/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141023.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, October 23, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 211
Headlines
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Removes "Jones" Suit to N.D. California
AGENCE METROPOLITAINE: Settles Suit Over 2009 Service Disruptions
AL CORRECTIONS DEP'T: Sued Over Rising Violence at St. Clair
ALTA VISTA REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Settlement Wins Preliminarily Approval
BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS: Sued Over Injury Caused by Faulty M2a Magnum
BLYTH INC: Loan to Terminate Upon Resolution of Class Suit
BOTTLING GROUP: Removes "Castaneda" Suit to C.D. California
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Recalls Snapper Rear Engine Riding Mowers
BRIGHT HOUSE: Dec. 16 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
BRISTOL HARBOUR: Faces Class Action Over Tips; Nov. 6 Hearing Set
BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Owner Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
CANADA VOLUMES: Recalls Chimei Fluffy Green Onion Waffle
CASHCALL INC: App. Ct. Affirms Decertification of "Kight" Suit
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Pension System Sues Over Fyffes Combination
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Class Suit Parties Must Attend Oct. 23 Hearing
CHOY FOONG: Recall s U.loveit Brewed Tea Drink Powders
CITIGROUP INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over 401(k) Fees
COMCAST CABLE: "Ogbuehi" FLSA Suit Gets Prelim. Certification
COMMUNITY BANK: Accrued $2.8MM As Part of Class Action Settlement
CRP SANITATION: Class Wants to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime
CSX CORP: Proceedings in Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Case Deferred
CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Sangiorgio" Suit Over Untimely Wage Payment
CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Zimmerman" Suit Over Unpaid Extra Work Time
CVS PHARMACY: "Sternfeld" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DYNEGY INC: Trial in Duke Energy Case Set to Begin in July 2015
E.&B.'S NATURAL: Recalls 27,948 Lbs. of Raw Lamb Products
EMPLOYER'S CHOICE: Sued for Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Inks MoU to Settle Merger Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Suit Over Ignition-Switch Recalls Moved to N.Y.
GLOBAL X: Recalls Solar Chandelier & Solar Gazebo Light
GRADY ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Capital Credits
HOBBY LOBBY: Calif. Court Tosses "Ortiz" Wages Class Suit
INDIANA: BMV to Commence Class Action Refund Process
J.CREW GROUP: Fails to Pay OT and Meal Period Premiums, Suit Says
JAMES HARDIE: Dragged Back Into Suit Over Leaky School Buildings
KIA MOTORS: Suit Over Defective Sorento Crankshaft May Be Amended
KIMBALL INT'L: Class Suit Settlement Impacts Historical Net Income
KINDER MORGAN: Vows to Fight Investor Class Actions
KODIAK OIL: Dismissal of Fioravanti, Booth & Rogowski Cases Sought
LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Facing Class Action Over Evaporator Coils
LEVY & WHITE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
LINKTECH WORLDWIDE: Suit Seeks Redress From Unsolicited Calls
LIONSGATE: Former Williams Window Show Intern Files Class Action
LKP ENGINEERING: Faces Class Action Over August Power Outage
MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN: Sued for Calling Class Without Prior Consent
MANNA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Judgment in Proposition 100 Suit Reversed
MEDTRONIC INC: Infuse Class Action May Impact Covidien Deal
MILESTONE AV: Recalls Sanus Simplicity Television Wall Mounts
MILLENNIUM NURSING: Fails to Pay Nurses and Aids' OT, Suit Claims
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: $4MM Tentantive Deal Reached in Class Suit
NATIONAL OILWELL: Accused of Discrimination by Female Ex-Worker
NATIONWIDE GENERAL: Removes Lindsay Class Suit to W.D. Missouri
NOVA SCOTIA: Premier Apologizes for Abuse at Halifax Orphanage
OMNICARE INC: Arguments in Securities Litigation Set for Nov. 3
PARTY CITY: Recalls Deluxe Fantasy Feather Boa
PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST: Removes "Dezarraga" Suit to S.D. Florida
RADIUS HOSPITAL: Suit Seeks 60 Days Wages/Benefits Under WARN Act
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Rabinowitz" Suit Transferred to New Jersey
SEARS CANADA: Store Owner Case Certified as Class Action
SHOP PACKAGING: Recalls 115,505 Lbs. of Chicken Wing Products
SOVEREIGN GRACE: Sex-Abuse Class Action Ruling Appeal Denied
SPIRIT HALLOWEEN: Recalls Feather Boas and Feather Wings
SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: PositiveSingles.com-Related Suit Dismissed
SYNNEX CORP: Says "Other Income" Down Due to Class Suit Deal
TRANSCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Continuum Capital Action
US INVESTIGATIONS: Faces WARN Class Action Over Lay-Off in Pa.
