01070 (E.D. Wis., September 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, owns and operates a debt collection agency, with its principal place of business located at 1661 Worthington Rd., Suite 100, West Palm Beach, FL 33409. The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP 3620 E Layton Ave Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com sademi@ademilaw.com PALERO MEAT: "Pareja" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Pareja, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Palero Meat Corp. (d/b/a Associated), and Miguel Quezada, Case No. 1:14-cv-07076 (S.D.N.Y., September 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Palero Meat Corp owns and operates a supermarket owned by Miguel Quezada, located at 4141 Laconia Avenue, Bronx, New York 10466. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE&ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212)317-1200 RICHARD G. EHRLICH: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Marta Albronda, Alexandria Albronda, Curran Brierley, Alishia Christine Longfellow, Sara Morici and Madison Riege, Individually, On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and As Class Representative v. Richard G. Ehrlich, Inc. d/b/a The Clam Bar, Betsy J. Flinn and Brian Mooney, Case No. 2:14-cv-05150 (E.D.N.Y., September 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, earned and improperly misdirected gratuities, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Richard G. Ehrlich, Inc. owns and operates a seafood restaurant, known as The Clam Bar at 2025 Montauk Highway, Amagansett, New York 11937. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Lipman, Esq. LIPMAN & PLESUR, LLP 500 North Broadway, Suite 105 Jericho, NY 11753-2131 Telephone: (516) 931-0050 Facsimile: (516) 931-0030 E-mail: lipman@lipmanplesur.com SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal of 2011 Power Outage Suit on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in September 2011, a power outage lasting approximately 12 hours affected millions of people from Mexico to southern Orange County, California. Within several days of the outage, several San Diego Gas & Electric Company customers filed a class action lawsuit in Federal District Court in San Diego against Arizona Public Service Company, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and SDG&E alleging that the companies failed to prevent the outage. The lawsuit seeks recovery of unspecified amounts of damages, including punitive damages. In July 2012, the court granted SDG&E's motion to dismiss the punitive damages request and dismissed Arizona Public Service Company and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation from the lawsuit. In September 2013, the court granted SDG&E's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit. In October 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the court's dismissal of their action. The FERC and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Staff conducted a joint inquiry to determine the cause of the power failure and issued a report in May 2012 regarding their findings. Following that report, Staff from FERC's Office of Enforcement (FERC Enforcement Staff) investigated potential violations of FERC's Reliability Standards associated with the outage. In January 2014, FERC Enforcement Staff issued a Staff Notice of Alleged Violations, in which FERC Enforcement Staff alleged violations of various Reliability Standards by several entities. FERC Enforcement Staff did not allege or find any violations by SDG&E. STERLING BANCORP: NY State Supreme Court Okays Final Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Sterling Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the New York State Supreme Court approved on June 25, 2014, the final settlement of the previously disclosed shareholder class actions consolidated under the caption In re Sterling Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 651263/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, 2013), alleging, among other things, that legacy Sterling's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Legacy Sterling Bancorp Merger Transaction, and by failing to disclose all material information to shareholders. The 30-day appeal period has passed and the settlement, which included payment of the plaintiff's legal fees, is final. Sterling Bancorp's principal subsidiary is Sterling National Bank. SUN-TEC INSTALLATION: "Owens" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Napoleon Owens, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Sun-Tec Installation, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a Sun-Tec Solar Energy and Heng Phu, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv- 81135 (S.D. Fla., September 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sun-Tec Installation provides home and commercial solar panel installation and repair. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene Dieudonne Cadet, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Telephone: (561) 853-2212 Facsimile: (561) 853-2213 E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Class Vehicles' Engine ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lekha Keister, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., a California corporation, and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-05459 (D.N.J., August 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose the design and manufacturing defect of 2007-2011 Toyota Camry HV, 2007-2009 Camry, 2009 Corolla, 2009 Matrix, 2006-2008 RAV4, 2007-2008 Solara, 2007- 2009 Scion tC, and 2008- 2009 Scion xB, including, without limitation, defects contained in the Class Vehicles' engine that cause them to be unable to properly utilize engine oil and to improperly burn off and consume abnormally high amounts of oil. The Defendants manufacture and distributes Toyota cars throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley Keith King, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com TRITON SUPERMARKET: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Otilio Apolinario and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b v. Triton Supermarket # II Corp., Domingo Coca, Case No. 1:14-cv-23218 (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Triton Supermarket # II Corp. owns and operates a grocery store within Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM TROPICAL SAILING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Serle, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Tropical Sailing, Inc. and Mark Lipkus, individually, a Florida profit corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-10067 (S.D. Fla., August 29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tropical Sailing, Inc. is a Florida corporation that provides wide selection of crewed boat charters and luxury yacht rentals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com VITAMIN SHOPPE: Falsely Marketed Vitamin Products, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Segovia and Junior Hermida, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., 7:14-cv-07061 (S.D.N.Y., September 2, 2014), alleges that the Defendant use false and misleading labeling and marketing claim to the Product Primal Pro: Aminogen to help support amino acid absorption and nitrogen retention from whey protein. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. is a retailer of nutritional products and sports supplements as well as herbs, homeopathic remedies, and beauty aids. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com - and - Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Esq. Peter James Cambs, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 3301 Bonita Beach Road Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 390-1000 Facsimile: (239) 390-0055 E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com pcambs@yourlawyer.com W.P. CAREY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action Over Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P. Carey Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on December 31, 2013, Mr. Ira Gaines and entities affiliated with him commenced a purported class action (Ira Gaines, et al. v. Corporate Property Associates 16 - Global Incorporated, Index. No. 650001/2014, N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County) against the Company, WPC REIT Merger Sub Inc., CPA(R):16 - Global, and the directors of CPA(R):16 - Global. On January 10, 2014, the plaintiffs asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order enjoining the vote of the stockholders of CPA(R):16 - Global pending the completion of expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction hearing. On January 13, 2014, after a hearing, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining the vote of CPA(R):16 - Global's stockholders, and the CPA(R):16 Merger was completed on January 31, 2014. On March 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added Carey Asset Management Corp. as a defendant and alleges (i) breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants, all of whom were members of the board of directors of CPA(R):16 - Global, (ii) breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company, and (iii) that the entity defendants other than the Company aided and abetted the individual defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties. The amended complaint demands that (i) a class be certified and plaintiffs named as class representatives, (ii) the CPA(R):16 Merger be rescinded or rescissory damages be awarded, (iii) damages be awarded, and (iv) plaintiffs' attorneys fees and other costs be reimbursed. "On April 11, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and are defending the case vigorously," the Company said. W. P. Carey Inc., or W. P. Carey, is, together with its consolidated subsidiaries and predecessors, a real estate investment trust, or REIT, that provides long-term financing via sale-leaseback and build-to-suit transactions for companies worldwide and manages a global investment portfolio. On January 31, 2014, CPA(R):16 - Global merged with and into the Company based on a merger agreement, dated as of July 25, 2013. WALGREEN CO: December 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- IF YOU PURCHASED CERTAIN GLUCOSAMINE AND CHONDROITIN PRODUCTS YOU COULD RECEIVE MONEY FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT A class action settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court in Quinn et al. v. Walgreen Co., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Supervalu, Inc., and Perrigo Company of South Carolina, Inc., Case No. 7:12-cv-8187 VB (U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action"). Your rights may be affected by this proposed settlement. WHAT THE ACTION IS ABOUT Plaintiffs claim retailers including Walgreens and Wal-Mart sold Perrigo-manufactured products containing glucosamine and/or chondroitin (the "Covered Products") using labels that misleadingly stated that the products would help "rebuild cartilage," "lubricate joints," and "improve joint comfort" when they do not. Defendants deny they violated the law and believe that the products provide the benefits stated on the labels. Perrigo has agreed to provide $2.8 million (the "Fund") to settle the claims in order to avoid the cost, disruption and risk of continued litigation. The Fund will pay eligible claims, notice and administration costs as well as attorneys' fees, expenses and plaintiff incentive awards. The Class includes U.S. residents who purchased for personal use, and not resale or distribution, a Covered Product between November 1, 2005 and August 1, 2014. This is only a summary. Visit the website below, or call (844) 322-8236 for a complete list of Covered Products and retailers. WHAT YOU CAN DO 1. Receive A Cash Award - you must submit a Claim Form by Monday, November 24, 2014. Claim Forms are available from the Settlement Administrator and on the Settlement Website. Class Members who submit valid claims accompanied by cash register receipts can get a cash award for the actual receipt price per bottle. Class Members who submit valid claims without cash register receipts can get a cash award of $12.00 per bottle, up to maximum of eight (8) bottles. The actual amount each class member receives will depend on the total number of claims received. 2. Exclude Yourself From The Settlement - submit a signed letter to the Settlement Administrator stating your request for exclusion, that you are a member of the class, and that you purchased one or more of the Covered Products, post-marked no later than November 24, 2014. If you do not exclude yourself, you will be bound by the decisions of the Court. 3. Object To The Settlement - if you wish to object to the settlement, you must file an objection with the Court, Class Counsel and Perrigo's Counsel no later than November 24, 2014. Complete details are found on the website below. A final hearing will be held on December 12, 2014 at 2:00 p.m., to determine the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed Settlement and to award attorneys' fees and costs. The motions for attorneys' fees and costs and plaintiff incentive awards will be posted on www.PerrigoGlucosamineSettlement.com after they are filed. The final hearing will take place before the Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti in Courtroom 620, of the U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., 300 Quarropas St., White Plains, NY 10601. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but are not required to. For detailed information about the Settlement and your rights, including a complete description of theCovered Products, the full Notice, a Claim Form, and the full Settlement Agreement, visit www.PerrigoGlucosamineSettlement.com or write to the Settlement Administrator at Perrigo Glucosamine Settlement, c/o GCG, PO Box 10111, Dublin, OH 43017-3111 or call (844) 322-8236. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Representatives of the Settlement Class Counsel for the Settlement Class Contact: Todd S. Garber, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP, (914) 298-3281; Stewart M. Weltman, Stewart M. Weltman, LLC, (312) 588-5033; Elaine A. Ryan, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C., (602) 274-1100; Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Carlson Lynch LTD, (412) 322-9243 WEIGHT WATCHERS: Dec. 2014 Final Hearing on Class Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in Jeri Connolly et al. v. Weight Watchers North America, Inc., in August 2013, the Company was contacted by plaintiffs' counsel in the previously filed and settled Sabatino v. Weight Watchers North America, Inc. case ("Sabatino"), threatening to file a new class action on behalf of the Company's current and former service providers in California asserting various wage and hour claims, including but not limited to claims for unpaid overtime and minimum wage violations, which allegedly accrued after the effective date of the Sabatino settlement. On March 17, 2014, the parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the matter on a class-wide basis for $1,688. On April 29, 2014, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding to document the terms and conditions of settlement and, the following day, plaintiffs filed a complaint regarding the claims at issue in the Northern District of California. On June 11, 2014, the parties filed a formal settlement agreement and other required documents for the Court's preliminary approval. On July 21, 2014, the parties received the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. A hearing seeking the Court's final approval of the settlement is scheduled for December 2014. The Company believes that its previously recorded reserve is adequate with respect to this matter. WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Litigation Consolidated --------------------------------------------------- Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in March 2014, two substantially identical putative class action complaints alleging violation of the federal securities laws were filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, and the Company's controlling shareholder, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock, no par value per share, between February 14, 2012 and October 30, 2013, inclusive (the "Class"). The complaints allege that, during that period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts. The complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the Class. In June 2014, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. The Company continues to believe that the suits are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. YAHOO! INC: Dismissal of Stockholder Class Actions on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that since June 6, 2011, two purported stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain officers and directors of the Company by plaintiffs Bonato and the Twin Cities Pipe Trades Pension Trust. In October 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions under the caption In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. In a consolidated amended complaint filed December 15, 2011, the lead plaintiff purports to represent a class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock between April 19, 2011 and July 29, 2011, and alleges that during that class period, defendants issued statements that were materially false or misleading because they did not disclose information relating to Alibaba Group's restructuring of Alipay. The complaint purports to assert claims for relief for violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and for violation of Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages, injunctive and equitable relief, fees, and costs. On August 10, 2012, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs have appealed. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Completed in "Reyes" Case --------------------------------------------------------- Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that current putative class actions and similar claims include a complaint relating to the Company's banking relationships with customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices in which the plaintiff seeks a trebled monetary award under the federal RICO Act, Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et. al., brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In the third quarter of 2013, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Reyes case. In the first quarter of 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals approved the plaintiff's motion to appeal the District Court decision. Discovery has been completed in the Reyes case. The Company provides a full range of banking and related services through subsidiary banks in 11 Western and Southwestern states as follows: Zions First National Bank ("Zions Bank"), in Utah, Idaho and Wyoming; California Bank & Trust ("CB&T"); Amegy Corporation ("Amegy") and its subsidiary, Amegy Bank, in Texas; National Bank of Arizona ("NBAZ"); Nevada State Bank ("NSB"); Vectra Bank Colorado ("Vectra"), in Colorado and New Mexico; The Commerce Bank of Washington ("TCBW"); and The Commerce Bank of Oregon ("TCBO"). The Parent and its subsidiary banks also own and operate certain nonbank subsidiaries that engage in financial services. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Meridian Funds Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that current putative class actions and similar claims include a complaint arising from the Company's banking relationships with Frederick Berg and a number of investment funds controlled by him using the "Meridian" brand name, in which the liquidating trustee for the funds seeks an award from Zions, on the basis of aiding and abetting and other claims, for monetary damages suffered by victims of a fraud allegedly perpetrated by Berg, In re Consolidated Meridian Funds a/k/a Meridian Investors Trust, Mark Calvert as Liquidating Trustee, et. al. vs. Zions Bancorporation and The Commerce Bank of Washington, N.A., pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington. Discovery is in process in the Meridian Funds case. The Company provides a full range of banking and related services through subsidiary banks in 11 Western and Southwestern states as follows: Zions First National Bank ("Zions Bank"), in Utah, Idaho and Wyoming; California Bank & Trust ("CB&T"); Amegy Corporation ("Amegy") and its subsidiary, Amegy Bank, in Texas; National Bank of Arizona ("NBAZ"); Nevada State Bank ("NSB"); Vectra Bank Colorado ("Vectra"), in Colorado and New Mexico; The Commerce Bank of Washington ("TCBW"); and The Commerce Bank of Oregon ("TCBO"). The Parent and its subsidiary banks also own and operate certain nonbank subsidiaries that engage in financial services. ********* 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 * * *