/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140915.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 15, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 183 Headlines AIRBNB: Exacerbates San Francisco Housing Shortage, Suit Claims ALL AMERICAN: "Mollere" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action APEX REDI: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages AURORA LOAN: Gets Prelim. Approval of $5.25-Mil. Class Settlement BANK OF AMERICA: Quinn Emanuel Files Antitrust Class Action BARRICK GOLD: Three Law Firms File Amended Claim in Class Action BAYER: Neonicotinoids Class Action Attracts Criticism BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Sets $39 Million Reserve for Class Action CATERPILLAR INC: Consumer Law Group Files ACERT Class Action CBS BROADCASTING: Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages for Interns CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Fisher-Klosterman Faces Liability Suit CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Suit Over Met-Pro Merger Fully Resolved CENTURYLINK INC: To Defend Against Appeal in "Fulghum" Case CENTURYLINK INC: Settlements in Right-of-Way Cases Have Final OK CENTURYLINK INC: Defendant in Louisiana Securities Actions CHARLES SCHWAB: Dismissal of Bond Market Fund Suit on Appeal COOPER TIRE: Class Actions Over Botched Apollo Merger Terminated COOPER TIRE: OFI Risk Arbitrages Class Action in Early Stage COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over $55 "Executive Membership" COVISINT CORPORATION: Faces Two Class Actions Over IPO DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Has Fixed Wages, Animation Artist Says ECOLAB INC: Settlement in "Cooper" Suit Paid in June 2014 ECOLAB INC: Defendant in Four Wage and Hour Lawsuits ECOLAB INC: Nalco Faces Actions Over Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill ECOLAB INC: "Franks" Product Liability Action Dismissed in May ETHICON INC: W.V. Jury Awards $3.27MM in Pelvic Mesh Device Suit ELDORADO TRADING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime FANNIE MAE: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied in June FANNIE MAE: Deal in Principle Reached in 2008 Securities Case FANNIE MAE: Motion for Reconsideration in 2008 ERISA Case Denied FANNIE MAE: Bid to Dismiss Purchase Agreements Suit Fully Briefed FIFTH THIRD: Merchants Appeal Approval of VISA Settlement FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court to Issue Mandate Remanding ERISA Case FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Seeks Summary Judgment in "McGrogan" Case FIRST COMMONWEALTH: 3 New Cases May Proceed on Theories of Fraud FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA Facing "Hawkins" Class Action GENERAL MILLS: Court Refused to Dismiss Contamination Lawsuit GM SALARIED: Sued Over Failure to Pay Plan Benefits Interest GOOGLE INC: Lawyers Challenge Rejection of "No-Poach" Settlement GOOGLE INC: Calls Rejection of $325-Mil. Deal "Clear Legal Error" HAMMAD ENTERPRISES: Faces "Maceda" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT HAMPSHIRE TIMES: Faces "Feng" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HAWAII: Human Services Dep't Sued Over Denial of Autism Treatment IMPACT STAFF: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Plaintiffs Must File Consolidated Suit JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Xarelto Suits May Expand to Mass-Tort LEXISNEXIS RISK: Gets Final OK of $13.5-Mil. Class Settlement LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Settles U.S. Securities Class Action M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation in Discovery MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: "Militello" Case Voluntarily Dismissed MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Agreement Reached in Questcor Class Actions MARRONE BIO: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in Calif. MARRONE BIO: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action MERCK & CO: Defendant in 30 Vioxx Class Action Lawsuits MERCK & CO: Dispositive Motions Fully Briefed in Vioxx Actions MERCK & CO: To Proceed With ONJ Accord at Reduced Funding Level MERCK & CO: 280 ONJ-Related Lawsuits Pending in New Jersey MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL MERCK & CO: 490 Claims Over Januvia/Janumet Products at June 30 MERCK & CO: 1,940 NuvaRing Cases at June 30 MERCK & CO: 1,280 Lawsuits Involving Propecia/Proscar at June 30 MERCK & CO: Motion to Dismiss Coupon Litigation Granted in Part MIDWAY AIRPORT: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Uriostegui" Suit Says MYLAN INC: 775 Self-Funded Customers Dropped From Lorazepam Suit MYLAN INC: Motions Remain Pending in Modafinil Antitrust Suit MYLAN INC: Facing Civil Lawsuits by Purchasers of Solodyn(R) MYLAN INC: Wants Suit by Actos(R), Actoplus Met(R) Buyers Nixed MYLAN INC: Accrued $13.4MM at June 30 on Product Liability NEWBERRY EATS: Faces "Silvey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime OAKLAND RAIDERS: Wins Prelim. OK of Cheerleaders Suit Settlement PENN WEST: Wolf Popper Files Class Securities Class Action PFIZER INC: Court Dismissed Celebrex and Bextra Claims in July PFIZER INC: Accord Reached in Neurontin Third-Party Payer Case PFIZER INC: Lipitor PI Lawsuits Consolidated in MDL 2502 PFIZER INC: Third Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Complaint PFIZER INC: Faces Celebrex Class Action Filed in July PNC FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Lauren" Action Still Pending PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Court Consolidates 3 Class Actions PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Faces "Yancy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT RALPH LAUREN: Falsely Marketed Merchandise, "Branca" Suit Claims RJJ RESTAURANT: "Cholula" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ROCKET FUEL: Sued in California Over Misleading Financial Report ROCKET FUEL: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Bot Blocking SABRE CORPORATION: To Appeal Ruling Over "Control" of Hotels SABRE CORPORATION: Provides Updates on 4 Consumer Class Actions SABRE CORPORATION: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint SILVER DINER: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, Suit Claims SOUTHSIDE BANCSHARES: Faces Lawsuit Over OmniAmerican Merger SUN HOLDINGS: Fast-Food Employees Seek OT Class Certification THORATEC CORPORATION: Filed Motion to Dismiss Cooper Class Action TOTAL SYSTEM: Unit Named as Defendant in Telexfree Class Suits TRUSTMARK CORP: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss OSIC Claims TRUSTMARK CORP: Settlement Funds in Overdraft Suit Distributed UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Concedes Error in Class Action Ruling ULTIMATE VACATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Texas Suit Claims US NAVY: Nonliturgical Protestant Chaplains Class Not Certified VETERANS AFFAIRS: Wins Judgment in Suit Alleging Retaliation VOLTARI CORPORATION: Filed Answering Brief in 9th Cir. Appeal WELLS FARGO: Faces "Hartley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime XEROX CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Securities Suit * Counsel & Heal Unveils 10 Most Dangerous Foods Based on Recalls ********* AIRBNB: Exacerbates San Francisco Housing Shortage, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- AirBnB is driving up the already stratospheric price of rentals in San Francisco, and exacerbating its housing shortage, by illegally facilitating the conversion of residential properties to short- term rentals, a class action claims in Superior Court. Lead plaintiff Louis Gamache claims that through its Web site, "AirBnB participates in, facilitates and enables the illegal rental of short-term rentals for rooms and apartments in the City and County of San Francisco." AirBnB works with its "hosts" by offering them a welter of services through which they can list their properties online for rent. It even "claims to insure hosts up to $1,000,000, which facilitates a false sense of security," Gamache says in the lawsuit. "Given the number of articles surrounding the illegality of AirBnB, postings on its own website from users, and involvement in lawsuits on behalf of users, AirBnB is on notice that its business is illegal in San Francisco," according to the complaint. "On its website, AirBnB even summarizes the San Francisco Administrative Code, Section 41.A.5b y stating: 'San Francisco law prohibits the offering of a "residential unit" for rent for "tourist or transient" use. The definitions of "residential unit" and "tourist or transient" are found at Section 4I.A.4. While the definitions are not entirely clear, the law appears to regulate the rental of a residential unit for less than a 30-day term in any apartment building with at least four units, and it may regulate more types of housing.' "AirBnB is also on notice that its business is illegal in San Francisco because Plaintiffs' counsel notified AirBnB of its intent to file a lawsuit based on AirBnB's violations of the laws discussed below." Gamache seeks to represent a class of "tenants who lived in a residential unit while other units within the building were rented through AirBnB's platform." He claims that AirBnB knows it is violating the law, and encourages others to do so, and that it is "aware that permanent residents are being displaced and harmed as a result of AirBnB's activities in San Francisco." He seeks class certification, an injunction and damages for violations of the City Code and unfair competition. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyson Redenbarger, Esq. HOOSHMAND LAW GROUP 22 Battery Street, Suite 610, San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 318-5709 Facsimile: (415) 376-5897 E-mail: tyson.reden@gmail.com ALL AMERICAN: "Mollere" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Lana Mollere, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated V. The All American Bar On First Avenue Inc. d/b/a American Bar, Bar at 1140 2nd Ave., Inc. d/b/a The Blue Room, 58 E. 34th St. Wings Lodge Inc. d/b/a Murray Bar, Robert Gerola, Jr., and Robert O'Rourke, Case No. 1:14-cv-07095 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2014), seeks to recover minimum wage, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own, operate and control a bar and restaurant within the State if New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Eric J. Gitig, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 ParkAvenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. on Sept. 8 disclosed that it has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Altisource Portfolio Solutions SA on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company during the period from July 25, 2013 through August 4, 2014. Altisource provides real estate and mortgage portfolio management and related technology products and asset recovery and customer relationship management services. The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information regarding the Company's improper business and operational practices including, among other things, the fact that Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company of which Defendant William C. Erbey is Chairman of the Board, was funneling as much as $65 million in fees annually from already-distressed homeowners to Altisource for minimal work; and that Erbey, who owns approximately 27% of Altisource's shares outstanding, was directly involved in approving Altisource's conflicted transactions with Ocwen. Accordingly, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted material information from Altisource's public disclosures, which failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) Altisource was charging exorbitant fees to Ocwen to enable Defendants to funnel as much as $65 million in questionable fees; (ii) despite public representations to the contrary, Defendant Erbey was personally involved in approving conflicted transactions with Altisource and other related entities which he controlled; (iii) the Company failed to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including lending regulations designed to protect homeowners; (iv) the Company's financial statements during the Class Period were artificially inflated and did not provide a fair presentation of the Company's finances and operations; (v) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (vi) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action at www.saxenawhite.com If you purchased Altisource stock between July 25, 2013 and August 4, 2014, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests. If you purchased Altisource common stock during the Class Period of July 25, 2013 through August 4, 2014, and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than November 7, 2014. You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. APEX REDI: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Jackson and others similarly situated v. Apex Redi Mix Industries, LLC and Terry Daniel, Case No. 3:14-cv-03146 (N.D. Tex., September 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Apex Redi Mix Industries, LLC operates in the brick, stone, and related construction material merchant wholesalers industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Leonard Scalise, Esq. Daniel Bret Ross, Esq. Vijay Anand Pattisapu, Esq. ROSS LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 E-mail: charles@rosslawpc.com dbr@rosslawpc.com vijay@rosslawgroup.com AURORA LOAN: Gets Prelim. Approval of $5.25-Mil. Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aurora Loan Services can pay $5.25 million to settle a class action alleging that it deceived distressed California homeowners to extract more money from them, according to Courthouse News Service. The case is Mauder, et al. v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Case No. C 10-3118 SBA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division. BANK OF AMERICA: Quinn Emanuel Files Antitrust Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Susan Beck, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that fresh off a favorable ruling in a lawsuit accusing big banks of conspiring to fix credit default swaps, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan has launched a new multibillion- dollar antitrust suit against the banks, this time over interest rate swaps. The firm filed a class action complaint on Sept. 4 in federal court in Manhattan, asserting that 13 major banks and broker ICAP plc conspired to fix the so-called ISDAfix rate. The firm seeks to represent everyone that entered into an interest rate derivative transaction in the eight-year period from Jan. 1, 2006, to January 2014, a group that mostly includes hedge funds, pension funds and other large investors. The defendants include Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co. Trillions of dollars of financial instruments were affected by the banks' collusion, the complaint asserts. Quinn Emanuel partner Daniel Brockett, who is also directing the credit default swaps class action, is spearheading the case. In contrast to the CDS case, where Quinn Emanuel battled for the lead counsel role with plaintiffs firms, this time the firm has partnered from the start with two of its competitors. Named plaintiff Alaska Electrical Pension Fund is also represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Scott + Scott. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman. ISDAfix is among the most important benchmarks in the U.S. financial system, according to the complaint. It's used to set rates not only for "plain vanilla" interest rate swaps, but also for commercial real estate mortgages, structured debt products and also more esoteric financial instruments such as "steepeners" and "snowballs." Many of these products -- like interest rate "swaptions," which are options to do interest rate swaps -- may not be widely known, but there's a huge market for them. Swaptions alone involved $29.5 trillion in interest rate swaps as of July 2013. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is reportedly investigating the ISDAfix market but has not yet taken action. The pension fund plaintiff commissioned its own experts to study swings in ISDAfix rates and found anomalous spikes that could only be explained by collusion, the complaint states. The plaintiffs have asked for an equitable tolling of the statutes of limitation because the defendants concealed their activity. Several of the defendant banks declined to comment to Bloomberg News. In the unrelated credit default swap antitrust case, which targets a nearly identical group of banks, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote on Thursday refused to dismiss claims that the defendants violated state unjust enrichment laws and Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Pearson, Simon & Warshaw is colead counsel with Quinn Emanuel in that case. BARRICK GOLD: Three Law Firms File Amended Claim in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- On September 5, 2014, Koskie Minsky LLP, Sutts, Strosberg LLP, Siskinds LLP and Groia & Company Professional Corporation, counsel in the Barrick Gold Corporation securities class action, served a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in a $3 billion class action against Barrick Gold Corporation and others. The claim alleges wrongdoing against Barrick Gold Corporation and its senior officers Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver. The detailed claim alleges there were misrepresentations in Barrick's public disclosure relating to Barrick's development of the Pascua-Lama mine located on the border between Chile and Argentina. In particular, Barrick failed to disclose that certain key development activities at the Pascua-Lama mine were not in compliance with certain environmental conditions imposed by the Chilean government on Barrick's approval to develop the Pascua- Lama Project. The purpose of these conditions was to ensure that the development and, later, the mining of the Pascua-Lama Project would have the least possible adverse impact on the community and the environment. "The action raises serious questions about how Barrick Gold conducted its business and affairs and the manner in which it raised capital from public markets" explains Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP. If you acquired Barrick Gold Corporation securities during the period from October 29, 2010 to November 1, 2013, please contact Koskie Minsky LLP at 1-888-723-4305 or e-mail at barrickclassaction@kmlaw.ca Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost class action, labour, employment and litigation firms. Its class actions group has been a national leader in class actions and has prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area. Sutts, Strosberg LLP is one of the preeminent class action law firms in Canada. It has been involved in many of the most important class action decisions in the country and has recovered more than $1.5 billion for its clients. Siskinds LLP is a leader in securities class actions. It has successfully resolved numerous securities class actions, and is lead counsel or co-lead counsel in eleven of the twelve class actions filed under Ontario's new investor protection legislation, Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act. Part XXIII.1 came into effect on December 31, 2005, and was designed to enhance the remedies that are available to investors under Ontario law. Groia & Company Professional Corporation is one of Canada's leading securities litigation boutiques, having worked on almost every major Canadian securities case: Asbestos, Bre-X, Cinar, Hollinger Inc., Philip Services, Proprietary Industries Inc., TD Waterhouse, Thomson Kernaghan, UBS, YBM, and Yorkton Securities. For further information: Media contacts: Kirk Baert (416) 595-2117 kbaert@kmlaw.ca Jay Strosberg (519) 561-6285 jay@strosbergco.com Michael Robb (519) 660-7872 michael.robb@siskinds.com Joseph Groia (416) 203-4472 jgroia@groiaco.com BAYER: Neonicotinoids Class Action Attracts Criticism ----------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that claims made in a recently filed class action lawsuit alleging pesticides are harming Canada's honeybee population are not true, says an Alberta commercial beekeeper who has seen no ill effects on his colonies. Two Ontario beekeeping companies filed a class action lawsuit against pesticide-manufacturers Bayer and Syngenta on Sept. 3, seeking $450 million from the companies over claims that a class of insecticides known as Neonicotinoids is to blame for the deaths of many of their bees. According to a Sierra Club Canada press release, the national program director of Sierra Club Canada introduced the beekeepers to the class action firm Siskinds LLP, which then filed the lawsuit on their behalf. And so, bees became the spokes-animals of the Sierra Club Canada's cause, said Lee Townsend, a commercial beekeeper at TPLR Honey Farms in Stony Plain, Alberta. "They've been working a while trying to ban these products," Mr. Townsend said. "First they tried to use butterflies and frogs." In 2013, the European Food Safety Authority claimed honey bees were being threatened by exposure to the pesticides, also known as "neonics," via dust that is sent into the air during the planting of a crop, the complaint says. "When they saw the dust issues . . . they latched right onto that topic and used the bee industry as their cause to have these products banned," Mr. Townsend said. "I have a fine understanding of what they're doing. But it's not accurate." In fact, Mr. Townsend said the amount of colonies on his farms has more than doubled in the last eight years -- from 1,500 in 2006 to 3,100 this year. However, the Ontario Beekeepers' Association claims the pesticides are to blame for incidents in Quebec, citing three Pest Management Regulatory Agency reports that found it was "highly probable" the neonics were to blame for deaths. In June, the Sierra Club Canada urged Health Canada to ban neonics when it announced the results of a Worldwide Integrated Assessment study undertaken by the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides. "Canada needs a strong regulatory regime that bases its decisions on science, not on needs of the pesticide industry," said John Bennett, national program director of Sierra Club Canada. The debate has also taken place in Europe, where 15 of 27 European Union member states voted to restrict the use of three neocons for two years, beginning on Dec. 1. "When bees forage on pollen or nectar from treated crops, consume guttation droplets or are otherwise exposed to small levels of the Neonicotinoids, paralysis and death can result along with a bioaccumulation of the Neonicotinoids in the bee hive," the complaint says. Richard Tren, the director of Africa Fighting Malaria, disagreed so strongly with the anti-neonic claims that he authored an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal in July. It is called, "The Honeybees are Just Fine." The piece notes that the bee population in the United States has remained stable since the introduction of neonics, while numbers have slightly risen in Europe and have grown to the highest they've been in Canada since the late 1980s. He also said worldwide, global bee populations are up dramatically since the 1960s. "One thing that we know from other (environmental) campaigns is that you need to have a bit of cause and effect," Mr. Tren said in an interview Sept. 4. "I just don't see that, and so the other threats to bees such as parasites and viruses seem to be more important causes of harm. It doesn't seem to be that there is a problem to bees in Canada. There are all sorts of natural variations such as weather, not insecticides." But large pesticide-makers make enticing targets, he argued, and the word "insecticide" carries very negative connotations, he feels. "This has more to do with politics than any threat to bees," he said. "It's very worrying. "I live in Washington, D.C., now, but in developing countries, look at a world without insecticides. It's a pretty nasty place with nasty parasites and low yield -- less food that's more expensive." The Sierra Club Canada's news releases page has a graphic showing a bee wearing a protective suit. The group has also started a #SaveTheBees campaign. Mr. Townsend said a better solution would be education. Of those beekeepers who are complaining, he says, "I wouldn't call them exactly great beekeepers." "Many are small in size or hobbyists," he continued. "It's easier to blame a chemical than to explain the unknown, in their mind." A four-year program that began in 2006, he said, helped after substantial winter losses. "This industry, while not perfect and the challenges before it, is thriving," he said. "It's bigger than it's ever been. So where's the crisis?" BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Sets $39 Million Reserve for Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brinker International, Inc. (NYSE: EAT) on August 7, 2014, announced results for the fiscal fourth quarter ended June 25, 2014. The Company said that other gains and charges in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014 includes pre-tax charges of approximately $39.5 million related to various litigation matters including a class action litigation pending in California. In August 2004, certain current and former hourly restaurant team members filed a putative class action lawsuit against Brinker in California Superior Court alleging violations of California labor laws with respect to meal periods and rest breaks. The parties participated in mediation regarding this case on April 8, 2014, where preliminary settlement discussions began that ultimately culminated in a preliminary settlement agreement being reached on Aug. 6, 2014. This preliminary settlement agreement remains subject to court approval and seeks to resolve all claims in exchange for a maximum settlement payment not to exceed $56.5 million. The company established a reserve of approximately $39.0 million related to this pending class action litigation, but the actual amount of any settlement payment could vary from the company's reserve and will be subject to many factors including approval by the court, claims process, and other matters typically associated with the potential settlement of complex class action litigation. The aggregate litigation reserves of approximately $39.5 million established in the fourth quarter are based on the terms set forth in the applicable agreements and the company's reasonable expectations regarding future events. Brinker International, Inc. is one of the world's leading casual dining restaurant companies. Founded in 1975 and based in Dallas, Texas, as of June 25, 2014, Brinker owned, operated, or franchised 1,615 restaurants under the names Chili's(R) Grill & Bar (1,569 restaurants) and Maggiano's Little Italy(R) (46 restaurants). CATERPILLAR INC: Consumer Law Group Files ACERT Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Clarissa Hawes, writing for Land Line Magazine, reports that a law firm in Canada has filed a national class action complaint against Caterpillar Inc. and Caterpillar of Canada Corp. over alleged defects with its C13 and C15 engines. Jeff Orenstein of the Consumer Law Group told Land Line in September his cases filed in Quebec and Ontario are similar to the cases filed in the United States over problems with Caterpillar Advanced Combustion Emissions Reduction Technology (ACERT) engines. The complaint in Canada includes Caterpillar engines from model years 2007 to 2011. "I have heard from quite a few people, and the amount of money they have spent repairing these engines is amazing," Mr. Orenstein said. "We have heard from fleets that have leased or purchased these trucks to the smaller guys who have all lost money in not being able to work. The massive cost of repairs has put some people in financial ruin." He said the cases in Canada are still in the early phases, and his firm is still "determining the jurisdiction where we will proceed" with the case. At this point, Orenstein said he was unsure of the exact number of trucks that have been sold in Canada with ACERT engines problems. Mr. Orenstein said he has heard from Canadian truck drivers who say they have experienced problems with their regeneration systems and have had to pay costly repair bills to replace their emissions and regeneration systems, sometimes multiple times if the repairs were not covered under warranty. Others have had to pay pricey towing bills to have their trucks towed to a Caterpillar-certified repair facility in Canada because the computer technology is proprietary. They have suffered a diminished value of their vehicles because of the alleged defects. "The amount of money they have spent on repairs is amazing, and we are hoping to help them recover some of this money," he said. "We realize that for some people, they need the money now and they can't wait, but we are fighting the good fight." In the U.S., a dozen lawsuits have now been filed against Caterpillar over alleged defects with its C13 and C15 engines from model years 2007 to 2010. Recently, Paul Weiss of the Complex Litigation Group LLC in Highland Park, Ill., told Land Line the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled that five proposed class action lawsuits over the Cat engines would be consolidated and heard in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey. CBS BROADCASTING: Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages for Interns ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mallory Musallam, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated who were employed by CBS Broadcasting, Inc., CBS Corporation, and Worldwide Pants Incorporated or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by CBS Broadcasting, Inc. and Worldwide Pants Incorporated v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., CBS Corporation, and Worldwide Pants, Inc. or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by CBS Broadcasting, Inc., CBS Corporation, and Worldwide Pants Incorporated, Case No. 158662/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., September 4, 2014) is brought on behalf of a class consisting of persons, who worked for the Defendants as interns on The Late Show with David Letterman, and were misclassified as exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. is a New York business corporation headquartered in New York City, and is engaged in the entertainment industry. CBS Broadcasting is a subsidiary of CBS Corporation, and is the distributor of The Late Show with David Letterman. CBS Corporation is a foreign business corporation organized in Delaware and authorized to do business New York. Worldwide Pants Incorporated is a New York business corporation headquartered in Los Angeles, California, and is engaged in the entertainment industry. Worldwide Pants produces The Late Show with David Letterman. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Jack L. Newhouse, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad St, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com dmarkowitz@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Fisher-Klosterman Faces Liability Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- CECO Environmental Corp. 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 one of its subsidiaries, Fisher-Klosterman, Inc. ("FKI"), is a defendant party in a products liability lawsuit filed in Harris County, Texas on August 23, 2010 by three Valero refining companies. The plaintiffs claim that FKI (and its co-Defendants) used an allegedly defective refractory material included in cyclones it supplied to Valero that caused damages to refineries they own and operate. Plaintiffs claim to have suffered property damages including catalyst loss, regenerator repair costs, replacement part costs, damage to other property and business interruption loss although the Plaintiffs generally have alleged losses not in excess of $75 million, the Plaintiffs only specifically claim approximately $36 million in damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. "Based on currently available information, as of June 30, 2014, we have not recorded any reserve with respect to this matter," the Company said. CECO Environmental Corp. is a global environmental technology company focused on critical solutions in the energy, air pollution control, fluid handling and filtration segments. CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Suit Over Met-Pro Merger Fully Resolved ----------------------------------------------------------- CECO Environmental Corp. 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 Met-Pro Corporation and the Met-Pro former board of directors had been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit brought by an alleged former Met-Pro shareholder who challenged the proposed mergers filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case was captioned Raymond Gold v. Met-Pro Corporation, et al., filed July 8, 2013, and alleged, among other things, that the Met-Pro board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to Met-Pro and its shareholders in approving the merger agreement at an unfair price, unduly restricting other potential bidders from making competing offers, failing to consult with other bidders to create a competitive bid process, and unduly limiting the board's ability to consider and potentially accept an alternative proposal. The action sought an award of unspecified money damages. Met-Pro and the Company believe that these claims were without merit; however, in order to avoid the risk of delaying the consummation of the acquisition and to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation, on July 20, 2013, Met-Pro entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiff to settle the foregoing action without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. As part of the MOU, Met-Pro made certain additional disclosures related to the acquisition. On February 25, 2014, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, as contemplated by the MOU, which provides, among other things, for the conditional certification of a non-opt out class, for settlement purposes only, that includes any and all persons or entities who held shares of Met-Pro common stock, either of record or beneficially, at any time between April 22, 2013, the date Met-Pro announced the merger agreement, and August 27, 2013, the date of the consummation of the acquisition. The stipulation of settlement also provided for the payment of up to $0.2 million for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs to the attorneys for the class. The settlement and the amount of attorneys' fees and costs were subject to court approval, which was obtained on June 10, 2014. Accordingly, this matter is now fully resolved without any remaining liability to the Company. CECO Environmental Corp. is a global environmental technology company focused on critical solutions in the energy, air pollution control, fluid handling and filtration segments. CENTURYLINK INC: To Defend Against Appeal in "Fulghum" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink 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 William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al., filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300 million). Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The Court certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification as to other claims. On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott, approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II), on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely, except for limited discovery and motion practice as to approximately 80 of the plaintiffs. On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of the plaintiffs' claims in that case. On July 16, 2013, the Fulghum court granted plaintiffs' request to seek interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Embarq and the other defendants will defend the appeal, continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and seek to have the claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar grounds. "We have not accrued a liability for these matters because we believe it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of probable liability," the Company said. CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged primarily in providing an array of communications services to its residential, business, governmental and wholesale customers. CENTURYLINK INC: Settlements in Right-of-Way Cases Have Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink 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 several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against Qwest Communications International, Inc. on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.) The Company said, "For the most part, the complaints challenge our right to install our fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include the right to permit us to install our cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by-state basis." To date, the parties have received final approval of such settlements in 30 states. The settlement administration process, including claim submission and evaluation, is continuing in relation to a number of these settlements. The parties have not yet received either preliminary or final approval in two states where an action is pending (Texas and Massachusetts) and two states where actions were at one time, but are not currently, pending (Arizona and New Mexico). "We have accrued an amount that we believe is probable for resolving these matters; however, the amount is not material to our consolidated financial statements," the Company said. CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged primarily in providing an array of communications services to its residential, business, governmental and wholesale customers. CENTURYLINK INC: Defendant in Louisiana Securities Actions ---------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink 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 CenturyLink and certain of its affiliates are defendants in one consolidated securities and four shareholder derivative actions. The actions are pending in federal court in the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs in these actions have variously alleged, among other things, that CenturyLink and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated federal securities laws and/or breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company and its shareholders. Plaintiffs' complaints focus on alleged material misstatements or omissions concerning CenturyLink's financial condition and changes in CenturyLink's capital allocation strategy in early 2013. These matters are in preliminary phases and the Company intends to defend against the filed actions vigorously. "We have not accrued a liability for these matters as it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of probable liability," the Company said. CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged primarily in providing an array of communications services to its residential, business, governmental and wholesale customers. CHARLES SCHWAB: Dismissal of Bond Market Fund Suit on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM) (Northstar lawsuit). The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy, names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's shares) and CSIM as defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives by investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. The Charles Schwab 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' federal securities law claim and certain of plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed in proceedings before the court and following a successful petition by defendants to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have again appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is currently pending. The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan holding company engaged, through its subsidiaries, in securities brokerage, banking, money management, and financial advisory services. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Schwab) is a securities broker-dealer with over 300 domestic branch offices in 45 states, as well as a branch in each of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and London, England. In addition, Schwab serves clients in Hong Kong through one of CSC's subsidiaries. Other subsidiaries include Charles Schwab Bank (Schwab Bank), a federal savings bank, and Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (CSIM), the investment advisor for Schwab's proprietary mutual funds, which are referred to as the Schwab Funds(R), and for Schwab's exchange-traded funds, which are referred to as the Schwab ETFs(TM). COOPER TIRE: Class Actions Over Botched Apollo Merger Terminated ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Tire & Rubber 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 following the announcement of the proposed acquisition of the Company by wholly owned subsidiaries of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (the "Apollo entities") in June 2013, alleged stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits in state courts in Delaware and Ohio. These lawsuits, captioned In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. Stockholders Litigation, No. 9658 VCL and Auld v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 2013 CV 293, alleged that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by agreeing to enter into the proposed transaction for an allegedly unfair price and as the result of an allegedly unfair process. The lawsuits sought, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief. On December 30, 2013, the Company terminated the merger agreement with the Apollo entities. Following the termination of the merger agreement, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Delaware and Ohio lawsuits in April 2014. On October 4, 2013, the Company filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Cooper Tire Co. v. Apollo (Mauritius) Holdings Pvt. Ltd., et al., No. 8980- VCG, asking that the Apollo entities be required to use their reasonable efforts to close the then-pending merger transaction as expeditiously as possible and also seeking, among other things, declaratory relief and damages. On October 14, 2013, the Apollo entities filed counterclaims against the Company seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. On November 8, 2013, after expedited proceedings, the court found that the Apollo entities had not materially breached the merger agreement. On December 19, 2013, the Apollo entities moved for an entry of declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the conditions to closing the then-pending transaction were not satisfied before the November 2013 trial. On December 30, 2013, the Company terminated the merger agreement with the Apollo entities, and requested payment of the reverse termination fee, which the Apollo entities have refused to do. On January 27, 2014, the court determined that it would proceed with a decision on the Apollo entities' motion for declaratory judgment. That motion has been fully briefed and on July 9, 2014, the court heard oral arguments. A decision is expected to be issued in the future. COOPER TIRE: OFI Risk Arbitrages Class Action in Early Stage ------------------------------------------------------------ Cooper Tire & Rubber 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 on January 17, 2014, alleged stockholders of the Company filed a putative class- action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware relating to the terminated Apollo transaction. That lawsuit, captioned OFI Risk Arbitrages, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 1:14-cv-00068-LPS, generally alleges that the Company and certain officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly misleading disclosures in connection with the terminated transaction and seeks, among other things, damages. The Company and its officers believe that the allegations against them lack merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The Company regularly reviews the probable outcome of such legal proceedings, the expenses expected to be incurred, the availability and limits of the insurance coverage, and accrues for these proceedings at the time a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be estimated. This case has recently been filed and is at an early stage. As a result, the outcome of these pending proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and an estimate of any such loss cannot be made at this time. The Company believes that based upon information currently available, any liabilities that may result from these proceedings are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's liquidity, financial condition or results of operations. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over $55 "Executive Membership" ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Costco promised that a $55 "executive membership" would pay for itself by saving customers more than $55 a year, but it didn't, a class action claims in Kent County Court. COVISINT CORPORATION: Faces Two Class Actions Over IPO ------------------------------------------------------ Covisint 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 beginning on May 30, 2014, two putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, directors and certain officers at the time of the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") alleging violation of securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO and seeking unspecified damages. "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend them. The Company currently has no other outstanding material litigation," the Company said. Covisint provides a cloud engagement platform for enabling organizations to securely connect, engage and collaborate with large, distributed communities of customers, business partners, and suppliers. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Has Fixed Wages, Animation Artist Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that major players in the animation industry collude to fix wages and restrict career opportunities for their artists, a former DreamWorks animator claims in a federal antitrust class action filed on September 8, 2014. Robert A. Nitsch Jr., who was a senior character effects artist for DreamWorks and a clothes and hair technical director at Sony Pictures Imageworks, says animation and special effects studios -- including Walt Disney and its subsidiaries Pixar and LucasFilm, Sony Pictures, Digital Domain 3.0 and ImageMovers -- worked together to stifle wages and restrict career opportunities for animators, digital artists, software engineers and other technical workers. Nitsch's suit mirrors a class action filed against tech giants, Apple, Google and others in 2010 which claimed their CEOs made "gentleman's agreements" to eliminate competition and companion wage-setting mechanisms by not poaching each other's employees. Pixar and LucasFilm settled that case for $9 million collectively last year, but a $325 million agreement proposed by Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe has so far been nixed by the federal judge hearing that case. According to Nitsch's complaint, the animation studios acted in much the same way as the tech companies, conspiring to deprive the artists of "millions of dollars which defendants instead put to their bottom lines." The complaint continues: "It did so at the same time the films produced by these workers achieved world renown and generated billions in the United States and abroad." Nitsch says the scheme dates back to when the late Apple founder Steve Jobs bought LucasFilm's computer graphics division from George Lucas in 1986 and created Pixar. He claims that the pair, along with Pixar president Ed Catmull, then agreed not to cold- call each other's employees. Neither Lucas nor Catmull, nor Job's Apple, are defendants in Nitsch's action. Nitsch claims that Pixar and LucasFilm allegedly further agreed to notify the each other when making an offer to an employee, and agreed not to offer higher pay if the employee's current employer made a counter offer. And Jobs and Catmull spread these kinds of anti-competitive agreements throughout the animation industry, his complaint states. "Whenever a studio threatened to disturb the conspiracy's goals of suppressing wages and salaries by recruiting employees and offering better compensation, the leaders of the conspiracy took steps to stop them," Nitsch says in the complaint. The studios' cooperation was allegedly so thorough that they even emailed each other salary and budget information. In his complaint, Nitsch quotes Lucas as saying that "the rule we always had [was] we cannot get into a bidding war with other companies because we don't have the margins for that sort of thing." The other studios used similar practices and pay structures, Nitsch's complaint states. After a Justice Department investigation, Nitsch says Pixar and Lucasfilm signed settlements prohibiting them from make those kinds of nonsolicitation agreements. But the practice continues to this day, according to the complaint. "Defendants continue to discuss and agree on wage and salary ranges and prohibit active solicitation of other defendants' employees through the present," Nitsch says in his complaint. "Defendants communicated among themselves by phone and email and in in-person meetings in furtherance of the conspiracy," Nitsch adds. Nitsch seeks compensatory damages and a permanent ban on making agreements not to solicit other company's employees. He is represented by Daniel Small of the New York firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and locally by Richard Grossman of Pillsbury & Coleman. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Small, Esq. Brent W. Johnson, Esq. Jeffrey B. Dubner, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com jdubner@cohenmilstein.com - and - George Farah, Esq. Matthew Ruan, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 E-mail: gfarah@cohenmilstein.com mruan@cohenmilstein.com - and - Bruce Spiva, Esq. THE SPIVA LAW FIRM PLLC 1776 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 601 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 785-0601 E-mail: bspiva@spivafirm.com - and - Richard L. Grossman, Esq. PILLSBURY & COLEMAN LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-8000 E-mail: rgrossman@pillsburycoleman.com The case is Robert A. Nitsch, Jr. v. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04062-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. ECOLAB INC: Settlement in "Cooper" Suit Paid in June 2014 --------------------------------------------------------- Ecolab 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 Cooper v. Ecolab Inc., California State Court - Superior Court-Los Angeles County, case no. BC486875, the plaintiffs sought certification of a purported class of terminated California employees of any business for alleged violation of statutory obligations regarding payment of accrued vacation upon termination. The company reached a preliminary settlement with the plaintiffs, which was approved by the court on March 17, 2014. The settlement amount, which is not material to the company's operations or financial position, was paid in June 2014. ECOLAB INC: Defendant in Four Wage and Hour Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------- Ecolab 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 the company is a defendant in four pending wage hour lawsuits claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") or a similar state law. Of these four suits, two have been certified for class action status. Ross (formerly Icard) v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court - Northern District of California, case no. C 13-05097 PJH, an action under California state law, has been certified for class treatment of California Institutional employees. In Cancilla v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court - Northern District of California, case no. CV 12-03001, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide class of Pest Elimination Service Specialists for alleged FLSA violations. The suit also seeks a purported California sub-class for alleged California wage hour law violations and certifications of classes for state law violations in Washington, Colorado, Maryland, Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin and North Carolina. A third pending suit, Charlot v. Ecolab Inc., U.S. District Court- Eastern District of New York, case no. CV 12-04543, seeks nationwide class certification of Institutional employees for alleged FLSA violations as well as purported state sub-classes in New York, New Jersey, Washington and Pennsylvania alleging violations of state wage hour laws. A fourth pending suit, Schneider v. Ecolab, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, case no. 2014 CH 193, seeks certification of a class of Institutional employees for alleged violations of Illinois wage and hour laws. ECOLAB INC: Nalco Faces Actions Over Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ecolab 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 Nalco Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in six putative class action complaints related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Adams v. Louisiana, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01051 (E.D. La.); Elrod, et al. v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., et al., 12-cv-00981 (E.D. La.); Harris, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-02078- CJBSS (E.D. La.); Irelan v. BP Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-00881 (E.D. La.); Petitjean, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00316-RS-EMT (N.D. Fla.); and, Wright, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00397-B (S.D. Ala.). The cases were filed on behalf of various potential classes of persons who live and work in or derive income from the effected Coastal region. The Company said, "Each of the actions contains substantially similar allegations, generally alleging, among other things, negligence relating to the use of our COREXIT dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The plaintiffs in these putative class action lawsuits are generally seeking awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. These cases have been consolidated in MDL 2179." Nalco Company was also named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in 23 complaints filed by individuals: Alexander, et al. v. BP Exploration & Production, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00951 (E.D. La.); Best v. British Petroleum plc, et al., Case No. 11-cv- 00772 (E.D. La.); Black v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al. Case No. 2:11-cv- 867, (E.D. La.); Brooks v. Tidewater Marine LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv- 00049 (S.D. Tex.); Capt Ander, Inc. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 4:10-cv-00364-RH-WCS (N.D. Fla.); Coco v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al. (E.D. La.); Danos, et al. v. BP Exploration et al., Case No. 00060449 (25th Judicial Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana); Doom v. BP Exploration & Production, et al. , Case No. 12-cv-2048 (E.D. La.); Duong, et al., v. BP America Production Company, et al., Case No. 13-cv- 00605 (E.D. La.); Esponge v. BP, P.L.C., et al., Case No. 0166367 (32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana); Ezell v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01920-KDE-JCW (E.D. La.); Fitzgerald v. BP Exploration, et al., Case No. 13-cv-00650 (E.D. La.); Hill v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00471-CG-N (S.D. Ala.); Hogan v. British Petroleum Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., Case No. 2012-22995 (District Court, Harris County, Texas); Hudley v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00532-N (S.D. Ala.); In re of Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 12- 426 (E.D. La.); Kolian v. BP Exploration & Production, et al. , Case No. 12-cv-2338 (E.D. La.); Monroe v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00472-M (S.D. Ala.); Pearson v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-863, (E.D. La.); Shimer v. BP Exploration and Production, et al, Case No. 2:13-cv-4755 (E.D. La.); Top Water Charters, LLC v. BP, P.L.C., et al., No. 0165708 (32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana); Toups, et al. v Nalco Company, et al., Case No. 59-121 (25th Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana); and, Trehern v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00432-HSO-JMR (S.D. Miss.). The cases were filed on behalf of individuals and entities that own property, live, and/ or work in or derive income from the effected Coastal region. The Company said, "Each of the actions contains substantially similar allegations, generally alleging, among other things, negligence relating to the use of our COREXIT dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are generally seeking awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs." Pursuant to orders issued by the court in MDL 2179, the claims were consolidated in several master complaints, including one naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil Spill (known as the "B3 Master Complaint"). On May 18, 2012, Nalco filed a motion for summary judgment against the claims in the "B3" Master Complaint, on the grounds that: (i) Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the comprehensive oil spill response scheme set forth in the Clean Water Act and National Contingency Plan; and (ii) Nalco is entitled to derivative immunity from suit. On November 28, 2012, the Court granted Nalco's motion and dismissed with prejudice the claims in the "B3" Master Complaint asserted against Nalco. The Court held that such claims were preempted by the Clean Water Act and National Contingency Plan. Because claims in the "B3" Master Complaint remain pending against other defendants, the Court's decision is not a "final judgment" for purposes of appeal. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), plaintiffs will have 30 days after entry of final judgment to appeal the Court's decision. Nalco Company, the incident defendants and the other responder defendants have been named as first party defendants by Transocean Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and its affiliates (the "Transocean Entities") (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771). In April and May 2011, the Transocean Entities, Cameron International Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C., Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc. (collectively, the "Cross Claimants") filed cross claims in MDL 2179 against Nalco Company and other unaffiliated cross defendants. The Cross Claimants generally allege, among other things, that if they are found liable for damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, they are entitled to indemnity or contribution from the cross defendants. In April and June 2011, in support of its defense of the claims against it, Nalco Company filed counterclaims against the Cross Claimants. In its counterclaims, Nalco Company generally alleges that if it is found liable for damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, it is entitled to contribution or indemnity from the Cross Claimants. In December 2012 and January 2013, the MDL 2179 court issued final orders approving two settlements between BP and Plaintiffs' Class Counsel: (1) a proposed Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement; and (2) a proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement. Pursuant to the proposed settlements, class members agree to release claims against BP and other released parties, including Nalco Energy Services, LP, Nalco Holding Company, Nalco Finance Holdings LLC, Nalco Finance Holdings Inc., Nalco Holdings LLC and Nalco Company. ECOLAB INC: "Franks" Product Liability Action Dismissed in May -------------------------------------------------------------- Ecolab 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 Nalco Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in an amended complaint filed in March 2011 by an individual in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, Second Judicial District (Franks v. Sea Tow of South Miss, Inc., et al., Cause No. A2402-10-228 (Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi)). The amended complaint generally asserts, among other things, negligence and strict product liability claims relating to the plaintiff's alleged exposure to chemical dispersants manufactured by Nalco Company. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, medical expenses, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff's allegations place him within the scope of the MDL 2179 Medical Benefits Class. In approving the Medical Benefits Settlement, the MDL 2179 Court barred Medical Benefits Settlement class members from prosecuting claims of injury from exposure to oil and dispersants related to the Response. As a result of the MDL court's order, on April 11, 2013, the Mississippi court stayed proceedings in the Franks case. The Franks case was dismissed in May 2014. ETHICON INC: W.V. Jury Awards $3.27MM in Pelvic Mesh Device Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a West Virginia jury has awarded $3.27 million to a woman who underwent surgery to remove a pelvic mesh device made by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon Inc. The closely watched case, brought by Jo Huskey and her husband, Allen Huskey, is the first federal trial over Ethicon's TVT-O pelvic mesh sling. "As the first federal trial over TVT-O device, we expect it will have a significant impact on the litigation and hope that it will lead to the resolution of the claims that have been brought on behalf of women," Edward Wallace, partner at Chicago's Wexler Wallace, said about the verdict. The jury, which awarded exclusively compensatory damages, found against Ethicon on claims of failure to warn, design defect, pain and suffering and past medical expenses. The jury's award also included $200,000 to Huskey's husband for loss of consortium. In a statement, Johnson & Johnson said Ethicon would challenge the verdict through post-trial motions. "The verdict is disappointing and we believe we have strong grounds for appeal," Ethicon spokesman Matthew Johnson said. "Ethicon's TVT-O mid-urethral sling was properly designed, and Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and marketing of the product. We have always made patient safety a top priority and will continue to do so." Ethicon faces 33,000 lawsuits worldwide claiming its mesh devices, used to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, have caused women pain and forced them to undergo subsequent surgeries to remove them. On April 3, a jury in Dallas, hearing a case in Texas state court, awarded $1.2 million in the first trial over the TVT-O sling. U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia, overseeing most of the cases in Charleston, threw out the first pelvic mesh trial in federal court against Ethicon on Feb. 19 involving another device, the TVT. Johnson & Johnson also lost an $11 million verdict in New Jersey state court last year in a case over a different device. In West Virginia, Ethicon was represented at trial by Christy Jones of Butler Snow in Ridgeland, Miss., and David Thomas, founding member of Thomas Combs & Spann in Charleston. ELDORADO TRADING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Mirabel Vranjkovic, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Eldorado Trading Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-06810 (N.D. Ill., September 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendant describes itself as an innovative proprietary trading firm that actively participates in capital markets all around the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen Ann Salas, Esq. Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq. Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq. Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com dwerman@flsalaw.com FANNIE MAE: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied in June --------------------------------------------------------- Federal National Mortgage Association or Fannie Mae was a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit initially filed in 2004 that was pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In the consolidated complaint filed in 2005, lead plaintiffs Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio alleged that Fannie Mae and certain former officers, as well as Fannie Mae's former outside auditor, made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs contended that Fannie Mae's accounting statements were inconsistent with GAAP requirements relating to hedge accounting and the amortization of premiums and discounts, and sought unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and other fees and costs. On January 7, 2008, the court defined the class as all purchasers of Fannie Mae common stock and call options and all sellers of publicly traded Fannie Mae put options during the period from April 17, 2001 through December 22, 2004. On October 17, 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), as conservator for Fannie Mae, intervened in this case. In September and December 2010, plaintiffs served expert reports claiming damages to plaintiffs under various scenarios ranging cumulatively from $2.2 billion to $8.6 billion. In 2011, the parties filed various motions for summary judgment. On September 20, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to defendant Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's former Chief Executive Officer, on all claims against him. On October 16, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to defendant J. Timothy Howard, Fannie Mae's former Chief Financial Officer, on all claims against him. On November 20, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to defendant Leanne Spencer, Fannie Mae's former Controller, on all claims against her. On April 10, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this litigation, subject to court approval. On May 7, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement with the court. On June 7, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, approved the form and manner of notice to the class, stayed non-settlement related proceedings, and set certain other deadlines related to the settlement. On October 31, 2013, the court held a hearing to evaluate the fairness of the settlement to the class, and on December 5, 2013, granted final approval of the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and entered an order and judgment effecting the settlement. Fannie Mae's contribution to the settlement did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition. On January 9, 2014, Rinis Travel Service, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust U.A. 61-1989, a purported class member, appealed the court's approval order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but voluntarily dismissed the appeal with prejudice on March 13, 2014. On January 29, 2014, an individual purported class member also appealed the settlement approval, and plaintiffs-appellees moved to dismiss this appeal on February 6, 2014. The motion to dismiss the appeal was granted on May 8, 2014. On June 9, 2014, the individual filed a petition for rehearing en banc. That petition was denied on June 25, 2014, Fannie Mae 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. FANNIE MAE: Deal in Principle Reached in 2008 Securities Case ------------------------------------------------------------- In a consolidated amended complaint filed on June 22, 2009, lead plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board and Boston Retirement Board (for common shareholders) and Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (for preferred shareholders) allege that Federal National Mortgage Association or Fannie Mae, certain of its former officers, and certain of its underwriters violated Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Lead plaintiffs also allege that Fannie Mae, certain of its former officers, and its outside auditor, violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including rescission, damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief. On October 13, 2009, the court entered an order allowing the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") to intervene. In 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims as to all defendants. In 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims. As a result of the partial denial, some of the Securities Exchange Act claims remained pending against Fannie Mae and certain of its former officers. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the consolidated complaint on December 31, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a second amended joint consolidated class action complaint on March 2, 2012, renewing the remaining claims and adding FHFA as a defendant. On August 30, 2012, the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, allowing plaintiffs' Securities Exchange Act claims premised on Fannie Mae's subprime and Alt-A disclosures to proceed along with plaintiffs' claims premised on Fannie Mae's risk management disclosures. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the second amended complaint on October 29, 2012. On July 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this litigation. The proposed settlement amount did not have a material impact on Fannie Mae's results of operations or financial condition, Fannie Mae 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. FANNIE MAE: Motion for Reconsideration in 2008 ERISA Case Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a consolidated complaint filed in 2009, plaintiffs allege that certain of Federal National Mortgage Association or Fannie Mae's current and former officers and directors, including members of Fannie Mae's Benefit Plans Committee and the Compensation Committee of Fannie Mae's Board of Directors during the relevant time periods, as fiduciaries of Fannie Mae's Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), breached their duties to ESOP participants and beneficiaries by investing ESOP funds in Fannie Mae common stock when it was no longer prudent to continue to do so. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP whose accounts invested in Fannie Mae common stock beginning April 17, 2007. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other fees and costs, and injunctive and other equitable relief. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 2, 2012 adding two current Board members and then-CEO Michael J. Williams as defendants. On October 22, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismissed with prejudice claims against seven former and current directors and officers who joined the Board of Directors or Benefit Plans Committee after Fannie Mae was placed into conservatorship. The court allowed plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor claims to go forward, but dismissed plaintiffs' conflict of interest claim. On September 23, 2013, defendants filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its October 22, 2012 order in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision in Rinehart v. Akers (In re Lehman Bros. ERISA Litigation), 722 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2013). The court denied the motion for reconsideration on April 21, 2014. "Given the stage of this lawsuit, the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation," Fannie Mae 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. FANNIE MAE: Bid to Dismiss Purchase Agreements Suit Fully Briefed ----------------------------------------------------------------- A number of putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Federal National Mortgage Association or Fannie Mae, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") as conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac from July through September 2013 by shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac challenging the August 2012 amendment to each company's senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. These lawsuits were consolidated and, on December 3, 2013, plaintiffs (preferred and common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac) filed a consolidated class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Fannie Mae, FHFA as conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac ("In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations"). The preferred shareholder plaintiffs allege that the August 2012 amendments to the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreements providing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay dividends equal to their entire net worth (minus a specified capital reserve amount) ("the net worth sweep provisions") nullified certain of the shareholders' rights, particularly the right to receive dividends. The common shareholder plaintiffs allege that the August 2012 amendments constituted a taking of their property by requiring that all future profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are paid to Treasury. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Fannie Mae, FHFA and Freddie Mac, a takings claim against FHFA and Treasury, and a breach of fiduciary duty claim derivatively on Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's behalf against FHFA and Treasury. Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012 amendments. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. A non-class action suit, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 20, 2013 by preferred shareholders against Fannie Mae, FHFA as conservator, the Director of FHFA (in his official capacity), Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury (in his official capacity) and Freddie Mac. Plaintiffs bring claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, and claims for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act against the FHFA and Treasury defendants, alleging that the net worth sweep provisions nullified certain rights of the preferred shareholders, particularly the right to receive dividends. Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On January 17, 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss both the class action and non-class action suits pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and these motions are now fully briefed, Fannie Mae 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. "Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation," Fannie Mae said. FIFTH THIRD: Merchants Appeal Approval of VISA Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third 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 during April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement. The court entered a Class Settlement Preliminary Approval Order in November 2012. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Bancorp paid $46 million into a class settlement escrow account. Previously, the Bancorp paid an additional $4 million in another settlement escrow in connection with the settlement of claims from plaintiffs not included in the class action. More than 7,900 merchants have requested exclusion from the class settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow account have been returned to the control of the defendants through Class Exclusion Takedown Payments. Approximately 460 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class have filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. The federal lawsuits have been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Bancorp was not named as a defendant in any of the federal lawsuits, but may have obligations pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements. In addition, one merchant filed a separate state court lawsuit against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants, including the Bancorp, alleging similar antitrust violations. On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants have filed appeals from that approval. FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court to Issue Mandate Remanding ERISA Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third 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 in 2008, two cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain officers styled Dudenhoeffer v Fifth Third Bancorp et al. Case No. 1:08-cv-538. The complaints alleged violations of ERISA based on allegations similar to those set forth in securities class action cases. The ERISA actions were dismissed by the trial court, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision. The Bancorp petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review and reverse the Sixth Circuit decision and sought a stay of proceedings in the trial court pending appeal. On December 13, 2013, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear the appeal. Oral argument was held on April 2, 2014 and on June 25, 2014 the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Sixth Circuit decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the standards articulated in its decision. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its mandate remanding the case back to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the next 30-90 days. FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Seeks Summary Judgment in "McGrogan" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- First Commonwealth Financial Corporation, 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, provided updates on the Market Rate Savings IRA Litigation. McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank was filed as a class action on January 12, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The action alleges that First Commonwealth Bank (the "Bank") promised class members a minimum interest rate of 8% on its IRA Market Rate Savings Account for as long as the class members kept their money on deposit in the IRA account. The class asserted that the Bank committed fraud, breached its modified contract with the class members, and violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) when it resigned as custodian of the IRA Market Rate Savings Accounts in 2008 and offered the class members a roll-over IRA account with a 3.5% interest rate. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages for the alleged breach of contract, punitive damages for the alleged fraud and Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law violations and attorney's fees. The court granted class certification as to the breach of modified contract claim and denied class certification as to the fraud and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law claims. The breach of contract claim was predicated upon a letter sent to customers in 1998 which reversed an earlier decision by the Bank to reduce the rate paid on the accounts. The letter stated, in relevant part, "This letter will serve as notification that a decision has been made to re-establish the rate on your account to eight percent (8)%. This rate will be retroactive to your most recent maturity date and will continue going forward on deposits presently in the account and on annual additions." On August 30, 2012, the Court entered an order granting the Bank's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the class action claims. The Court found that the Bank retained the right to resign as custodian of the accounts and that the act of resigning as custodian and closing the accounts did not breach the terms of the underlying IRA contract. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the denial of class certification to the claims of fraud in the execution and violation of the UTPCPL. The Superior Court found that none of the other issues were ripe for appeal. Jurisdiction was returned to the Court of Common Pleas where the individual fraud and UTPCPL claims of Mr. and Mrs. McGrogan are pending. Plaintiffs filed their pretrial statement on June 16, 2014, seeking $0.5 million in damages for the McGrogans and $0.8 million for their adult children beneficiaries. The Bank considers these damage claims exaggerated and otherwise invalid. The Bank has filed a motion for summary judgment; it is pending. FIRST COMMONWEALTH: 3 New Cases May Proceed on Theories of Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------- First Commonwealth Financial Corporation, 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, provided updates on the Market Rate Savings IRA Litigation. In December 2013, three new complaints were filed by 34 former members of the McGrogan class: (1) Jarrett et al. v. First Commonwealth Bank - An action filed by eight plaintiffs on December 2, 2013 in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the inducement, fraud in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL, breach of fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel. (2) Young et al. v. First Commonwealth Bank - An action filed by 12 plaintiffs on December 2, 2013 in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the inducement, fraud in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL, breach of fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel. (3) Fisanik et. al. v. First Commonwealth Bank - An action filed by 14 plaintiffs on December 9, 2013 in the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the inducement, fraud in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL, and breach of fiduciary duty. The 36 plaintiffs who have filed individual actions held Market Rate Savings IRA balances totaling approximately $4 million at the time of the Bank's resignation as custodian of the IRAs in 2008. The average age of the plaintiffs at that time was 62. The Bank filed preliminary objections to the three new complaints. On July 22, 2014 the court issued an order permitting the three new cases to proceed only on theories of fraud in the execution and violation of the UTPCPL based on fraud in the execution and dismissing the claims for fraud in the inducement, breach of fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel with prejudice. At this time, the Bank believes the claims are without merit. FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA Facing "Hawkins" Class Action -------------------------------------------------- First Horizon National 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 First Tennessee Bank National Association ("FTBNA") is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees charged in connection with debit card transactions. A key claim is that the method used to order or sequence the transactions posted each day was improper. The case is styled as Hawkins v. First Tennessee Bank National Association, before the Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11. The plaintiff seeks actual damages of at least $5 million, unspecified restitution of fees charged, and unspecified punitive damages, among other things. FHN's estimate of reasonably possible loss for this matter is subject to significant uncertainties regarding: whether a class will be certified and, if so, the definition of the class; claims as to which no dollar amount is specified; the potential remedies that might be available or awarded; the ultimate outcome of potentially dispositive early-stage motions such as motions to dismiss; and the incomplete status of the discovery process. GENERAL MILLS: Court Refused to Dismiss Contamination Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Homeowners who blame their health issues on a toxic vapors from an old chemical plant may have a case against General Mills, reports Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Karl Ebert is the lead plaintiff in the class action, which alleges that a GM chemical plant in the Como neighborhood of Minneapolis dumped "thousands of gallons of hazardous substances per year by burying it in perforated drums in the ground" from 1947 to 1962. The plant operated from 1930 to 1977. General Mills has been remediating the site since 1984, but the class claims to have only learned about the vapor contamination threat around their homes in 2013. The homeowners sought an injunction requiring General Mills to fully remediate the property surrounding their homes, but General Mills said its remediation efforts, including the installation of vapor mitigation systems (VMS), required dismissal of the class action. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank refused to do so on Sept. 4, 2014, citing testimony from the plaintiffs' expert witness, Lorne Everett. "Dr. Everett states that: '[t]o mitigate the threat to these residents, each home in the class area at a minimum requires a vapor mitigation system. . . . Such systems must be operated for the foreseeable future, until the source(s) of these toxic vapors can be identified and fully remediated,'" Frank wrote, emphasizing the text himself. The doctor's statement regarding the remediation of the source of the vapors suggests a threat of future or ongoing harm to the plaintiffs, the court found. General Mills also argued that costs incurred by the homeowners in response to the vapor contamination were not necessary and therefore not recoverable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Judge Frank once again disagreed, citing numerous allegations from the plaintiffs in his opinion, including: * "Plaintiffs incurred out of pocket costs to evaluate the release or threat of hazardous substances inside their house [sic] and to evaluate structural issues concerning approaches to interim mitigation measures. * "[A plaintiff] purchased an air filtration system to 'prevent, minimize or mitigate damages.' * "Plaintiffs' specific type of costs were incurred as 'removal' and 'response costs' as described in relevant CERCLA provisions. * "The response and removal costs were necessary and reasonable; and * "All cost-incurring actions were taken to protect plaintiffs' families from vapors." The plaintiffs' negligence claim regarding a drop in the value of their homes also survived the motion to dismiss, as Judge Frank concluded -- contrary to General Mills' argument -- that a precise valuation of the drop is not necessary at this stage of the litigation. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward J. Manzke, Esq. Shawn M. Collins., Esq. THE COLLINS LAW FIRM PC 1770 Park Street, Suite 200 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 687-9838 Toll Free: (866) 480-8223 Facsimile: (630) 527-1193 - and - Michael D. Hayes, Esq. Norman B. Berger, Esq. VARGA BERGER LEDSKY HAYES & CASEY 125 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 341-9870 Facsimile: (312) 419-0225 E-mail: nberger@vblhc.com mhayes@vblhc.com - and - Anne T. Regan, Esq. J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Toll Free: (800) 887-8029 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: Anne.Regan@zimmreed.com Gordon.Rudd@zimmreed.com - and - Mark H. Thieroff, Esq. SIEGEL BRILL, P.A. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 337-6102 Facsimile: (612) 339-6591 E-mail: markthieroff@siegelbrill.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq. Corey Lee Gordon, Esq. Emily A. Ambrose, Esq. Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq. Wendy M. Carlisle, Esq. BLACKWELL BURKE PA 431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2500 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 343-3200 Facsimile: (612) 343-3205 E-mail: bhulse@blackwellburke.com cgordon@blackwellburke.com eambrose@blackwellburke.com blackwell@blackwellburke.com wcarlisle@blackwellburke.com - and - Jeffrey Fowler, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6404 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 E-mail: jfowler@omm.com - and - Mark J. Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER LAW FIRM PLLC 5200 Willson Road, Suite 150 Edina, MN 55424 Telephone: (952) 921-7340 E-mail: mark@carpenter-law-firm.com The case is Karl Ebert, et al. v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 0:13-cv-03341-DWF-JJK, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. GM SALARIED: Sued Over Failure to Pay Plan Benefits Interest ------------------------------------------------------------ Ronald E. Halcomb, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GM Salaried Retirement Program, Case No. 1:14-cv-00124 (W.D. Ky., September 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay interest on the delayed payment of plan benefits paid to participants in a lump sum and lump sum benefits that are the actuarial equivalent of the annuity form of benefit. GM Salaried Retirement Program is a benefit pension plan providing benefits to General Motors' employees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Grabhorn, Esq. GRABHORN LAW OFFICE, PLLC 2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107 Louisville, KY 40223 Telephone: (502) 244-9331 Facsimile: (502) 244-9334 E-mail: m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com GOOGLE INC: Lawyers Challenge Rejection of "No-Poach" Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that defendants in the Silicon Valley "no-poach" case have made a rare and risky move to avoid either going to trial or shelling out an extra $55 million to settle antitrust claims over their hiring practices. Lawyers for Google Inc., Apple Inc., Adobe Systems Inc. and Intel Corp. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on Sept. 4 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenging U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's rejection of a proposed $324.5 million settlement. In it, they ask the appeals court to intervene and approve the deal, arguing Judge Koh "committed clear legal error" that could make it harder to settle class actions. Judge Koh "impermissibly substituted the court's assessment of the value of the case for that of the parties who have been litigating the case for more than three years," defense lawyers argue. Plaintiffs lawyer Joseph Saveri, who did not join the petition, called the defense maneuver extraordinary. "The trial judge has much discretion with respect to proposed settlements and the approval process," he wrote in an email. "This is true at preliminary approval and final approval, and I don't view it as controversial." Because the settlement is not final and cannot yet be appealed, defendants styled their appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus, a remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances. Defense lawyers say the court's intervention is warranted because Judge Koh's order is not otherwise appealable and raises "an important issue of first impression on which this court's guidance is urgently needed." If review is granted, defendants say it will be the first time the Ninth Circuit has addressed the standard governing preliminary settlement approval. Arthur Bryant, chairman of Public Justice in Oakland, said the defendants' strategy is a long shot. "Generally speaking, it would be very surprising if an appeals court issued a writ of mandamus to overturn an order denying preliminary approval," he said, "unless the reasons given by the judge were just way out of bounds." Judge Koh rejected the "no-poach" settlement as insufficient early last month, basing her decision on an earlier $20 million settlement reached with smaller defendants Pixar Animation Studios Inc., Lucasfilm and Intuit Inc. The Google group paid out 95 percent of the compensation given employees during the class period, Koh wrote, and therefore should collectively pay about 19 times more, or roughly $380 million. Defense lawyers blasted that logic, insisting there should be no formula for preliminary settlement approval. "There was no suggestion that the settlement was collusive; indeed, it was the highest settlement ever in an employment antitrust case and satisfied any preliminary approval test ever articulated by any federal court," the petition states. Keker & Van Nest and Mayer Brown represent Google in the case, O'Melveny & Myers represents Apple, Jones Day represents Adobe, and Munger, Tolles & Olson represents Intel. Along with Saveri, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein partner Kelly Dermody represents plaintiffs. Girard Gibbs partner Daniel Girard -- dcg@GirardGibbs.com -- represents named plaintiff Michael Devine, who has objected to the proposed settlement as too low. Orly Lobel, an employment and labor law professor at the University of San Diego, said judges have an obligation to determine whether a settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. "Koh is known as one of the few judges who scrutinizes such settlements seriously," Mr. Lobel said in an email. "In my view, Judge Koh is correct to be skeptical about such a small figure relative to the original number." But defense lawyers for the technology companies insist Judge Koh's approach to weighing the settlement's adequacy would "significantly hinder parties' ability to settle in future class actions" and disrupt the usual incentives of class action litigation. Class counsel seeking to reach early settlements with some, but not all, defendants would assume any early deals must create a floor for future settlements, according to the companies' counsel. Meanwhile, defendants who choose not to settle early would be unfairly bound by those who do. Historically, the defense lawyers argue, courts evaluating settlements have deferred to the judgment of the settling parties unless faced with a collusive deal. Topping off their attack, the defendants' lawyers also accused the judge of faulty math. Judge Koh based her $380 million assessment on the premise that Google, Apple, Adobe and Intel accounted for 95 percent of the damages, when in reality, the lawyers argue their clients accounted for 94.386 percent under plaintiffs' theory. That would, under Judge Koh's model, yield a settlement of about $336.2 million, just above the agreed-on amount, according to the filing. "The court therefore not only committed legal error but also misapplied its own erroneous standard," they wrote. Mr. Bryant, of Public Justice, said if the petition fails, it could damage the defendants' standing with Judge Koh. The case is now proceeding toward a new Jan. 12 trial date. Meanwhile, the parties have resumed discussions with mediator Layn Phillips, a former federal judge and current Irell & Manella partner in Newport Beach. Defendants have asked Judge Koh to stay the case pending a ruling from the Ninth Circuit. GOOGLE INC: Calls Rejection of $325-Mil. Deal "Clear Legal Error" ----------------------------------------------------------------- It was "clear legal error" to reject a proposed $325 million settlement of wage-fixing in the high-tech industry, Google and two other tech giants told the 9th Circuit, according to William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service. The dispute stems from a 2010 class action filed on behalf of up to 64,000 software engineers for a number of tech companies and Disney-owned LucasFilm and Pixar. Earlier this year, four of the Silicon Valley companies -- Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe -- offered $325 million to settle the claims that their CEOs made "gentleman's agreements" not to poach each other's employees -- eliminating competition and its companion wage-setting mechanism in the high-tech sector. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh had rejected the offer last month, however, as "below the range of reasonableness," given the strength of the workers' case and the potential $9 billion in damages if a jury found in their favor. But on September 4, Google attorney Robert Van Nest of the firm Keker & Van Nest advised Koh that the four tech giants had asked the 9th Circuit to review their settlement offer and the judge's rejection of it. In their 27-page petition, the companies said that Koh's "formulaic approach" in deciding that the offer was short by 16 percent went against precedent that values negotiation and mediation over benchmarking. "The District Court's benchmark formula impermissibly substituted the court's assessment of the value of the case for that of the parties who have been litigating the case for more than three years, and in particular plaintiffs' counsel, who were 'sobered' by the 'very real risks' faced at trial after devoting 'a lot of work product' to analyzing the case and conducting jury research and other 'empirical work' -- none of which the district court had access to," the petition states, citing transcripts from previous hearings. "The District Court dismissed the parties' analysis of the trial risks, suggesting that, unless the settlement was larger, the court had -- in its own words -- 'wasted years on this case.' This too directly contradicts Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., which held that 'parties represented by competent counsel are better positioned than courts to produce a settlement that fairly reflects each party's expected outcome in litigation.'" The tech companies called on the 9th Circuit to use this case as an opportunity to set "the proper standard for preliminary approval of class settlements." They also noted that by rejecting the $325 million deal -- the highest ever in an employment antitrust case -- Koh potentially doomed the tech employees to "the very real chance that they and the absent class members will receive nothing." The petition continues: "And it forces defendants to abandon the bargain they reached with highly qualified class counsel and instead either pay at least an additional $55.5 million to settle the case or proceed to trial. This court should therefore issue the writ because, without mandamus, this fundamentally erroneous ruling will evade appellate review, irreparably harm plaintiffs, absent class members, and defendants, and make it significantly more difficult for parties to settle class actions in future cases." The software engineers already reached a $9 million settlement with Pixar and LucasFilm, and they reached a deal with Intuit for $11 million. Koh signed off on both of those agreements last year. Both sides said last week they had resumed negotiations with the engineers in hopes of hammering out a deal more to Koh's liking. Judge Koh met the filing on September 5, 2014, by releasing two emails she had received, praising her for rejecting the settlement offer. One, allegedly written by a Google employee and shareholder, said tech employees "need the real story out" and that she hoped the case would go to trial. "Real choices and opportunities were taken away from these employees due to lack of recruiting among the companies," the email says. "No amount of money can fix that now." A hearing on other matters originally slated for Sept. 10 has been pushed to December. The trial date is tentatively slated for April 9, 2015. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Kelly M. Dermody, Esq. Brendan P. Glackin, Esq. Dean M. Harvey, Esq. Anne P. Shaver, Esq. Lisa J. Cisneros, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com kdermody@lchb.com bglackin@lchb.com dharvey@lchb.com ashaver@lchb.com lcisneros@lchb.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. James G. Dallal, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 500-6803 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com jdallal@saverilawfirm.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com chc@girardgibbs.com eak@girardgibbs.com Defendant and Petitioner Google Inc. is represented by: Robert A. Van Nest, Esq. Daniel Purcell, Esq. Eugene M. Paige, Esq. Justina Sessions, Esq. KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: rvannest@kvn.com dpurcell@kvn.com epaige@kvn.com jsessions@kvn.com - and - Edward D. Johnson, Esq. Lee H. Rubin, Esq. Donald M. Falk, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP Two Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 300 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 331-2057 Facsimile: (650) 331-4557 E-mail: wjohnson@mayerbrown.com lrubin@mayerbrown.com dfalk@mayerbrown.com Defendant and Petitioner Adobe Systems, Inc., is represented by: David C. Kiernan, Esq. Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Esq. Craig A. Waldman, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com cwaldman@jonesday.com Defendant and Petitioner Apple Inc. is represented by: Michael F. Tubach, Esq. George A. Riley, Esq. Christina J. Brown, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: griley@omm.com cjbrown@omm.com mtubach@omm.com Defendant and Petitioner Intel Corporation is represented by: Gregory P. Stone, Esq. Bradley S. Phillips, Esq. Steven M. Perry, Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Email: gregory.stone@mto.com brad.phillips@mto.com steven.perry@mto.com Defendant Intuit Inc. is represented by: Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Esq. Craig E. Stewart, Esq. Catherine T. Zeng, Esq. Roberta D. Tonelli, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 E-mail: ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com cestewart@jonesday.com czeng@jonesday.com rtonelli@jonesday.com Defendants Pixar and Lucasfilm Ltd. are represented by: Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 E-mail: ehenn@cov.com The appellate case is In Re Adobe Systems, Inc., Apple, Inc., Google, Inc., and Intel Corp., Case No. 14-72745, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The trial court case is In Re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. HAMMAD ENTERPRISES: Faces "Maceda" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Elvis Maceda and all others similarly-situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (B) v. Hammad Enterprises, Inc. and Amjad Hammad, Case No. 0:14- cv-62019 (S.D. Fla., September 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Hammad Enterprises, Inc. owns, operates, and controls a warehouse located in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Claudio R. Cedrez, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CLAUDIO R. CEDREZ 1090 Kane Concourse, Suite 206 Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Telephone: (305) 868-7177 Facsimile: (786) 664-6596 E-mail: ccedrez@cedrezlaw.com HAMPSHIRE TIMES: Faces "Feng" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Lianyuan Feng, Gong Xian Huang, Junran Jiang, Zhong Li, Jian Wu, Jie Xu and Tian Yu Xu on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Hampshire Times d/b/a Saigon 48 and d/b/a Aoki Japanese Restaurant, DWC Inc. d/b/a Saigon 48 and d/b/a Aoki Japanese Restaurant, ZXY 48 Corp. d/b/a Saigon 48 and d/b/a Aoki Japanese Restaurant, XYZ 48 Corp. d/b/a Saigon 48 and d/b/a Aoki Japanese Restaurant, John Doe 01, Michael Zhao, John Doe 02, Peter Doe, Ho Cheung King, Jei Lola and Jaevimie Ng, Case No. 1:14-cv- 07102 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each work week. The Defendants own and operate restaurant under the trade names Saigon 48 and Aoki Japanese Restaurant located in the State of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718)762-1342 E-mail: johntroy@pllc.com HAWAII: Human Services Dep't Sued Over Denial of Autism Treatment ----------------------------------------------------------------- On Sept. 5, Suzanne Egan, the single-mother of a severely autistic five-year old boy, and the Hawaii Disability Rights Center filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Honolulu, accusing the state Department of Human Services of ignoring federal Medicaid rules require the state treatments for the autistic. The Kalama Valley resident says she can no longer afford the $5,000-a-month treatments for her son's autism, which she believes should be covered by Medicaid. "My child has not received the interventions he requires in his formative years and that's going to affect him for the rest of his life," said Ms. Egan. The service is called applied behavioral analysis treatment, or ABA, and it involves one-on-one counseling and behavior modification training. Many say it's effective in treating autism in early childhood development. But it costs between $30,000 and $50,000 per student, which can translate into millions of dollars for a school system. And that's why the state is balking. Louis Erteschik, executive director of the Hawaii Disability Rights Center, said the federal Medicaid program's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently concluded that coverage for ABA treatment is mandatory for state Medicaid programs. He said that 37 states in the country legally require private insurers to pay for these treatments and that many of the states whose Medicaid program don't pay for the services have been ordered to do so by the courts. "Everybody is saying you have to cover it and DHS is not covering it. That's what it comes down to and this case is being brought to force them to cover it," Mr. Erteschik said. According to Mr. Erteschik, the state believes the program will cost $20 million. But he pegs the start-up costs at $3 million. That's far less than the tens of millions of dollars that the state could wind up paying for the lifetime treatment for severely autistic children, he said. Hawaii Disability Rights Center and Ms. Egan, who are represented by local attorney Paul Alston -- palston@ahfi.com -- and his firm Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, are seeking an injunction that would require the state to provide the coverage. IMPACT STAFF: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Pierre Anes Darvilmar and Gensilia Joseph, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Impact Staff Leasing, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-23258 (S.D. Fla., September 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Impact Staff Leasing, Inc. is a farm labor contractor based in Jupiter, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Scott Schell, Esq. FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES INC. 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: (561) 582-3921 Facsimile: 582-4884 E-mail: Greg@Floridalegal.Org INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Plaintiffs Must File Consolidated Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Intercontinental Exchange, 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 2014, the first of four purported class action lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Southern District") by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, against more than 40 defendants, including "Exchange Defendants", "Brokerage Defendants" and "HFT (High Frequency Trading) Defendants". New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., two of the Company's subsidiaries, are among the named Exchange Defendants. The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of a class of "all public investors" who bought or sold stock on a U.S.-based exchange or alternative trading venue from April 18, 2009 to the present. The complaints assert violations by all Exchange Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages against all defendants, jointly and severally, as well as various forms of equitable relief. On July 2, 2014, the court ordered the cases consolidated for all purposes, appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel, and directed the plaintiffs to file an amended, consolidated complaint within 60 days. After the plaintiffs' filing, the defendants will have 60 days in which to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the complaint. In May 2014, three purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Southern District by Harold Lanier against the securities exchanges that are participants in each of the three national market system data distribution plans, the Consolidated Tape Association/Consolidated Quotation Plan, Nasdaq UTP Plan, and the Options Price Reporting Authority (the "Plans"), which are established under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC are among the defendants named in one or more of the suits. Lanier is claiming to sue on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated subscribers to the market data disseminated by the Plans. Lanier's allegations include that the exchange participants in the Plans breached agreements with subscribers by disseminating market data in a discriminatory manner in that other "preferred" customers allegedly received their data faster than the proposed class. The complaints seek, among other relief, restitution of the fees for data paid by the purported class members, disgorgement of the fees paid by the so-called preferred customers, and injunctive and declaratory relief. At an initial court conference on July 31, 2014, the court set a schedule for the filing of amended complaints (if any) and for the briefing of any motions to dismiss to be filed by the defendants. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. is a global operator of exchanges and clearing houses. The Company currently operates 11 global exchanges and five central clearing houses. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Xarelto Suits May Expand to Mass-Tort -------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that with litigation surrounding the blood thinner Xarelto in its infancy, some lawyers examining cases said the litigation could expand to mass-tort proportions while others said it's too early to tell. Xarelto, prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation and pulmonary embolism, is alleged by plaintiffs to cause uncontrollable, and sometimes fatal, bleeding. Marc Bern -- MJBern@NapoliBern.com -- a senior partner at New York-based Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, said he has received hundreds of Xarelto claims nationwide and has already filed a handful of cases against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Bayer HealthCare Corp. in Philadelphia. "Instead of controlling bleeding, which is what it claims to do, it actually makes bleeding worse," Mr. Bern said. "We believe Xarelto is headed in the same direction as Pradaxa," another blood thinner, "which settled for $650 million." "It's virtually the same type of drug with the same type of problem," he continued, "although the injuries seem to be a little worse than the Pradaxa injuries." Despite the number of claims, and Janssen's offices in the region allowing for Philadelphia to be set as the venue, Mr. Bern said it was unclear as to whether a mass tort would develop in the city's courts. "There's always a potential for that," he said. As for the establishment of a multidistrict litigation, Mr. Bern said that was also up in the air. "Would it surprise me if an MDL eventually evolves? No." Mr. Bern added, "I think that right now it's the very beginning of these cases." Mr. Bern said the widespread usage of Xarelto stemmed from the blood thinner Coumadin going off-patent. A call to Janssen's lawyer, David F. Abernethy -- David.Abernethy@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath, was not returned. Bayer's attorney, Albert Bixler -- abixler@eckertseamans.com -- of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, declined to comment. Sheller P.C. founder Stephen Sheller -- sasheller@sheller.com -- said his firm is evaluating "five to 10" Xarelto claims. "We're at the beginning stage to see if we're going to be heavily involved; it's starting to look that way," Mr. Sheller said. As for whether the litigation has mass-tort potential, Sheller said, "It's too early to say. It may. You see lawyers already advertising for these cases." Kline & Specter co-founder Thomas R. Kline said his firm is investigating roughly two dozen claims. "We have been looking carefully at the science and the potential claimants as to whether we plan to get into these cases or not," Mr. Kline said. "To the extent that there is litigation over the drug, regardless of what our review ends up showing, I believe there will be cases. There are clearly lawyers who have significant interest in the cases." Mr. Kline added that it remains to be seen how many lawsuits will surface or whether lawyers will choose a federal venue for the cases. "The numbers of cases and the attractiveness of the cases will depend on the claimants who come forward as well as the science on the subject, which is currently under review by lawyers around the country," Mr. Kline said. "It is, in my view, premature to predict the extent of a mass tort here." Ross Feller Casey products liability attorney Brian J. McCormick Jr. -- bmccormick@rossfellercasey.com -- also said he has received several Xarelto claims from across the country and is "talking to experts and investigating each individual claim, as well as the theory in general, although I think the theory is pretty safe now." In terms of the future of the litigation, Mr. McCormick said, "It does have mass-tort potential, it's a blockbuster drug. Thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients have taken it." Mr. McCormick said although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Xarelto relatively recently, in 2011, the drug has brought in roughly $1 billion in sales revenue. "These new anticoagulants are really taking over the market. You can see the amount of . . . advertising Janssen is doing to push Xarelto," Mr. McCormick said. According to Mr. Bern's master complaint, the "defendants fervently marketed Xarelto using print advertisements, online marketing on their website, and video advertisements with no regard to the accuracy and repercussions of their misleading advertising in favor of increasing sales." The complaint alleges that the defendants did not inform doctors about the risk of uncontrollable bleeding in patients or how to stabilize them if bleeding occurred. The complaint also calls for Xarelto to be withdrawn from the market. "Defendants willfully, wantonly and with malice withheld the knowledge of increased risk of irreversible bleeds in users of Xarelto to prevent any chances of their product's registrations being delayed or rejected by FDA," the complaint said. "While defendants enjoy great financial success from their expected blockbuster drug, Xarelto, they continue to place American citizens at risk of severe bleeds and death." A spokesperson for Janssen said in an email to The Legal, "Xarelto (rivaroxaban) is an important medicine used to treat and reduce the risk of blood clots, with a positive benefit-risk profile across its six approved indications. The risk of bleeding -- a known side effect for all blood thinners -- is clearly highlighted in the warnings and precautions sections of the Xarelto prescribing information." LEXISNEXIS RISK: Gets Final OK of $13.5-Mil. Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge approved a $13.5 million final settlement in a Fair Credit Reporting Act class action against LexisNexis that promises to increase protections for consumer information. LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group offers a service called Accurint that sells information about debtors' financial backgrounds to debt collectors. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) gives consumers the right to review "consumer reports," but LexisNexis asserted that Accurint reports are not consumer reports under the Act. Last year, LexisNexis agreed to settle class claims against it for violations of the FCRA. Under the terms of the settlement, LexisNexis will reform its procedures for sharing debtors' information to ensure compliance with the Act, said U.S. District Judge James Spencer in granting final approval to the agreement. The class consists of approximately 200 million people whose information resides in the Accurint database. An additional 31,000 people comprise a second class of people who requested a copy of an Accurint report, or submitted a dispute regarding their report. Members of this class will each receive approximately $300 from a $13.5 million fund after attorneys' fees. "In this case, all of plaintiffs' claims are predicated on Accurint(R) reports being deemed 'consumer reports' within the meaning of the FCRA. However, the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] in 2008 voted unanimously that Accurint(R) for Collection reports do not fall within the FCRA and do not involve credit reports," Judge Spencer wrote. "Absent some authority to the contrary, the merit of plaintiffs' claims -- and, necessarily, the absent class members' theoretical future claims -- is speculative at best. For this reason, the benefit of substantial relief without the risk of litigation demonstrates the adequacy of the settlement agreement." The judge also approved an attorneys' fees award of $5.3 million, and a $5,000 award for each named plaintiff. The class is represented by: Leonard Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd. 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 - and - Dale Pittman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, P.C. 112-A West Tabb Street Petersburg, VA 23803 Telephone: (804) 861-6000 Facsimile: (804) 861-3368 - and - Michael Caddell, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 1331 Lamar Street, Suite 1070 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 581-8295 Toll Free: (877) 553-3057 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 - and - James Francis, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC 100 South Broad Street, 19th Floor Philadelphia PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: mmailman@consumerlawfirm.com The case is Gregory Thomas Berry, et al. v. LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-00754- JRS, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Settles U.S. Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd., a global online retail company that delivers products directly to consumers around the world, on Sept. 5 disclosed that it has entered into an agreement to settle all claims in a U.S. securities class action lawsuit. The settlement remains subject to preliminary and final court approval. On August 27, 2013, the Company was named as a defendant in the first of three putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These three actions were consolidated under the master caption In re LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-6016-VEC (S.D.N.Y.). On May 1, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim as a matter of law. The parties have entered into the settlement prior to a decision on the Company's motion to dismiss. According to the settlement, which remains subject to preliminary and final court approval, the Company and its insurers have agreed to contribute US$1.55 million to a settlement fund payable to certain purchasers of the American depositary shares between June 6, 2013 and August 19, 2013. In return, the lead plaintiff has agreed to dismiss all claims against the Company and all of the individual defendants. Following final approval of the settlement by the Court, the case will not be allowed to be refiled. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by the Company or any of the individual defendants. Indeed, the Company has and continues to believe that the allegations made in the consolidated lawsuits lack merit. The Company believes that the statements made in its initial public offering prospectus and during its road show were true and accurate portrayals of the Company's business, and that the Company made detailed disclosures to inform investors of the potential risks to the Company's business. The Company has nevertheless agreed to the settlement in order to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further litigation. The Company believes that putting this matter behind it is in the best interest of its customers, employees and shareholders so that it can remain focused on growing and strengthening its business. M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- M&T Bank 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 beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to be class representatives, commenced a putative class action lawsuit against Wilmington Trust, alleging that Wilmington Trust's financial reporting and securities filings were in violation of securities laws. The cases were consolidated and Wilmington Trust moved to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the Court granted Wilmington Trust's motion to dismiss in its entirety, but allowed plaintiffs to re- file their Complaint. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second, Third and Fourth Amended Complaint. Wilmington Trust moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint on July 17, 2013. The Court issued an order denying Wilmington Trust's motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014. The case is now proceeding with discovery. The case is In Re Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR) MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: "Militello" Case Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt public limited 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 27, 2014, that several purported class action lawsuits have been filed in February 2014 and March 2014 by purported holders of Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. common stock in connection with the Company's acquisition of Cadence, including in the Delaware Court of Chancery (consolidated under the caption In re Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Stockholders Litigation), and in California State Court, San Diego County (Denny v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Militello v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and Schuon v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.). The actions bring claims against, and generally allege that, the board of directors of Cadence breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value, and the Delaware and Schuon actions further allege that Cadence omitted to disclose allegedly material information in its Schedule 14D-9. The lawsuits also allege, among other things, that the Company aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits seek various forms of relief, including but not limited to, rescission of the transaction, damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 7, 2014, following expedited discovery, the parties in the consolidated Delaware action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("the MOU"), which sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for a settlement of those actions. The settlement contemplated by the MOU will include, among other things, a release of all claims relating to the Company's acquisition of Cadence as set forth in the MOU. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including, among other things, final court approval following notice to the class. There have been no substantive proceedings in any of the California actions. On July 29, 2014, the Militello case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Mallinckrodt plc, and its subsidiaries is a global company that develops, manufactures, markets and distributes both branded and specialty generic pharmaceuticals, active pharmaceutical ingredients ("API") and diagnostic imaging agents. MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Agreement Reached in Questcor Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt public limited 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 27, 2014, that since the announcement of the merger with Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on April 7, 2014, several putative class actions have been filed by purported holders of Questcor common stock in connection with the Company's proposed acquisition of Questcor (Hansen v. Thompson, et al., Heng v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Buck v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Ellerbeck v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al., Yokem v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Richter v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Tramantano v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Crippen v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Patel v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and Postow v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.). The actions were consolidated on June 3, 2014. The consolidated complaint names as defendants, and generally alleges that, the directors of Questcor breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition by, among other things, agreeing to sell Questcor for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process. The consolidated complaint also alleges that the Questcor directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose purportedly material information to shareholders in connection with the merger. The consolidated complaint also alleges, among other things, that the Company aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including but not limited to, an order enjoining the shareholder vote relating to the acquisition, rescission of the transaction if consummated, damages and attorney's fees and costs. In addition, plaintiffs in a prior-pending derivative litigation, In re Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed an application to lift the stay of that action in order to file an amended complaint alleging that the board of directors of Questcor breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition. On May 16, 2014, the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their motion. Questcor believes that the standing of the plaintiffs in the Derivative Action will likely be terminated upon the closing of the Merger. On July 29, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in the consolidated actions, and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Questcor agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with the Company, which are contained in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 30, 2014. Additionally, as part of the settlement and pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, the Company agreed to forbear from exercising certain rights under the Merger Agreement with Questcor, as follows: the four business day period referenced in Section 5.3(e) of the Merger Agreement will be reduced to three business days. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The Comopany said, "The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the California Superior Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed transaction, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosures made in connection therewith, including the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the Questcor acquisition, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that the they shall negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorney's fees and expense that shall be paid to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the actions. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the California Superior Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated." Mallinckrodt plc, and its subsidiaries is a global company that develops, manufactures, markets and distributes both branded and specialty generic pharmaceuticals, active pharmaceutical ingredients ("API") and diagnostic imaging agents. MARRONE BIO: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 5 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of California, and docketed under 14-cv-02055, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Marrone securities between March 6, 2014 and September 2, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Marrone securities during the Class Period, you have until November 4, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Marrone makes bio-based pest management and plant health products. Bio-based products are comprised of naturally occurring microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi, and plant extracts. The Company targets the major markets that use conventional chemical pesticides, including certain agricultural and water markets, where the bio-based products are used as substitutes for, or in connection with, conventional chemical pesticides. Marrone also targets new markets for which there are no available conventional chemical pesticides, the use of conventional chemical products may not be desirable or permissible because of health and environmental concerns or the development of pest resistance has reduced the efficacy of conventional chemical pesticides. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Marrone's financial statements contained errors related to the improper recognition of revenues; (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 3, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing, among other things, that some of its previously issued financial statements should no longer be relied upon as being in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles. On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.50, or over 44%, to close at $3.15 on September 3, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. MARRONE BIO: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 8 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. common stock during the period between March 7, 2014 and September 2, 2014. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from September 5, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/marrone/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Marrone and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Marrone makes bio-based pest management and plant health products. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted adverse facts about Marrone's business and financial results, including that Marrone had overstated its fourth quarter and fiscal 2013 revenues by $870,000 by improperly recognizing revenue in violation of generally accepted accounting principles, which the financial reports and reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q filed during the Class Period claimed to have been prepared in compliance with; that the Company's fourth quarter and fiscal 2013 net loss was materially understated; and that Marrone was not on track to achieve the financial results it claimed to be on track to achieve during the Class Period. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and/or omissions during the Class Period, Marrone stock traded at inflated prices, reaching an intraday high of $15.00 per share in March 2014. On September 3, 2014, the Company issued a press release "announc[ing] that, at the recommendation of management, the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors ha[d] commenced an internal investigation after management learned of documents calling into question the recognition of revenue in the fourth quarter of 2013 for an $870,000 transaction," and that the "Audit Committee ha[d] retained independent legal advisers to assist it in this investigation." The release also disclosed that "the Audit Committee ha[d already] determined that the company's financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, the unaudited interim financial statements for the three month period ended March 31, 2014 and the three- and six- month periods ended June 30, 2014, should no longer be relied upon as being in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles." On this news, the price of Marrone stock fell $2.50 per share to close at $3.15 per share on unusually high trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Marrone common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest jury verdict ever in a securities class action. MERCK & CO: Defendant in 30 Vioxx Class Action Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in approximately 50 federal and state lawsuits (the "Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging personal injury as a result of the use of Vioxx. Most of these cases are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon E. Fallon. Merck is also a defendant in approximately 30 putative class action lawsuits alleging economic injury as a result of the purchase of Vioxx. All but two of those cases are in the Vioxx MDL. Merck has reached a resolution, approved by Judge Fallon, of these class actions in the Vioxx MDL. One objector to the settlement has filed an appeal from the approval order, which is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Under the settlement, Merck will pay up to $23 million to pay all properly documented claims submitted by class members, approved attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved settlement notice costs and certain other administrative expenses. The court entered an order approving the settlement on January 6, 2014. The deadline for members to submit claims under the settlement was May 6, 2014 and the claims administrator is currently reviewing claims submitted under the settlement protocol. Merck is also a defendant in lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General of four states - Alaska, Mississippi, Montana and Utah. All of these actions were pending in the Vioxx MDL proceeding, although Judge Fallon asked that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") remand the Alaska, Montana and Utah cases to their original federal courts. The JPML then issued conditional remand orders in all three cases, and set a briefing schedule for any objections to the remand. Merck has filed motions to vacate the remand orders. These four actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations. In November 2013, the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Kentucky approved a settlement in an action filed by the Kentucky Attorney General, under which Merck agreed to pay Kentucky $25 million to resolve its lawsuit and the related appeals. MERCK & CO: Dispositive Motions Fully Briefed in Vioxx Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under federal securities laws and state laws have been filed against Merck and various current and former officers and directors (the "Vioxx Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R. Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes. In August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part Merck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the consolidated securities action. Among other things, the claims based on statements made on or after the voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed. In October 2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and, in January 2013, Judge Chesler granted that motion. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add certain allegations to expand the class period. In May 2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to expand the class period, but granted plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint to add certain allegations within the existing class period. In June 2013, plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. In July 2013, defendants answered the Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. Discovery has been completed and is now closed. Under the court's scheduling order, dispositive motions have been fully briefed. Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. In October 2011, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each of the pending individual securities lawsuits. Also in October 2011, an individual securities lawsuit (the "KBC Lawsuit") was filed in the District of New Jersey by several foreign institutional investors; that case is also consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. In January 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss in one of the individual lawsuits (the "ABP Lawsuit"). Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed in March 2012. In August 2012, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the ABP Lawsuit. Among other things, certain alleged misstatements and omissions were dismissed as inactionable and all state law claims were dismissed in full. In September 2012, defendants answered the complaints in all individual actions other than the KBC Lawsuit; on the same day, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit on statute of limitations grounds. In December 2012, Judge Chesler denied the motion to dismiss the KBC Lawsuit and, in January 2013, defendants answered the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit. Discovery has been completed and is now closed. Under the court's scheduling order, dispositive motions have been fully briefed. In March and April 2014, four additional individual securities complaints were filed by institutional investors that opted out of the class action. The new complaints are substantially similar to the complaints in the other individual securities lawsuits. MERCK & CO: To Proceed With ONJ Accord at Reduced Funding Level --------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation"). As of June 30, 2014, approximately 5,510 cases, which include approximately 5,720 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were pending against Merck in either federal or state court, including one case which seeks class action certification, as well as damages and/or medical monitoring. In approximately 1,080 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,430 of these actions generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries ("Femur Fractures") in association with the use of Fosamax. In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC") in the Fosamax ONJ MDL (as defined below) to resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million, which the Company recorded as a liability in the fourth quarter of 2013. Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement ("ONJ Master Settlement Agreement") that was executed in April 2014. All of plaintiffs' counsel have advised the Company that they intend to participate in the settlement plan. As a condition to the settlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ plaintiffs must also agree to participate in the settlement plan or Merck can either terminate the agreement, or waive the 100% participation requirement and agree to a lesser funding amount for the settlement fund. On July 14, 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level since the current participation level is approximately 95%. Merck has also requested, without objection from the PSC, that the judge overseeing the Fosamax ONJ MDL enter an order that will require all non-participants in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to submit expert reports in order for their cases to proceed any further. The ONJ Master Settlement Agreement has no effect on the cases alleging Femur Fractures. MERCK & CO: 280 ONJ-Related Lawsuits Pending in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") ordered in August 2006 that certain Fosamax product liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (the "Fosamax ONJ MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Fosamax ONJ MDL has been transferred to Judge John Keenan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As a result of the JPML order, approximately 795 of the cases are before Judge Keenan, although, these cases are subject to the pending settlement. In addition, in July 2008, an application was made by the Atlantic County Superior Court of New Jersey requesting that all of the Fosamax cases pending in New Jersey be considered for mass tort designation and centralized management before one judge in New Jersey. In October 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered that all pending and future actions filed in New Jersey arising out of the use of Fosamax and seeking damages for existing dental and jaw-related injuries, including ONJ, but not solely seeking medical monitoring, be designated as a mass tort for centralized management purposes before Judge Carol E. Higbee in Atlantic County Superior Court. As of June 30, 2014, approximately 280 ONJ cases were pending against Merck in Atlantic County, New Jersey, although these cases are also subject to pending settlement. MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL ----------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 Merck submitted in March 2011 a Motion to Transfer to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May 2011, and all federal cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey (the "Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL"). As a result of the JPML order, approximately 1,020 cases were pending in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL as of June 30, 2014. A Case Management Order was entered requiring the parties to review 33 cases. Judge Joel Pisano selected four cases from that group to be tried as the initial bellwether cases in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL. The first bellwether case, Glynn v. Merck, began on April 8, 2013, and the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor on April 29, 2013; in addition, on June 27, 2013, Judge Pisano granted Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law in the Glynn case and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim was preempted by federal law. Judge Pisano set a May 5, 2014, trial date for the bellwether trial of a case in which the alleged injury took place after January 31, 2011. Following the completion of fact discovery, the court selected Sweet v. Merck as the next Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL case to be tried on May 5, 2014, but plaintiffs subsequently dismissed that case. As a result, the May 2014 trial date was withdrawn. In addition, Judge Pisano entered an order in August 2013 requiring plaintiffs in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that took place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed based on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn case. Plaintiffs filed their responses to the show cause order at the end of September 2013 and Merck filed its reply to those responses at the end of October 2013. A hearing on the show cause order was held in January 2014 and, on March 26, 2014, Judge Pisano issued an opinion finding that all claims of the approximately 650 plaintiffs who allegedly suffered injuries prior to September 14, 2010 were preempted and ordered that those cases be dismissed. The majority of those plaintiffs are appealing that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Furthermore, on June 17, 2014, Judge Pisano granted Merck summary judgment in the Gaynor case and found that Merck's updates in January 2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical femur fractures were adequate as a matter of law and that Merck adequately communicated those changes. As of June 30, 2014, approximately 2,880 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and are pending before Judge Higbee in Atlantic County Superior Court. The parties selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Two additional groups of 50 cases each to be reviewed through fact discovery were selected in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively. As of June 30, 2014, approximately 515 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed in California state court. A petition was filed seeking to coordinate all Femur Fracture cases filed in California state court before a single judge in Orange County, California. The petition was granted and Judge Steven Perk is now presiding over the coordinated proceedings. In March 2014, Judge Perk directed that a group of 10 discovery pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and scheduled dates in February, April and June 2015 for trials of three individual cases that will be selected from that group. Additionally, there are four Femur Fracture cases pending in other state courts. Discovery is ongoing in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL and in state courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. MERCK & CO: 490 Claims Over Januvia/Janumet Products at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Januvia and/or Janumet. As of June 30, 2014, approximately 490 product user claims were served on, and are pending against, Merck alleging generally that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the development of pancreatic cancer. These complaints were filed in several different state and federal courts. Most of the claims are pending in a consolidated multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California called "In re Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability Litigation." That proceeding includes federal lawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the following medicines: Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of which are products manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies. The Company has agreed, as of June 30, 2014, to toll the statute of limitations for 16 additional claims. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. MERCK & CO: 1,940 NuvaRing Cases at June 30 ------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 beginning in May 2007, a number of complaints were filed in various jurisdictions asserting claims against the Company's subsidiaries Organon USA, Inc., Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Organon International (collectively, "Organon"), and the Company arising from Organon's marketing and sale of NuvaRing (the "NuvaRing Litigation"), a combined hormonal contraceptive vaginal ring. The plaintiffs contend that Organon and Schering-Plough, among other things, failed to adequately design and manufacture NuvaRing and failed to adequately warn of the alleged increased risk of venous thromboembolism ("VTE") posed by NuvaRing, and/or downplayed the risk of VTE. The plaintiffs seek damages for injuries allegedly sustained from their product use, including some alleged deaths, heart attacks and strokes. The majority of the cases are currently pending in a federal multidistrict litigation (the "NuvaRing MDL") venued in Missouri and in a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey state court. As of June 30, 2014, there were approximately 1,940 NuvaRing cases (excluding unfiled cases). Of these cases, approximately 1,720 are or will be pending in the NuvaRing MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri before Judge Rodney Sippel, and approximately 210 are pending in coordinated proceedings in the Bergen County Superior Court of New Jersey before Judge Brian R. Martinotti. Eight additional cases are pending in various other state courts, including cases in a coordinated state proceeding in the San Francisco Superior Court in California before Judge John E. Munter. Merck and negotiating plaintiffs' counsel agreed to a settlement of the NuvaRing Litigation to resolve all filed cases as of February 7, 2014, and all unfiled claims under retainer by counsel prior to that date. Pursuant to this settlement agreement, which became effective as of June 4, 2014, Merck will pay a lump total settlement of $100 million to resolve more than 95% of the cases filed and under retainer by counsel as of February 7, 2014. The vast majority of the plaintiffs with pending lawsuits have opted into the settlement and all participants in the settlement have tendered dismissals of their cases to the settlement administrator. The dismissals will be filed with the courts upon completion of the settlement administration process. The Company has certain insurance coverage available to it, which is currently being used to partially fund the Company's legal fees. This insurance coverage will also be used to fund the settlement. Any plaintiffs not participating in the settlement who choose to proceed with their case, as well as any future plaintiffs, in the NuvaRing MDL or New Jersey state court will be obligated to meet various discovery and evidentiary requirements under the case management orders of the NuvaRing MDL and New Jersey state courts. Plaintiffs who fail to fully and timely satisfy these requirements under set deadlines will be subject to dismissal with prejudice. MERCK & CO: 1,280 Lawsuits Involving Propecia/Proscar at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Propecia and/or Proscar. As of June 30, 2014, approximately 1,280 lawsuits involving a total of approximately 1,550 plaintiffs (in a few instances spouses are joined as plaintiffs in the suits) who allege that they have experienced persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar have been filed against Merck. Approximately 45 of the plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or can cause prostate cancer or male breast cancer. The lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts and in state court in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation before Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York. The matters pending in state court in New Jersey have been consolidated before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. MERCK & CO: Motion to Dismiss Coupon Litigation Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 number of private health plans filed in 2012 separate putative class action lawsuits against the Company alleging that Merck's coupon programs injured health insurers by reducing beneficiary co-payment amounts and, thereby, allegedly causing beneficiaries to purchase higher-priced drugs than they otherwise would have purchased and increasing the insurers' reimbursement costs. The actions, which were assigned to a District Judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, sought damages and injunctive relief barring the Company from issuing coupons that would reduce beneficiary co-pays on behalf of putative nationwide classes of health insurers. Similar actions relating to manufacturer coupon programs were filed against several other pharmaceutical manufacturers in a variety of federal courts. On June 30, 2014, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Merck's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, dismissing without prejudice plaintiffs' claims under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, but allowing plaintiffs to proceed with their claims of tortious interference with contract under state law. MIDWAY AIRPORT: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Uriostegui" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Fredy Uriostegui, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Midway Airport Inn, Inc., d/b/a Best Western Hotel and Rohit Patel, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06817 (N.D. Ill., September 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Midway Airport Inn, Inc. owns and operates Best Western Hotel located in the State of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1263 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com MYLAN INC: 775 Self-Funded Customers Dropped From Lorazepam Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan Inc., 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, provided updates with respect to litigation involving Lorazepam and Clorazepate products. On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("MPI"), and co-defendants Cambrex Corporation and Gyma Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the amount of approximately $12.0 million, which has been accrued for by the Company. The jury found that Mylan and its co-defendants willfully violated Massachusetts, Minnesota and Illinois state antitrust laws in connection with API supply agreements entered into between the Company and its API supplier (Cambrex) and broker (Gyma) for two drugs, Lorazepam and Clorazepate, in 1997, and subsequent price increases on these drugs in 1998. The case was brought by four health insurers who opted out of earlier class action settlements agreed to by the Company in 2001 and represents the last remaining antitrust claims relating to Mylan's 1998 price increases for Lorazepam and Clorazepate. Following the verdict, the Company filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, a motion to dismiss two of the insurers and a motion to reduce the verdict. On December 20, 2006, the Company's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial were denied and the remaining motions were denied on January 24, 2008. In post-trial filings, the plaintiffs requested that the verdict be trebled and that request was granted on January 24, 2008. On February 6, 2008, a judgment was issued against Mylan and its co- defendants in the total amount of approximately $69.0 million, which, in the case of three of the plaintiffs, reflects trebling of the compensatory damages in the original verdict (approximately $11.0 million in total) and, in the case of the fourth plaintiff, reflects their amount of the compensatory damages in the original jury verdict plus doubling this compensatory damage award as punitive damages assessed against each of the defendants (approximately $58.0 million in total), some or all of which may be subject to indemnification obligations by Mylan. Plaintiffs are also seeking an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs in unspecified amounts and prejudgment interest of approximately $8.0 million. The Company and its co-defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and have challenged the verdict as legally erroneous on multiple grounds. The appeals were held in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion for prejudgment interest, which has been granted. Mylan has contested this ruling along with the liability finding and other damages awards as part of its appeal, which was filed in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On January 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings based on lack of diversity with respect to certain plaintiffs. On June 13, 2011, Mylan filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting review of the judgment of the D.C. Circuit. On October 3, 2011, the certiorari petition was denied. The case is now proceeding before the District Court. On January 14, 2013, following limited court-ordered jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint containing additional factual averments with respect to the diversity of citizenship of the parties, along with a motion to voluntarily dismiss 775 (of 1,387) self-funded customers whose presence would destroy the District Court's diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs also moved for a remittitur (reduction) of approximately $8.1 million from the full damages award. Mylan's brief in response to the new factual averments in the complaint was filed on February 13, 2013. On July 29, 2014, the court granted both plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and their motion to dismiss 775 self-funded customers. In connection with the Company's appeal of the judgment, the Company submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party insurance company in the amount of $74.5 million in February 2008. On May 30, 2012, the District Court ordered the amount of the surety bond reduced to $66.6 million. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN INC: Motions Remain Pending in Modafinil Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan Inc., 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, provided updates with respect to the Modafinil Antitrust Litigation. Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Modafinil and in a lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs. These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement of patent litigation with Cephalon relating to Modafinil. Discovery has now closed. On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment (and denied the corresponding plaintiffs' motion) dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the defendants had engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade. Additional motions remain pending. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN INC: Facing Civil Lawsuits by Purchasers of Solodyn(R) ------------------------------------------------------------ Mylan 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 beginning in July 2013, Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited, along with other drug manufacturers, have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed by a variety of plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of Arizona, and the District of Massachusetts. Those lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs purport to represent direct and indirect purchasers of branded or generic Solodyn(R), and assert violations of federal and state laws, including allegations in connection with separate settlements by Medicis with each of the other defendants of patent litigation relating to generic Solodyn(R). Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN INC: Wants Suit by Actos(R), Actoplus Met(R) Buyers Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan Inc.'s motion to dismiss actions by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R), remain pending, Mylan 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. Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R). These actions allege violations of state and federal competition laws in connection with the defendants' settlements of patent litigation in 2010 relating to Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R). Mylan filed a motion to dismiss based on both the lack of personal jurisdiction, and in the alternative, for failing to state a claim on July 11, 2014. The motions remain pending. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN INC: Accrued $13.4MM at June 30 on Product Liability ---------------------------------------------------------- Mylan 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 the Company is involved in a number of product liability lawsuits and claims related to alleged personal injuries arising out of certain products manufactured and/or distributed by the Company, including but not limited to its Fentanyl Transdermal System, Phenytoin, Propoxyphene and Alendronate. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits and claims and is vigorously defending itself with respect to those matters. From time to time, the Company has agreed to settle or otherwise resolve certain lawsuits and claims on terms and conditions that are in the best interests of the Company. The Company had accrued approximately $13.4 million at June 30, 2014 and $13.8 million at December 31, 2013. There are no assurances that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued. However, the range of reasonably possible loss above the amount accrued cannot be estimated. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. NEWBERRY EATS: Faces "Silvey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Janine Silvey, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Newberry Eats, Inc., Carl B. Johnson, and Carol Johnson, Case No. 1:14-cv-00162 (N.D. Fla., September 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically by failure to pay overtime wages. Newberry Eats, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located in Newberry, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew William Birk, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK 309 Ne 1st St Gainesville, Fl 32601 Telephone: (352) 244-2069 Facsimile: (352) 372-3464 E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com OAKLAND RAIDERS: Wins Prelim. OK of Cheerleaders Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- As the Oakland Raiders lost 19-14 in Sunday night's season opener, their cheerleaders were perhaps in better spirits after landing a $1.25 million settlement of wage and hour claims, reports Heather Johnson, writing for Courthouse News Service. The Raiders and their cheerleaders, the Raiderettes, will seek approval of the settlement on Sept. 26 at a hearing in Alameda County. Lacy T. and Sarah G. are the lead plaintiffs in the class action filed early this year in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging that the Raiders paid their cheerleaders less than $5 an hour, fined them for minor infractions, docked them pay for gaining weight, saddled them with unrecompensed expenses and did not pay them anything until season end. The settlement fund announced on September 4, 2014, will cover 90 women who worked as cheerleaders from 2010 to 2013 during NFL seasons. According to a joint press release, each cheerleader will receive more than $6,000 for each year worked from 2010 to 2012 and $2,500 for 2013 when the Raiders started paying minimum wage and overtime. "We are thrilled with the outcome," Vinick said. "The settlement gives the women full pay for every hour that they worked. It gives them reimbursements for a large portion of their expenses and awards them penalties under California state law." In her original lawsuit, Lacy T. said that "Raiderettes are required to attend all of the Raiders' preseason, regular season and postseason home football games. They are also required to attend and participate in all practices, rehearsals, fittings, preparations, drills, photo sessions, meetings and workouts, as determined and directed by the Raiders." Raiderettes also have to attend other special events to represent the Raiders, without pay, the complaint said. For this, Raiderettes allegedly earned a flat rate of $125 per game, or $1,250 per season before the 2013 pay change. The Raiders fined cheerleaders for wearing the wrong workout clothes to rehearsals, failing to bring a yoga mat to practice, losing pom-poms or not turning in biographies on time, the lawsuit stated. If a Raiderette gained 5 pounds or looked "too soft," she could allegedly be benched and not allowed to perform. A U.S. Department of Labor investigation launched in March determined that the Raiderettes are "seasonal" employees and not subject to federal minimum wage laws. The agency said the Oakland Raiders qualified for an exemption from federal minimum wage and overtime pay requirements. The exemption covered "seasonal amusement or recreational establishments," which included "any such establishment that operates for no more than seven months a year," the San Francisco Chronicle reported. "NFL teams play their first preseason game in August and their last regular-season game in December." Vinick said that the determination did not affect their case. "The decision didn't prevent us from pursuing our case and that's exactly what we did." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sharon R. Vinick, Esq. Darci E. Burrell, Esq. Leslie F. Levy, Esq. LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 318-7700 Facsimile: (510) 318-7701 E-mail: sharon@levyvinick.com darci@levyvinick.com leslie@levyvinick.com The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth G. Hausman, Esq. David J. Reis, Esq. Elizabeth J. MacGregor, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 471-3100 Facsimile: (415) 471-3400 E-mail: kenneth.hausman@aporter.com david.reis@aporter.com elizabeth.macgregor@aporter.com The case is Lacy T. and Sarah G. v. The Oakland Raiders, et al., Case No. RG14710815, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. PENN WEST: Wolf Popper Files Class Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Popper LLP on Sept. 5 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Penn West Petroleum, Ltd., and certain of its current and former officers, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of Penn West common stock on the New York Stock Exchange during the period February 17, 2011 through July 29, 2014, and were damaged thereby. This action alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later than October 3, 2014 to be appointed a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Investors who purchased Penn West on the NYSE during the Class Period and suffered losses are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their rights. The Complaint charges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, including that the Company was understating operating costs and overstating capital expenditures and royalty expenses; and the Company's improper accounting practices were causing Penn West to be at risk of non-compliance with certain of its debt covenants. On July 29, 2014, the Company disclosed that its Audit Committee was conducting an internal review of certain of its accounting practices for "2014 and the four previous fiscal years." Thus far, the Audit Committee has concluded that the Company improperly reclassified approximately $181 million in operating expenses as capital expenditures, and had "incorrectly reclassified" approximately $200 million in additional operating expenses as royalty expenses for 2012 and 2013. The Company will restate its past financial statements for years 2012 and 2013 and certain interim periods, and consequently, may not be in compliance with certain of its debt covenants. On this news, Penn West shares declined $1.30 per share or 14% on July 30, 2014. For more information, please contact: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Tel.: 877-370-7703 Fax: 877-370-7704 E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com PFIZER INC: Court Dismissed Celebrex and Bextra Claims in July -------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 29, 2014, that beginning in late 2004, several purported class actions were filed in federal and state courts alleging that Pfizer and certain current and former officers of Pfizer violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and Bextra. In June 2005, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Pfizer Inc. Securities, Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2012, the court in the Multi-District Litigation certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Pfizer stock between October 31, 2000 and October 19, 2005. In May 2014, the court in the Multi-District Litigation granted Pfizer's motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' loss causation and damages expert. Pfizer subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the litigation, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to submit an amended report by their expert. In July 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to submit an amended report, and granted Pfizer's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. PFIZER INC: Accord Reached in Neurontin Third-Party Payer Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 29, 2014, that a number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have been filed against Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin. The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to represent nationwide and certain statewide classes consisting of persons, including individuals, health insurers, employee benefit plans and other third-party payers, who purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin that allegedly was used for indications other than those included in the product labeling approved by the FDA. In 2004, many of the suits pending in federal courts, including individual actions as well as purported class actions, were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi- District Litigation (In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation MDL-1629) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In the Multi-District Litigation, the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all individual consumers and third-party payers who allegedly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for off-label uses from 1994 through 2004, and (ii) dismissed actions by certain proposed class representatives for third-party payers and for individual consumers. In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court dismissing the action by the third-party payer proposed class representatives and remanded that action to the District Court for further consideration, including reconsideration of class certification. In December 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Pfizer's petition for certiorari seeking review of the First Circuit's decision reversing the dismissal of the third-party payer purported class action. In April 2014, Pfizer and the attorneys for the proposed class representatives and for the plaintiffs in various individual actions entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle the third-party payer purported class action, subject to court approval, as well as the pending individual actions by third-party payers, for an aggregate of $325 million. "As part of that settlement, we also are in the process of seeking to resolve the pending consumer actions related to Neurontin, including the purported statewide consumer class actions in California and Illinois," the Company said. PFIZER INC: Lipitor PI Lawsuits Consolidated in MDL 2502 -------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 29, 2014, that a number of individual and multi- plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against the Company in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed type 2 diabetes as the result of the purported ingestion of Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. PFIZER INC: Third Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 29, 2014, that in June 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pfizer, as successor to Wyeth, and several former officers of Wyeth. The complaint alleged that Wyeth and the individual defendants violated federal securities laws by making or causing Wyeth to make false and misleading statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Wyeth to fail to disclose material information, concerning the results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab, a product in development for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The plaintiff sought to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased Wyeth securities from May 21, 2007 through July 2008 and sought damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of the putative class. In February 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. In December 2012, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint. In April 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2013, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In June 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the complaint. PFIZER INC: Faces Celebrex Class Action Filed in July ----------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 29, 2014, that in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide or multi- state classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation, and prolonging the impact of sham litigation through settlement activity that further delayed generic entry. Each of the actions seeks treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex since May 31, 2014. PNC FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Lauren" Action Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., 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, provided updates on Lender Placed Insurance Litigation. In May 2014, the court in Lauren v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al, (Case No. 2:13-cv-00762-TFM), granted the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to, among other things, assert a nationwide RICO claim on behalf of the class, with the understanding that defendants may pursue their arguments against the viability of this claim by way of a motion to dismiss. In June 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion is pending. In May 2014, the complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Tighe v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al. (Case No. 14-CV-2017) was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In June 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, thereby terminating that action. In Montoya, et al. v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv- 20474-JEM), pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, PNC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2014. The motion is pending. PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Court Consolidates 3 Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Provectus 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, that on May 27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Farrah Case"), and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Chaney Case"), and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Dauphinee Case") (the plaintiffs in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), each filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Company, H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the "Defendants") alleging violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege that the Defendants are liable for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about the Company, in connection with the Company's application to the FDA for Breakthrough Therapy Designation ("BTD") in the Spring of 2014 and the FDA's subsequent denial of the Company's application for BTD. The Company intends to defend vigorously against all claims in these complaints. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation and the early stage of this litigation, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. By order dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case (collectively and, as consolidated, the "Securities Litigation") and transferred the Securities Litigation to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Faces "Yancy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Yancy, Kevin Mitchell, Shahn Curry, Dior Welch, and Darrell Welch, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Prudential Security, Inc., Derek Wroblowski, and Dan Penya, Case No. 2:14-cv-13419 (E.D. Mich., September 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Prudential Security, Inc. engaged in the business of providing private security guards to private businesses and at special events. The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Philo, Esq. SUGAR LAW CENTER 4605 Cass Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 993-4505 Facsimile: (313) 887-8470 E-mail: johnphilo1@comcast.net RALPH LAUREN: Falsely Marketed Merchandise, "Branca" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Branca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ralph Lauren Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-07097 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2014), arises from the deceptive and misleading labeling and marketing of merchandise it sells at its company- owned Polo Ralph Lauren Factory stores. Ralph Lauren Corp. operates 14 Polo Ralph Lauren Factory stores in California, with its principal place of business at 650 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE KREGER 303 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1201 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212)956-2136 Facsimile: (212)956-2137 E-Mail: wayne@kregerlaw.com RJJ RESTAURANT: "Cholula" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Celestino Cholula, Dilman Vasquez, and Santiago Vasquez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. RJJ Restaurant LLC d/b/a Empire Steak House, Jack Sinanaj, Jeff Sinanaj, and Russ Sinanaj, Case No. 1:14-cv-07105 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate Empire Steak House restaurant located at 237West 54th Street, New York, New York, 10019. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Vivianna Morales, Esq. BERKE-WEISS&PECHMAN LLP 488 Madison Avenue - 11th Floor New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com morales@bwp-law.com ROCKET FUEL: Sued in California Over Misleading Financial Report ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nipu Shah, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rocket Fuel Inc., George H. John, J. Peter Bardwick, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-03998 (N.D. Cal., September 3, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's financial performance. Rocket Fuel Inc. provides a programmatic media-buying platform to purportedly improve marketing return on investment in digital media across web, mobile, video, and social channels. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC operates as an investment bank in the United States. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. provides investment banking and financial advisory services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RAMZI ABADOU 79 Woodland Avenue San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 231-4313 E-mail: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com - and - Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq. Michael J. Palestina, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington St. Madisonville, LA 70447 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com ROCKET FUEL: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Bot Blocking ------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that when bots attacked, a Redwood City advertising company made promises it couldn't keep, according to a securities class action filed on Sept. 3 in the Northern District of California. Rocket Fuel Inc. employs artificial intelligence to track consumers' online habits, and uses the data to place client ads where they will get the most attention. Plaintiffs lawyers say company executives inflated stock prices between September 2013 and August of this year by telling clients they could safeguard against the scourge of the online advertising industry -- Internet robots, or bots, that rack up ad views with fraudulent clicks. The lawyers argue those false promises pushed stock prices to more than double the company's IPO price, only to plummet after unflattering media reports and company disclosures. Before the drop, plaintiffs lawyers say the company's highest-ranking insiders cashed out in a secondary February offering for a windfall of $175 million. "Their timing was, to say the least, exquisite," wrote lead plainitffs lawyer Ramzi Abadou, a partner at Kahn Swick & Foti. "Plaintiff and the class have not been as fortunate. At present, Rocket Fuel's shares currently (languish) at approximately $16 per share, while the company's year-to-date performance is down approximately 75 percent." All online advertisers deal with the problem of bot traffic, the complaint states. Code-driven bots hike up ad revenue for website owners by acting like human consumers -- clicking on different sites, watching videos and putting items in shopping carts. The problem, according to the complaint, is "bots don't buy and wear Levi's." To effectively protect its clients from bot fraud, Rocket Fuel would have to screen about 500 billion ad impressions each month, an impossibility, Mr. Abadou alleges. Executives knew of the discrepancy, but continued to tell clients the company could "block bad sites and pages" from ad campaigns, according to the suit. After news articles began to question Rocket Fuel's fraud protection, the company admitted a problem in August. Executives lowered Rocket Fuel's revenue expectations because of "customer concern about the inventory quality resulting from the company's inability to identify and eliminate fraudulent ad traffic," according to the complaint. Stock prices dropped about 30 percent following the August announcement. SABRE CORPORATION: To Appeal Ruling Over "Control" of Hotels ------------------------------------------------------------ Sabre 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 United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ("W.D.T.") entered on April 4, 2013, a final judgment against Travelocity and other online travel agencies ("OTAs") in a class action lawsuit filed by the City of San Antonio. The final judgment was based on a jury verdict from October 30, 2009 that the OTAs "control" hotels for purposes of city hotel occupancy taxes. Following that jury verdict, on July 1, 2011, the W.D.T. concluded that fees charged by the OTAs are subject to city hotel occupancy taxes and that the OTAs have a duty to assess, collect and remit these taxes. "We disagree with the jury's finding that we "control" hotels, and with the W.D.T.'s conclusions based on the jury finding, and intend to appeal the final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit," the Company said. Sabre Corporation operates through three business segments: (i) Travel Network, its global travel marketplace for travel suppliers and travel buyers, (ii) Airline and Hospitality Solutions, an extensive suite of travel industry leading software solutions primarily for airlines and hotel properties, and (iii) Travelocity, its portfolio of online consumer travel e-commerce businesses through which the Company provides travel content and booking functionality primarily for leisure travelers. SABRE CORPORATION: Provides Updates on 4 Consumer Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Sabre 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 four consumer class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and other online travel agencies in which the plaintiffs allege that the Company made misrepresentations concerning the description of the fees received in relation to facilitating hotel reservations. Generally, the consumer claims relate to whether Travelocity and the other OTAs provided adequate notice to consumers regarding the nature of the Company's fees and the amount of taxes charged or collected. One of these lawsuits was dismissed by the Texas Supreme Court and this dismissal was subsequently affirmed; one was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs; one is pending in Texas state court, where the court is currently considering the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action; and the last is pending in federal court, but has been stayed pending the outcome of the Texas state court action. Sabre Corporation operates through three business segments: (i) Travel Network, its global travel marketplace for travel suppliers and travel buyers, (ii) Airline and Hospitality Solutions, an extensive suite of travel industry leading software solutions primarily for airlines and hotel properties, and (iii) Travelocity, its portfolio of online consumer travel e-commerce businesses through which the Company provides travel content and booking functionality primarily for leisure travelers. SABRE CORPORATION: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- Sabre 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 two individuals alleging to represent a putative class of bookers of online hotel reservations filed on August 20, 2012, a complaint against Sabre Holdings, Travelocity.com LP, and several other online travel companies and hotel chains in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging federal and state antitrust and related claims. The complaint alleges generally that the defendants conspired to enter into illegal agreements relating to the price of hotel rooms. Over 30 copycat suits were filed in various courts in the United States. In December 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized these cases in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas, which subsequently consolidated them. The proposed class period is January 1, 2003 through May 1, 2013. On June 15, 2013, the court granted Travelocity's motion to compel arbitration of claims involving Travelocity bookings made on or after February 4, 2010. While all claims from February 4, 2010 through May 1, 2013 are now excluded from the lawsuit and must be arbitrated if pursued at all, the lawsuit still covers claims from January 1, 2003 through February 3, 2010. Together with the other defendants, Travelocity and Sabre filed a motion to dismiss. On February 18, 2014, the court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claims without prejudice. The plaintiffs have moved for leave to file an amended complaint and the defendants have opposed this motion. The Company said, "We are awaiting the court's ruling. We deny any conspiracy or any anti-competitive actions and we intend to aggressively defend against the claims." "Even if we are ultimately successful in defending ourselves in this matter, we are likely to incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as it is ongoing. In addition, litigation by its nature is highly uncertain and fraught with risk, and it is difficult to predict the outcome of any particular matter. If favorable resolution of the matter is not reached, we could be subject to monetary damages, including treble damages under the antitrust laws, as well as injunctive relief. If injunctive relief were granted, depending on its scope, it could affect the manner in which our Travelocity business is operated and potentially force changes to the existing business model. Any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations." Sabre Corporation operates through three business segments: (i) Travel Network, its global travel marketplace for travel suppliers and travel buyers, (ii) Airline and Hospitality Solutions, an extensive suite of travel industry leading software solutions primarily for airlines and hotel properties, and (iii) Travelocity, its portfolio of online consumer travel e-commerce businesses through which the Company provides travel content and booking functionality primarily for leisure travelers. SILVER DINER: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Richard Phillips, James Ngai, Robert Zapf, and Ian Mccully, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Emdad Haque and Silver Diner Development, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-01130 (E.D. Va., September 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act Silver Diner Development owns and operates a family restaurant with 17 locations in Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Francis Hennessy, Esq. VIRGINIA FAMILY AND EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER 4015 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite G Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 865-5839 Facsimile: (703) 865-5849 E-mail: th@virginiafamilylawcenter.com SOUTHSIDE BANCSHARES: Faces Lawsuit Over OmniAmerican Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Southside Bancshares, 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 stockholder of OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc., filed on June 25, 2014, a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland captioned McDougal v. OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14- 003920, naming OmniAmerican, members of OmniAmerican's board of directors, Southside and Merger Sub as defendants. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of OmniAmerican's public stockholders and seeks a declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class action and a certification of the plaintiff and her counsel as class representative and class counsel. The lawsuit asserts direct and derivative claims against OmniAmerican's directors and alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties and that OmniAmerican, Southside and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches by, among other things, (a) failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value for OmniAmerican public stockholders; (b) failing to properly value OmniAmerican; (c) failing to protect against conflicts of interest; (d) failing to disclose material information necessary for OmniAmerican stockholders to make an informed vote on the merger; and (e) agreeing to deal protection devices that preclude a fair sales process. Among other relief, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger. On July 9, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion to transfer the case to Maryland's Business and Technology Case Management Program. OmniAmerican and Southside believe the claims asserted are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. SUN HOLDINGS: Fast-Food Employees Seek OT Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Rodriguez and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report that a fast-food employee on Sept. 4 moved for certification in a proposed class action that claims Sun Holdings LLC and its affiliate Sun Steaks LLC failed to pay employees overtime and required the plaintiff to work under an assumed name to avoid Affordable Care Act requirements. In a motion for conditional certification, plaintiff Michael A. Lorusso on Sept. 4 asked that notice of the lawsuit, which alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, be sent to current and former hourly workers of several Florida restaurants that are under Sun Holdings purview that could make up a putative class. Since Mr. Lorusso filed the suit in April, two other former employees have opted into the case and he contends they have knowledge of others who would be interested in participating if notice was given, according to the motion. "The evidence submitted to the court established that defendants' policy of not paying wait-staff for all the hours they worked was uniformly applied at its Clearwater/Tampa/Temple Terrace/Pompano Beach and Pembrook Pines facilities in Florida. The evidence also establishes that the putative class members were subject to the same terms and conditions of employment," the motion contends. Dallas-based Sun Holdings owns nearly 400 restaurants in Texas and Florida, including Golden Corral, Burger King, Arby's and Popeye's locations, according to company statements. Sun Holdings contends that Mr. Lorusso has not alleged sufficient facts to sustain the action and denied knowledge of the allegations, according to a July response to Mr. Lorusso's amended complaint. In April, the company told Law360 it was taking the allegations seriously and would be conducting its own investigation into the allegations. Mr. Lorusso, who worked busing tables at a Golden Corral in Pinellas County, Florida, for two-and-a-half years, claimed managers failed to pay him for all hours worked, and required him to work under both his real name and an alter ego in order to avoid having to pay him overtime or comply with certain ACA requirements. According to Mr. Lorusso, Sun Holdings didn't substantially respond to his written demands for payment of unpaid wages, nor did it provide him with any specifics regarding how he could have been an exempt employee under the FLSA. Mr. Lorusso's original complaint sought unpaid wages under Florida law as well as liquidated damages under the FLSA. He estimated that he is owed more than $15,000. Mr. Lorusso is represented by W. John Gadd. Sun Holdings is represented by Nancy J. Stewig -- nstewig@broadandcassel.com -- and Kelly B. Holbrook -- kholbrook@broadandcassel.com -- of Broad and Cassel. The suit is Michael A. Lorusso v. Sun Holdings LLC, et al., case number 8:14-cv-00822, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. THORATEC CORPORATION: Filed Motion to Dismiss Cooper Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thoratec 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 28, 2014, that the Company and three of its present and former officers were named as defendants in a complaint filed on January 24, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The action, entitled Cooper v. Thoratec Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-00360, is a putative class action brought on behalf of purchasers of our securities between April 29, 2010, and November 27, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On April 21, 2014, the Court appointed Bradley Cooper as Lead Plaintiff ("Plaintiff"). On June 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint ("Complaint"), adding a former officer of the Company as a defendant. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false or misleading statements in various SEC filings, press releases, earnings calls, and healthcare conferences regarding the Company's business and outlook, focusing primarily on Defendants' alleged failure to disclose that the HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device had a purported increased rate of pump thrombosis during the Class Period. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, among other relief. Defendants will file a motion to dismiss the Complaint by August 19, 2014. "Although the results of litigation are inherently uncertain, based on the information currently available, we do not believe the ultimate resolution of this action will have a material effect on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations," the Company said. Thoratec develops, manufactures and markets proprietary medical devices used for mechanical circulatory support ("MCS") for the treatment of heart failure ("HF") patients. TOTAL SYSTEM: Unit Named as Defendant in Telexfree Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Total System Services, 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 ProPay, Inc. ("ProPay"), a subsidiary of the Company, has been named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to the activities of Telexfree, Inc. and its affiliates and principals. Telexfree is a former merchant customer of ProPay. With regard to Telexfree, each purported class action lawsuit generally alleges that Telexfree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor defendants, including ProPay, knowingly furthered the improper activities of Telexfree with knowledge that Telexfree did not have legitimate business operations. Telexfree filed for bankruptcy protection in Nevada. The bankruptcy was subsequently transferred to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court. Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the following purported class action complaints relating to Telexfree: (i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No. BK-S-14-12524-ABL) filed on May 3, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada, (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) filed on May 15, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of Massachusetts, (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v. Telexelectric, LLLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) filed on June 5, 2014 in the United States District Court of North Carolina, (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No. 2:14-CV-00134), filed on June 24, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, (v) Felicia Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG), filed on June 27, 2014 in the United State District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere, et al. v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO), filed on June 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. A motion to consolidate these proceedings has been filed by one of the plaintiffs, but has not yet been addressed by the court. Total System Services provides payment processing, merchant services and related payment services to financial and nonfinancial institutions, generally under long-term processing contracts. The Company also provides general-purpose reloadable (GPR) prepaid debit cards and payroll cards and alternative financial services to underbanked consumers. TRUSTMARK CORP: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss OSIC Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Trustmark 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 its wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank (TNB), has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits related to the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group. The first is a purported class action complaint that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as defendants. The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the "Stanford Financial Group") and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme. Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Plaintiffs did not quantify damages. In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, and the motions to dismiss have been fully briefed by all parties. The court has not yet ruled on TNB's motion to dismiss. In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee ("OSIC") to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors. In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this action. In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one of the other defendant financial institutions. In February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial institutions. The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify damages. In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the OSIC's claims. The court has not yet ruled on TNB's motion to dismiss the OSIC's claims. The second Stanford-related lawsuit was filed on December 14, 2009 in the District Court of Ascension Parish, Louisiana, individually by Harold Jackson, Paul Blaine, Carolyn Bass Smith, Christine Nichols, and Ronald and Ramona Hebert naming TNB (misnamed as Trust National Bank) and other individuals and entities not affiliated with Trustmark as defendants. The complaint seeks to recover the money lost by these individual plaintiffs as a result of the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group (in addition to other damages) under various theories and causes of action, including negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, conspiracy, and violation of Louisiana's uniform fiduciary, securities, and racketeering laws. The complaint does not quantify the amount of money the plaintiffs seek to recover. In January 2010, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. On March 29, 2010, the court stayed the case. TNB filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on February 28, 2012. In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues. TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business. Both Stanford-related lawsuits are in their preliminary stages and have been previously disclosed by Trustmark. TRUSTMARK CORP: Settlement Funds in Overdraft Suit Distributed -------------------------------------------------------------- Trustmark 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 its wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank (TNB), was the defendant in two putative class actions challenging TNB's practices regarding "overdraft" or "non-sufficient funds" fees charged by TNB in connection with customer use of debit cards, including TNB's order of processing transactions, notices and calculations of charges, and calculations of fees. Both of those cases have now been dismissed pursuant to a court-approved class action settlement. The period has ended in which any party could appeal the order approving the settlement. The settlement of $4.0 million, or $2.5 million net of taxes, was included in other noninterest expense for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The Settlement Administrator has begun distributing the settlement funds. The settlement resolved potential claims of more than 100,000 class members. A total of sixteen customers excluded themselves from the class action settlement. None of those customers have subsequently asserted any claim or made demands on TNB due to overdraft or non- sufficient funds fees. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Concedes Error in Class Action Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that being a federal judge means never having to admit you're wrong -- at least not until an appeals court forces the issue. That makes an order issued on Sept. 4 by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California somewhat extraordinary. Unwinding his own 2013 order, Judge Chen quashed nationwide class claims against Uber Technologies Inc., conceding he had relied on a "fundamental misreading" of key case law in allowing out-of- state drivers to pursue claims under California law. "The court now concludes that its earlier holding was in error, and that the California statutes involved in this action do not apply extra-territorially," Judge Chen wrote in a 22-page order. In December, Judge Chen had given out-of-state drivers the green light, relying on their agreement with Uber, which provides for disputes to be resolved under California law. That agreement, he held, trumped the usual presumption against out-of-state application. But U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria took a starkly different view of the law last month in a similar suit against Lyft and it appears Judge Chen was paying attention. Citing Judge Chhabria's order, Judge Chen wrote "a contractual choice of law provision that incorporates California law presumably incorporates all of California law -- including California's presumption against extraterritorial application." Judge Chen's new order in O'Connor v. Uber, 13-3826, also granted judgment to Uber on several other points. Judge Chen tossed plaintiffs' claims that Uber tortiously interfered with the relationship between drivers and Uber customers by failing to remit all gratuities to drivers and that Uber violated an implied- in-fact contract with its customers. Still, the order allows claims to proceed on behalf of California drivers under the state's Unfair Competition Law and labor code. Massachusetts-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents both the Uber and Lyft drivers, said she plans to appeal Judge Chen's ruling. "I don't think this is the end of the story," she said. Drivers sued Uber in 2013, accusing the company of shortchanging them on tips and expenses. The company, represented by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, contends its drivers are contractors, not employees, and therefore not entitled to recoup those costs. Chen rejected Uber's motion to dismiss in December and sided with plaintiffs that California law should govern the claims of out-of- state drivers. He cited a 2003 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case, Gravquick A/S v. Trimble Navigation, to support his conclusion. But on Sept. 4, Judge Chen conceded he misread Gravquick. "The court in Gravquick did not hold that a California choice of law provision can overcome the presumption against extra- territorial application of California law," Judge Chen wrote. "Instead, the court recognized that parties' agreement to apply California law must yield in those circumstances where the law in question contains 'geographical limitations.'" Ms. Liss-Riordan said she disagrees that the applicable California employment laws contain "geographical limitations." The statutes do not explicitly say they may be applied outside of California, but neither do they say that they can't, she said. Uber's lead attorney, Morgan Lewis partner Robert Hendricks -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- was in arbitration on Sept. 4 and did not respond to phone and email messages requesting comment. An Uber spokesman said the company was pleased. "[The] decision is a victory across the board for the countless riders and drivers that rely on Uber," Lane Kasselman wrote in an email. ULTIMATE VACATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Texas Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Shields, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ultimate Vacation Group LLC d/b/a Royal Bahamas Cruise Line, Case No. 3:14-cv-00285 (S.D. Tex., September 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically by contacting the Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular or residential telephones for non-emergency purposes via an automatic telephone dialing system as defined and/ by using an artificial or prerecorded voice. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Edwards Wynne, Esq. Kenneth R. Wynne, Esq. WYNNE & WYNNE LLP 1021 Main Street, Suite 1275 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 227-8835 Facsimile: (713) 227-6205 E-mail: dwynne@wynne-law.com kwynne@wynne-law.com US NAVY: Nonliturgical Protestant Chaplains Class Not Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to certify a class of nonliturgical Protestant chaplains who allege the U.S. Navy discriminated against them by employing a secret voting system that creates a bias in favor of promoting Catholics and liturgical Protestants. A group of 65 current and former nonliturgical Protestant chaplains sued the Navy claiming liturgical chaplains are 10 percent more likely to be recommended for promotion if a chaplain of their same denomination sits on the Navy's selection board, whose members cast secret votes of confidence. The D.C. Circuit revived in November 2012 the Baptist, Evangelical, Pentecostal and Charismatic Navy chaplains' claims, which allegedly date back to 1976. While other branches of the Armed Services use public voting, the Navy's secret voting system allows chaplains to essentially veto a candidate of a different religion by voting a zero level of confidence, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs renewed on Dec. 4, 2012, their motion to certify a class of up to 2,500 chaplains whose careers the voting system allegedly injured or may injure in the future. But U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler refused to preliminarily enjoin the voting process Feb. 28, 2013, finding that the chaplains provided no evidence of intentional discrimination. Last week she declined to certify the class, finding that the plaintiffs' individual anecdotes "vary widely" and thus eschew commonality requirements. Some plaintiffs say "they were discriminated against because they believe themselves to be more qualified than chaplains of different faiths who fared better in the Chaplain Corps' personnel system," Kessler wrote. "Others complain of poor fitness reports and unfavorable work assignments issued by their superiors, which they blame on interpersonal disputes combined with religious animosity, retaliation, and/or racial or gender discrimination. Yet others tell extended narratives of local command officers or senior chaplains interfering with their ministry efforts, prayer, or worship styles for a variety of reasons they attribute to religious hostility." The chaplains' "decentralized system" across 500 locations neither demonstrates a common "culture of prejudice," the ruling states. "Insofar as plaintiffs challenge facially neutral policies, such as secret voting, the small size of selection boards, and the practice of appointing two chaplains to each board, they cannot prevail unless they establish that the policies are motivated by discriminatory intent, lack a rational basis, or 'appear to endorse religion in the eyes of a "reasonable observer"' (emphasis in original)," Kessler wrote. "As our Court of Appeals recently concluded, plaintiffs either do not allege or have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits as to any of these theories." Here, the plaintiffs have not shown that they are adequate class representatives, the judge held. "Plaintiffs' readiness to draw divisions among members of the proposed class strongly indicates that they cannot be fair and impartial representatives of the class as a whole," Kessler wrote. "Baptist class members (or those of other 'liberal' faiths) might have legitimate concerns that plaintiffs will not zealously represent their interests." (Parentheses in original). The court also tossed the plaintiffs' claim that, until 2001, the Navy used a "Thirds Policy" under which it reserved 35 percent of chaplain accessions to liturgical Protestants, 35 percent to "nonliturgical faith groups," and 30 percent to "others," including Catholics. The case is In Re: Navy Chaplaincy, Case No. 1:07-mc-269 (GK), in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. VETERANS AFFAIRS: Wins Judgment in Suit Alleging Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------ A former Department of Veterans Affairs employee cannot prove he was subjected to a hostile work environment or that the VA retaliated against him for filing an EEO complaint, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Ronald Beavers worked for the Los Angeles Veterans' Resource Center as a readjustment counselor from 1997 until he retired in late 2006. His hostile work environment claim was based on "disciplinary action taken against him, a confrontational meeting with his supervisor, his supervisor's accusation that Beavers was 'not a man,' and his supervisor's contact with Beavers's physician and subsequent receipt of Beavers's medical record," U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson wrote in granting the VA summary judgment. Soon after Beavers was hired, his supervisor, Jason Young, noticed that Beavers used profanity when interacting with veterans and in front of staff members. Young "counseled Beavers about his use of inappropriate language at staff meetings -- namely (1) that Beavers described an implant that he had received to treat a prostate problem as 'act[ing] like a nigger' and (2) that at a staff meeting Beavers said he told a Domestic Violence Group participant who requested credit for a class that wasn't held that 'now you want me to give you some pussy,'" the ruling states. After Beavers did not receive a promotion in 2006, he filed an EEO complaint alleging that Regional Manager Dick Talbott had discriminated against because of his age and sex. He withdrew the complaint two days later. At a staff meeting earlier that month, Beavers "referred to his EEO complaint and stated 'Fuck it, I need some more money.' Then, around the time he withdrew his EEO complaint, Beavers came into the kitchen during lunch and stated, 'I guess you see I withdrew the complaint against Dick Talbott's ass. But I'm not finished. I want you to know one thing, that Dick Talbott is a dirty motherfucker,'" the ruling states. Based on this inappropriate language, Young issued Beavers a letter of admonishment. That same year, Young met with Beavers in Young's office to discuss whether Beavers was entitled to his requested higher grade level. Young said that he informed Beavers that he was not qualified for an upgrade, and that Beavers was angry throughout the conversation. Beavers provided a different story, stating that Young screamed at him to close the "fucking door," told him that he "better not fucking leave and sit down and listen," that he needed to pay Young more "fucking respect," and that Young refused to allow a union representative to be present, according to the ruling. After that meeting, Beavers stopped going to work for medical reasons, allegedly due to his mistreatment at work. He faxed a Document of Medical Impairment to the Vet Center. Because the date on the document was illegible, and the date was needed for time accounting purposes, Young and another employee contacted Beavers's physician to obtain a clearer copy. Beavers claimed that they then obtained all of his medical records without his consent. Judge Wilson ruled that Beavers could not state a hostile work environment claim or a retaliation claim, so Eric Shinseki, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, was entitled to summary judgment. Beavers based his hostile work environment claim on allegations of Young's accusing him of not being a man, Young's behavior during their private meeting, the letter of admonishment, and the retrieval of his medical records. Even if Beavers could back up his allegations with admissible evidence, he did not show that he was discriminated against because of a protected characteristic, Wilson found. "Construing Beavers's argument charitably, the only protected basis on which he claims harassment is his sex. The only complained-of action that makes any reference to Beavers's sex is Young's alleged statement that Beavers wasn't a man. This statement does not clearly constitute discrimination because of sex -- it could equally be construed as an accusation of being more like a child than an adult. Even if it was harassment because of Beavers's sex, it is only a minor insult and not sufficiently severe to be actionable," Wilson wrote. Additionally, the harassment was not pervasive enough to create an abusive work environment, as Beavers pointed to just five specific instances of harassment. None of the incidents was particularly severe, nor did they unreasonably interfere with Beavers's performance of his work. At least two of the incidents were disciplinary actions based on Beavers's own use of profanity, Wilson found. Beavers was unable to show that the incidents were in retaliation for his EEO complaint. Even assuming that each of the incidents qualified as an adverse employment action, which Wilson found doubtful, the VA provided legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for each one. The admonishment letter was in response to Beaver's use of profane language, the meeting in Young's office was in response to Beavers request for a raise, and the contact with Beavers' physician was solely to obtain a legible copy of the Document of Medical Impairment. Beavers, for his part, did not offer any direct evidence of pretext, bur relied on circumstantial evidence, which is not sufficient. VOLTARI CORPORATION: Filed Answering Brief in 9th Cir. Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Callan filed a putative securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Motricity, Inc. ("Motricity") between June 18, 2010 and August 9, 2011 or in Motricity's initial public offering. Motricity, which was Voltari Corporation's predecessor registrant, is now Voltari's wholly-owned subsidiary and has changed its name to Voltari Operating Corp. The defendants in the case were Motricity, certain of Voltari's current and former directors and officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner; and the underwriters in Motricity's initial public offering, including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and Pacific Crest Securities LLC. The complaint alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by all defendants and under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by Motricity and those of Voltari's former and current officers who are named as defendants. The complaint sought, inter alia, damages, including interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission. A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also related to alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and lead plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which added a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act to its allegations of violations of the securities laws and extended the putative class period from August 9, 2011 to November 14, 2011. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2012 and a second amended complaint on July 11, 2012. On August 1, 2012, Voltari filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 17, 2013. A third amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2013. On May 30, 2013, Voltari filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, which was granted by the Court on October 1, 2013. On October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief and on July 24, 2014 Voltari filed its answering brief, 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. Voltari empowers customers (including brands, marketers and advertising agencies) to maximize the reach and economic potential of the mobile ecosystem through the delivery of relevance-driven merchandising, digital marketing and advertising solutions, primarily over smartphones and other mobile devices. Voltari uses advanced predictive analytics capabilities and real-time data management (including sophisticated data curation and modeling) to deliver the right content to the right person at the right time. Voltari's unique combination of technology, expertise and go-to- market approach delivers return-on-investment for customers. WELLS FARGO: Faces "Hartley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle F. Hartley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Maria Degennero v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wachovia Securities Financial Holdings, LLC, and Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, as successor in interest to Wachovia Securities, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-05169 (E.D.N.Y., September 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate as diversified financial services companies and financial holding companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Meredith Haskell, Esq. Christopher Quincy Davis, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER DAVIS 18 W 18th St, 11th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (646) 356-1011 Facsimile: (212) 905-7726 E-mail: rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com chrisd573@yahoo.com XEROX CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shortly before the millennium, Xerox laid off thousands of employees to try to save billions of dollars, but the photocopying giant wound up with a human resources problem it described internally as a "five alarm fire," reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service. Xerox executives spoke more discreetly about the "deterioration" caused by the three mass layoffs in its public disclosures, but acknowledged that the overhauls went "too far, too fast." For 15 years, a union welfare fund and two other investors have tried to lead a federal class action securities lawsuit against Xerox, its former CEO Paul Allaire and ex-president Richard Thoman, over alleged discrepancies between the company's internal and public assessments. After filing the case in 1999, the investors fought for years to achieve class certification, only to have a federal judge throw out the case on summary judgment last year. On September 8, 2014, the 2nd Circuit refused to revive the case, in a 43-page opinion outlining Xerox's ill-fated plans: Launched in 1998, Xerox's worldwide restructuring plan aimed to consolidate 56 European customer support centers into one facility. It called for 9,000 "voluntary reductions and layoffs," expected to yield $1 billion in annual, pre-tax savings. Xerox's consumer business organization, or CBO, enacted the same year, budgeted $30 million to eliminate approximately 500 positions, which would save a projected $45 million a year. In its first quarterly earnings after the first plan, Xerox trumpeted a two-digit increase in earnings per share that it attributed to "initial benefits from the worldwide restructuring program." After Xerox reported that "500 heads were captured" in 1998, its accounting firm found "sales representatives were very unhappy" with lack of face time with their supervisors and other signs of "disruption created by the reduction in resources." In early 1999, Xerox introduced a new sales force realignment plan that boded a shift from geography-based to industry-based selling; the announcement of further restructuring caused a 10 percent plummet in its stock price that day. Then-vice president of Xerox's North American Strategies Group, Patrick Fulford, said later that year that his department had fallen under a "state of emergency." A July 22, 1999 internal presentation depicted employees as working under "extreme duress." The 2nd Circuit ruled on September 8, 2014, however, that Xerox had no obligation to spell out the problems it faced in such stark terms to investors. "While plaintiffs may have desired more detailed or nuanced language, that is not what the law requires," U.S. Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote for the three-judge panel. Her colleagues Dennis Jacobs and Christina Reiss joined her in the opinion. Sitting by designation, Reiss is a district judge from Vermont. "We hold that here, whether one referred to a problem as a 'five alarm fire' internally or as just causing a 'deterioration' as the result of 'too much change, too fast' publicly, the bottom line was the same: the public information reflected that the CBO Reorganization was causing problems for Xerox's bill collection and sales force operations," the opinion states. A lawyer for the plaintiff class declined to comment, and Xerox's attorney did not reply to a request for comment before press time. Plaintiff-Appellant IBEW Local 164 Welfare Fund is represented by: Brad N. Friedman, Esq. MILLBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Facsimile: (212) 868-1229 E-mail: bfriedman@milberg.com Plaintiff-Appellant Robert W. Roten is represented by: Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq. BERNSTEIN LEIBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (877) 779-1414 E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com Plaintiffs-Appellants Thomas Dalberth and Georgia Stanley are represented by: Mark Levine, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: mlevine@ssbny.com Defendant-Appellee Xerox Corporation is represented by: Sandra C. Goldstein, Esq. J. Wesley Earnhardt, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019-7475 Telephone: (212) 474-1138 E-mail: sgoldstein@cravath.com wearnhardt@cravath.com Defendant-Appellee G. Richard Thoman is represented by: Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq. DAY PITNEY LLP One Canterbury Green 201 Broad Street Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 977-7300 Facsimile: (203) 977-7301 E-mail: tgoldberg@daypitney.com Defendants-Appellees Barry D. Romeril and Paul A. Allaire are represented by: John A. Valentine, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Map Telephone: (202) 663-6000 Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 E-mail: john.valentine@wilmerhale.com Defendants-Appellees Barry D. Romeril and Paul A. Allaire are represented by: Alfred U. Pavlis, Esq. FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP 177 Broad Street Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-5056 Facsimile: (203) 325-5001 E-mail: apavlis@fdh.com The case is Thomas Dalberth, et al. v. Xerox Corporation, et a., Case No. 13-1658-cv, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. * Counsel & Heal Unveils 10 Most Dangerous Foods Based on Recalls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Counsel & Heal reports food recalls occur due to contamination that can negatively affect people's health. This year so far, the United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has dealt with at least 100 food-related recalls. For certain vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, contaminated food can lead to life- threatening situations. In order to reduce one's risk, it is important to handle food properly and cook it thoroughly. Here are 10 of the most dangerous foods: 1. Beef Beef was involved in two major recalls in 2014. The first one occurred in May when the Wolverine Packing Company in Detroit, MI voluntarily recalled 1.8 million pounds of ground meat due to Escherichia coli (E. coli). The second recall involved Petaluma, which is a Californian Rancho Feeding Corporation. The company had to recall nearly nine million pounds of beef and veal after it was discovered that the company had processed diseased animals that were not inspected. 2. Chicken Chicken is often the subject of recalls. In this year so far, roughly 1.5 million pounds of chicken have been recalled due to bacterial infections caused by salmonella and campylobacter. These infections can become very serious. Salmonella kills around 450 people per year whereas the annual death toll for campylobacter is around 76. 3. Sprouts Out of the vegetable category, sprouts are some of the most potentially dangerous products. Sprouts tend to have a higher risk of contamination because they are grown in conditions that are also ideal for bacteria growth. When sprout seeds get infected, the bacteria can stick to the roots and grow into large numbers by the time the sprouts are fully-grown and ready to harvest. Health experts recommend people at risk of listeria infections, such as pregnant women to avoid sprouts in general. 4. Spices Even though recalls surrounding spices are not as common, these recalls are important to know. In this year alone, there have been almost 12 spice recalls and for each one, people are at risk of getting salmonella. 5. Eggs When it comes to food contamination, many people know that eggs could be the source of a salmonella outbreak. In order to prevent getting sick, people should avoid eating food with raw eggs in it, such as cookie dough. 6. Milk Even though raw milk has not been linked to causing food infections recently, several studies have found that raw milk contains more bacteria than pasteurized milk. The bacteria that can be found in this product include salmonella, E. coli and listeria. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that raw milk is 150 times more likely to be lead to foodborne illness. 7. Shellfish In certain parts of the country, raw oysters are a staple. However, since shellfish are filter-feeders, they tend to gather pathogens from their environment, which can cause vibrio infection. This type of infection leads to diarrhea, septicemia and wound infections. 8. Fruit Fruits tend to become contaminated based on how they are handled and processed. For example, companies that use dirty water or fresh manure increase risk of contamination. Since fruits are generally eaten raw, there is not much that people can do to prevent getting an illness if the fruit is contaminated. However, washing fruits thoroughly is still an important step. 9. Allergenic foods Even though people often associate recalls to contamination, many recalls occur due to mislabeling. Companies that mislabel foods that are highly allergenic must issue recalls before the products cause life-threatening allergic reactions. 10. Restaurant foods Even though restaurants are supposed to pass health inspections, many foodborne illnesses start in restaurants. Restaurants that do not follow safe food handling and cooking recommendations place their customers at a greater risk of falling ill. ********* 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 * * *