VOXX INTERNATIONAL: $5.2MM Received From Class Action Settlement
WESTERN UNION: Attorney Fee Orders in "Tennille" Suit Appealed
WHOLE FOODS: Dist. Court Dismisses "Gedalia" False Ad Class Suit
WILMINGTON TRUST: DoJ Seeks to Intervene in Securities Case
WILSON WADDELL: Removes "Coderre" Suit to Florida District Court
YUM! BRANDS: Briefing Compelete in Motion to Dismiss
YUM! BRANDS: Plaintiffs Filed Motion for Interlocutory Appeal
YUM! BRANDS: Hearing Held on Cross-Summary Judgment Motions
YUM! BRANDS: Court Grants Final Okay to Settlement in Moeller Case
YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Smith" Case to Execute Settlement Deal
*********
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Removes "Jones" Suit to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jones v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Trading Company, Case No. CGC-14-540816, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the California Northern
District (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-04631-EDL to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of, among other things,
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Business
& Professions Code.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc Hannan Phelps, Esq.
THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 260-4735
Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
E-mail: marchannanphelps@gmail.com
- and -
Bianca Alexandra Sofonio, Esq.
Roger Richard Carter, Esq.
THE CARTER LAW FIRM
2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 260-4737
Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
E-mail: bianca@carterlawfirm.net
rcarter@carterlawfirm.net
- and -
Scott Bradley Cooper, Esq.
THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.
2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 724-9200
Facsimile: (949) 724-9255
E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Douglas R. Young, Esq.
Christina Rose Hollander, Esq.
FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 954-4410
Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
E-mail: dyoung@fbm.com
chollander@fbm.com
AGENCE METROPOLITAINE: Settles Suit Over 2009 Service Disruptions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Scott, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that
Montreal's commuter-train authority has settled with pass-holders
who launched a class-action lawsuit over service disruptions in
the winter of 2009.
In January and February 2009, trains on the Deux-Montagnes and
Dorion-Rigaud lines were plagued by long delays, overcrowding and
cancellations after the Agence metropolitaine de transport
introduced a new schedule increasing frequency.
Pincourt resident Yves Boyer launched the suit in 2010 on behalf
of commuters who suffered serious inconveniences like being late
for work and missing appointments because of delays and cancelled
trains because of train doors that were frozen shut, frozen
switches, broken-down locomotives and rundown cars, among other
causes.
The lawsuit had been scheduled to be heard in November.
Under the settlement, which is subject to approval by the Quebec
Superior Court, commuters will be reimbursed part of the cost of
their monthly passes for that period. The AMT had already
apologized for the problems and offered commuters a discount on
monthly passes, but Mr. Boyer noted when he launched the suit only
63 per cent of affected users took advantage of the offer because
they weren't given enough time and the rebates were only available
at a limited number of stations.
Radio-Canada reported the settlement would net users between C$27
and C$49 each, depending on the number of claimants.
AL CORRECTIONS DEP'T: Sued Over Rising Violence at St. Clair
------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Equal Justice Initiative filed a class action on behalf of nine
inmates at the St. Clair Correctional Facility citing "an
extraordinarily high rate of violence at St. Clair, including six
homicides in the past thirty-six months."
In its federal lawsuit, the Montgomery, Ala.-based nonprofit says
the facility is severely overcrowded, and that the violence among
inmates can be traced to poor management, inadequate security and
"widespread corruption among officers who "extort money and favors
from prisoners in exchange for drugs."
The EJI says it has documented serious and chronic lapses at the
prison, which is located in Springville, Alabama, including
chronic lapses in security. But it was the murder rate at the
jail that EJI investigators found most troubling.
In their lawsuit they site statistics from the U.S. Bureau of
Justice that show that in 2011, the last year for which
comprehensive data is available, the national prisoner-on-prisoner
homicide rate in state prisons was approximately 5.4 homicides per
100,000 prisoners.
By comparison, the homicide rate at St. Clair during the same
period was about 75.4 homicides per 100,000 prisoners, and the
number has gone up every year since. According to EJI, the number
will reach 232.4 homicides per 100,000 prisoners at St. Clair by
the end of the 2014.
In addition, investigators say that based on the Alabama
Department of Corrections own data, the rate of serious assaults
and stabbings at the prison from January to May, 2014, was 848.8
per 100,000 prisoners, and the rate of fights during that period
was 4,321 per 100,000 prisoners.
The organization said it shared its findings with Corrections
Commissioner Kim Thomas in April 2014, and asked that he conduct
his own investigation of the escalating violence. In June 2014,
following another murder, EJI says it made a formal request for
the removal of St. Clair Warden Carter Davenport -- whom, the
organization says, engages in "arbitrary and unpredictable
bullying tactics that keep the prison on edge" -- and asked for
the hiring of additional staff to stem the tide of violence.
When another prisoner was murdered in September, the EJI concluded
it had no alternative but to initiate court action.
The 42-page lawsuit lists numerous occasions when jail staff,
including high ranking officials, allegedly assaulted inmates
while they were handcuffed. One inmate was beaten so badly he
suffered hearing loss and now needs a hearing aid and prisoners
have been taken to the hospital due to their injuries, the
complaint says.
Plaintiffs say as bad as the statistics suggest conditions are at
the jail, many incidents go unreported.
In their complaint, the inmates cite several reasons that
perpetuate the violence at the jail, including inadequate
supervision by staff. One guard is assigned to watch over 96
prisoners at a time and officers do not regularly "walk through"
the cell blocks. According to plaintiffs, the locking mechanisms
on the cell doors are either broken or can be jammed with various
items so they don't lock and inmates can travel to other cells
during lock down times.
Additionally, the lawsuit claims there are few functioning cameras
in the cell blocks with lots of "blind spots" where inmates can
stab, strangle and beat other prisoners without being seen.
One inmate was hog-tied and strangled to death by several other
prisoners who were able to enter his cell. Another prisoner had
his ear bitten off and it was flushed down the toilet before
officers arrived while another inmate was stabbed with an ice pick
in the gym, the complaint says.
Plaintiffs say defendants do not segregate violent or mentally ill
prisoners and do not screen incoming prisoners to see if they have
enemies at the jail or if they are in a gang. They also say the
defendants do not consider a prisoner's "conviction, sentence and
disciplinary record" when selecting housing assignments and
therefore, "minimum, medium and maximum custody prisoners can be,
and are, assigned to the same units and cells as each other."
Plaintiffs claim one defendant, Capt. Carl Sanders, responded to
an elderly inmate's expressed fears of his cellmate by giving the
old man a box cutter for protection.
"When I see one of y'all on a stretcher, I know it's a problem,"
Sanders is alleged to have said.
The lawsuit says when inmates are involved in an altercation, they
are placed in isolation for a period of time. Before they are
able to leave solitary confinement, both the victim and aggressor
have to agree to a "living agreement" and they are usually placed
back in the same unit. Plaintiff Derrick White claims he
requested a move to segregation because he feared for his life and
when his request was denied, he was stabbed. Several other
prisoners claim they were stabbed by cell mates after requesting a
move.
Plaintiffs say due to "poor management" drugs are prevalent
throughout the jail, with officers bringing in the contraband and
selling them to prisoners.
Adding to the problems in the jail, defendants do not provide
adequate services to those prisoners with mental illness and
rather than trying to help them, these inmates are placed into
segregation "which isolates them and can exacerbate their
symptoms. These prisoners are then released back into general
population more impaired and more traumatized," the plaintiffs
say.
According to the complaint, defendants have also "severely
restricted programs that are aimed at reducing violence" including
giving inmates limited access to outside religious organizations
and reducing access to books.
Plaintiffs are seeking relief for "cruel and unusual punishment"
under the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and
they are also asking for unannounced inspections of the St. Clair
facility.
In a written statement, Commissioner Thomas said, "Inmate and
staff safety is a top priority for the Alabama Department of
Corrections, and we do not tolerate inmate abuse in any of our
facilities.
"Whenever allegations are reported against both inmates and
officers and backed by credible evidence, ADOC takes appropriate
action to hold people accountable," he continued. "St. Clair
Correctional Facility is a maximum security prison housing
dangerous people who have committed serious acts of violence like
murder, rape, robbery and burglary. However, the department has
undertaken a number of measures to improve safety. Thanks to
funding this fiscal year, the ADOC was recently able to begin
replacing doors, locks and controlling mechanisms at the facility.
"The department has been meeting routinely with members of the
Equal Justice Initiative to discuss concerns about St. Clair, and
regrets that they have chosen to file a lawsuit . . . There are
many hard working correctional employees at St. Clair who are
committed to maintaining order and peace inside the prison."
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bryan A. Stevenson, Esq.
Charlotte R. Morrison, Esq.
Jennae R. Swiergula, Esq.
Carla C. Crowder, Esq.
Ryan C. Becker, Esq.
EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE OF ALABAMA
122 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-1803
Facsimile: (334) 269-1806
E-mail: bstevenson@eji.org
cmorrison@eji.org
jswiergula@eji.org
ccrowder@eji.org
rbecker@eji.org
The case is Antonio Cheatham, et al. v. Commissioner Kim Thomas,
et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-01952-VEH, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama.
ALTA VISTA REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olivier Uyttebrouck, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reports that
a San Miguel County woman filed a lawsuit seeking class-action
status against a Las Vegas, N.M., hospital and its parent company
alleging the firm negligently allowed hackers to steal her
personal information, along with that of millions of other
patients nationwide.
The lawsuit alleges that the Tennessee-based parent company of
Alta Vista Regional Hospital and five other New Mexico hospitals
failed to properly protect and encrypt patient data, including
Social Security numbers and possibly credit card numbers.
The company, Community Health Systems, Inc., reported to the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in August that computer hackers
in China bypassed the company's security systems and stole data
affecting some 4.5 million patients.
The theft likely occurred in April and June and included patient
names, addresses, birth dates, telephone numbers and Social
Security numbers, the company reported. Hackers did not obtain
patient credit card information, the company told the SEC.
Tomi Galin, a spokeswoman for Community Health System, said in a
written statement on Oct. 10 that the firm would not comment on
pending litigation.
CHS is one of the nation's largest publicly traded hospital
companies with 207 hospitals in 29 states, according to the
company's website.
In New Mexico, the firm also owns Carlsbad Medical Center in
Carlsbad, Eastern New Mexico Medical Center in Roswell, Mimbres
Memorial Hospital in Deming, Mountain View Regional Medical Center
in Las Cruces, and Lea Regional Medical Center in Hobbs.
The suit, filed by the Branch Law Firm, alleges that Briana Brito,
a patient at the Las Vegas hospital, was among those whose
personal data was stolen, according to the lawsuit filed Sept. 19
in the Fourth Judicial District Court in Las Vegas.
Ms. Brito was unable to take steps to protect herself from
financial harm because the firm had "taken no action to promptly
notify their patients" of the theft, it alleges.
The suit asks a judge to require the company to provide Brito with
consumer credit protection and insurance, and to pay restitution
for any losses from identity theft. It also asks for unspecified
damages.
Ms. Brito "now faces a substantial increased risk of identity
theft, if not actual identity theft," the suit said.
Branch, with offices in Albuquerque, Houston and Washington, D.C.,
joined Slack & Davis, a Texas-based law firm, to file the court
action seeking class-action status.
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Honda Motor Company, of Torrance, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 15,400 recreational off-highway
vehicles. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.
Vegetation and debris can accumulate on the middle skid plate and
make contact with the vehicle's exhaust system. Dried debris can
ignite, resulting in smoke or fire.
Honda has received reports of 10 incidents involving fires
resulting from vegetation and debris accumulating on the middle
skid plate and making contact with the vehicle's exhaust system.
No injuries were reported.
The recall involves all models of the 2014 Honda Pioneer 700
recreational off-highway vehicle (ROV). ROVs are motorized off-
road vehicles with a steering wheel, gas and brake pedals, bucket
or bench seats, seat belts and an occupant protection structure.
The recalled vehicles came in two-seat and four-seat models and
were black with camouflage, olive or red hood and trim pieces.
"HONDA" is on the front grill and rear tail gate. "Pioneer 700"
appears on a tab on the sides of the vehicle just behind the
driver's and front passenger's seats. The model and serial
numbers are on a certification label affixed to the top rear of
the driver's side front wheel well. These model numbers and
serial number ranges are being recalled:
No. of
Model Number Serial Number Range (All begin with 1HF) Seats
------------ ---------------------------------------- ------
SXS 700M2 2AC VE0225E4000006 to VE022XE4006304 2
SXS 700M2 4AC VE0284E4000003 to VE0284E4001202 2
SXS 700M4 AC VE0204E4000013 to VE020XE4006849 4
SXS 700M4 3AC VE0268E4000004 to VE0269E4001503 4
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/2y5GHw
The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at authorized Honda powersports dealers nationwide from Aug. 2013
through Sept. 2014.
Owners should immediately stop using the recalled vehicle and take
it to an authorized Honda dealer to have the original middle skid
plate removed and an updated middle skid plate installed free of
charge.
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Settlement Wins Preliminarily Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Associated Estates Realty Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14,
2014, that the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio (the "Court") entered on October 10, 2014, an
order preliminarily approving a proposed settlement in the
purported shareholder derivative and class action captioned Monson
v. Friedman, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01477 (the "Action"),
currently pending in the Court. Pursuant to the proposed
settlement, and in exchange for releases and a dismissal of the
Action with prejudice, Mr. Jeffrey Friedman will voluntarily
relinquish, and the Company will rescind, 63,714 of the 125,000
stock options awarded to him in 2012, and for the twelve month
period following finality of the settlement, the Company will not
award any stock options to Mr. Friedman.
"Also, we will implement additional processes relating to the
future granting of equity awards and pay for plaintiffs' counsel's
fees and expenses approved by the Court with respect to the
Action. We maintain insurance that will help defray the cost of
the proposed settlement, and we do not expect the proposed
settlement to have a material impact on our financial results,"
the Company said.
The proposed settlement is subject to final approval by the Court.
The Notice and the Stipulation are available at
http://ir.associatedestates.com/.
The case is TERRY MONSON, derivatively on behalf of ASSOCIATED
ESTATES REALTY CORPORATION and individually on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated shareholders of ASSOCIATED
ESTATES REALTY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY I. FRIEDMAN,
ALBERT T. ADAMS, MICHAEL E. GIBBONS, MARK L. MILSTEIN, JAMES J.
SANFILIPPO, JAMES A. SCHOFF, RICHARD T. SCHWARZ, AND JAMES M.
DELANEY, Defendants, -and- ASSOCIATED ESTATES REALTY CORPORATION,
an Ohio Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-01477
(N.D. Ohio).
Judge Patricia A. Gaughan presides over the case.
For more information concerning the Settlement, you may also call
or write to:
Levi & Korsinsky LLP
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, D.C. 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
The Settlement Hearing will be held before the Honorable Patricia
A. Gaughan on November 25, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Carl B. Stokes
U.S. Courthouse, 801 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44113,
Courtroom 19B. The Settlement Hearing may be continued by the
Court at the Settlement Hearing, or at any adjourned session
thereof without further notice.
At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider whether to
grant final approval to the Settlement and the Fee Award. You have
the right and opportunity, but are not required, to appear in
person or through counsel at the Settlement Hearing to object to
the terms of the proposed Settlement, including the Fee Award, or
otherwise to present evidence or argument that may be proper and
relevant. However, you shall not be heard, and no papers, briefs
or other documents by you shall be received and considered by the
Court (unless the Court in its discretion shall thereafter
otherwise direct, upon your application and for good cause shown),
unless you, on or before November 10, 2014: (i) file with the
Clerk of the Court a written objection to the Settlement setting
forth: (a) your name, address, and phone number; (b) the nature of
your objection, including the grounds therefore; (c) proof of
ownership of Associated Estates common stock as of March 19, 2014,
the record date for the determination of stockholders who were
entitled to vote at the 2014 Annual Meeting (if the you are a
member of the Class), and/or proof of ownership of Associated
Estates common stock on October 10, 2014 (if you are a Current
Associated Estates Shareholder); and (d) any documentation that
supports the objection or that you otherwise desire the Court to
consider; and (ii) if you intend to appear and request to be heard
at the Settlement Hearing, you must have, in addition to the
requirements of (i) above, filed with the Clerk of the Court: (a)
a written notice of your intention to appear; (b) a statement that
indicates the basis for the appearance; and (c) the identities of
any witnesses you intend to call at the Settlement Hearing and a
statement of the subjects of their testimony. If you file a
written objection and/or written notice of intent to appear, you
must also simultaneously serve copies of such notice, proof of
ownership, statement, and documentation, together with copies of
any other papers or briefs you file with the Court, upon each of
the following by overnight delivery, by hand delivery, or by first
class mail postmarked no later than November 10, 2014, referencing
Case No. 14-cv-01477.
The addresses for filing of objections and notices of intention to
appear with the Court and the service of them on counsel are as
follows:
For Plaintiff:
Levy & Korsinsky, LLP
Attn: Adam M. Apton
1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 115
Washington, D.C. 20007
-and-
James D. Wilson LLC
Attn: James D. Wilson
29225 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 350
Cleveland, Ohio 44122
For Individual Defendants:
Jones Day
Attn: John M. Newman, Jr.
901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
For Associated Estates:
Scott Irwin
Associated Estates Realty Corporation
1 AEC Parkway
Richmond Heights, Ohio 44143
A copy of the Stipulation of Settlement is available at
http://is.gd/WNM5Us
BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS: Sued Over Injury Caused by Faulty M2a Magnum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip B. Hathaway v. Biomet Orthopedics, Inc., now known as
Biomet Orthopedics, LLC; Biomet, Inc.; and Biomet Manufacturing
Corp., Case No. 3:14-cv-03710-K (N.D. Tex., October 16, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose material facts
regarding the defects and failures of the Biomet device.
The Plaintiff underwent hip replacement surgery. An M2a Magnum
ball and socket with a collared integral porous stem was implanted
in his right hip.
The Defendants manufactured, created, designed, tested, labeled,
packaged, supplied, marketed, sold, advertised, and otherwise
distributed in interstate commerce a hip replacement system known
as the Biomet M2a Magnum. The Biomet device was developed by the
Defendants in order to reconstruct human hip joints due to
conditions, including osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis,
avascular necrosis, functional deformity or femoral fracture.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gregory Marks, Esq.
Michael G. Guajardo, Esq.
GUAJARDO & MARKS, LLP
State Bar No. 00784183
One Galleria Tower
13355 Noel Rd., Suite 1370
Dallas, TX 75240
Telephone: (972) 774-9800
Facsimile: (972) 774-9801
E-mail: greg@guajardomarks.com
mike@guajardomarks.com
BLYTH INC: Loan to Terminate Upon Resolution of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Blyth, Inc. said in a Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2014, that on September 4,
2014, Blyth, Inc., ViSalus, Inc. and others entered into a
recapitalization agreement pursuant to which our ownership
interest in ViSalus was reduced from approximately 80.9% to
approximately 10% and which eliminated the obligation of ViSalus
to redeem its preferred stock in 2017 (for approximately $143.2
million) and our related guaranty of ViSalus's performance of such
obligation.
Blyth said that, "In connection with the recapitalization, we
agreed, among other things, to make available to ViSalus a
revolving credit facility. On October 16, 2014, we and ViSalus
entered into a revolving loan agreement (the "Blyth Revolving Loan
Agreement") pursuant to which we agreed to lend ViSalus up to $6.0
million. Loans under the Blyth Revolving Loan Agreement will bear
interest at a rate of ten percent (10%) per annum. Interest will
be paid monthly, in arrears, and there will be no higher default
rate of interest. The Blyth Revolving Loan Agreement will
terminate on the later of (i) October 16, 2019 or (ii) resolution
of the putative class action that is pending against ViSalus and
others in the United States District Court in the Eastern District
of Michigan, Southern Division (which is described in the second
paragraph under "Part II, Item 1 - Legal Proceedings" in our
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014
filed on August 1, 2014). Loans made under the Blyth Revolving
Loan Agreement may be voluntarily repaid and the Blyth Revolving
Loan Agreement may be terminated by ViSalus, subject to certain
conditions. Loans made under the Blyth Revolving Loan Agreement
will be unsecured."
In addition, on October 16, 2014, the founders of ViSalus and
Robert B. Goergen (the "Founder Lenders") entered into a
substantially similar loan agreement with ViSalus (the "Founder
Revolving Loan Agreement") pursuant to which they made a revolving
credit facility available to ViSalus in an amount up to $6.0
million on terms that are substantially identical to the terms of
the Blyth Revolving Loan Agreement. Loans made under the Blyth
Revolving Loan Agreement and loans made under the Founder
Revolving Loan Agreement will be made at the same time in equal
amounts and will rank equally with each other. The relative rights
of Blyth, on the one hand, and the Founder Lenders, on the other,
with respect to certain payments and certain remedies pursuant to
the Blyth Revolving Loan Agreement and the Founder Revolving Loan
Agreement are governed by an intercreditor agreement (the
"Intercreditor Agreement"). There will be no financial performance
covenants under the Revolving Loan Agreement and limited negative
covenants. ViSalus will be permitted to obtain financing from
other parties, whether that financing is secured or unsecured.
BOTTLING GROUP: Removes "Castaneda" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Castaneda v. Bottling Group, LLC, et al.,
Case No. BC556648, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
08007 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff was employed as a merchandiser at BGLLC's facility
in San Fernando, California, until August 2013.
In essence, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to
accommodate a physical disability, and wrongfully terminated his
employment because of his alleged disability.
The Defendants are represented by:
James H. Berry, Jr., Esq.
LANDAU GOTTFRIED AND BERGER LLP
1801 Century Park East, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 557-0050
Facsimile: (310) 551-0056
E-mail: jberry@lgbfirm.com
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Recalls Snapper Rear Engine Riding Mowers
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC, of Milwaukee, Wis.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 8,500 Brigg & Stratton
Snapper Rear Engine Riding Mower. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Weld on drive axle can fail resulting in loss of brake control,
posing an injury hazard.
Briggs & Stratton has received two reports of brake failure,
related to failed weld. No injuries have been reported.
The recall involves six models of Briggs & Stratton Snapper Rear
Engine Riding Mowers. The mowers are red with a black fuel tank,
steering wheel and seat. The name Snapper is printed on both
sides of the mower. The model and serial numbers are on a label
on the engine platform under the right side of the seat. These
models and serial number ranges are included.
Model Number Serial Number Range
------------ -------------------
7800918 2016447188 - 2016485206
7800920 2016443919 - 2016568930
7800932 2016462619 - 2016481454
7800950 2016611952 - 2016766052
7800951 2016624456 - 2016765000
7800954 2016603229 - 2016775752
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/kDVgTF
The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Family Farm stores, Power Equipment Direct and Briggs &
Stratton Snapper dealers nationwide from April 2013 through May
2014 for between $1,300 and $2,000.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mowers and
contact an authorized Snapper service dealer for a free repair.
BRIGHT HOUSE: Dec. 16 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU ARE A CURRENT OR FORMER CUSTOMER OF BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS,
LLC ("BHN") WHO SUBSCRIBED TO BHN FOR DIGITAL CABLE AT ANY TIME
BETWEEN FEBRUARY 2005 AND AUGUST 19, 2014, PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE
CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED.
This matter is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division.
A proposed class settlement involving BHN, if finally approved by
the Court, will provide account credits to current digital cable
customers of BHN and cash payments to former digital cable
customers who fit within the definition of the Settlement Class.
PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE, AS YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED.
A Settlement has been preliminarily approved in the lawsuit
Parsons v. Brighthouse Networks, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-
267-AKK, in which the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant BHN engaged
in a practice of requiring Premium Cable subscribers to lease one
of its set-top boxes, and that this constitutes an unlawful tying
arrangement that violates Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
BHN denies all allegations. You may find more information about
the claims in the case on this website or by calling 1-800-585-
2001.
Am I a Class Member? The certified Settlement Class consists of
all persons in the United States who subscribed to BHN for
residential digital cable and paid BHN a monthly rental fee for an
accompanying set-top box during the period February 2005 through
the date of preliminary approval of the Settlement, which was
August 19, 2014.
What Are My Options? You may do one of several things if you are
a Settlement Class Member, as set forth below:
REMAIN A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS AND RECEIVE AN ACCOUNT
CREDIT OF $30 IF YOU ARE A CURRENT CUSTOMER OF BHN, OR RECEIVE A
CASH PAYMENT OF $20 IF YOU ARE A FORMER CUSTOMER OF BHN.
If you are a current customer of BHN, you will receive a $30
account credit for services not currently subscribed to. You will
have to elect the services to which the credit should be applied
by submitting an Election Form here no later than April 15, 2015.
If you are a former customer of BHN, you will have to submit a
claim form to receive your cash payment of $20 from BHN. You can
obtain a claim form here or by calling 1-800-585-2001. Your Claim
Form must be postmarked by April 15, 2015.
You will be issued your account credit or, if you are a former
customer and file a claim, your check, if and when the Court
grants final approval of the Settlement, and any appeals are
resolved in favor of the Settlement. The process for final
approval and allocation and distribution of funds takes time;
please be patient.
ASK TO BE EXCLUDED
("OPT OUT")
Get no credit or payment. If you opt out, you may retain your own
lawyer at your own expense and pursue your own claims against BHN.
You must submit a request to be excluded postmarked no later than
December 16, 2014. See below or call 1-800-585-2001 for
instructions on how to opt out of the Settlement.
OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT
If you do not agree with the Settlement, you can file with the
Court an objection explaining why you do not agree with the
Settlement. You must submit your written objection postmarked no
later than December 16, 2014. See below or call 1-800-585-2001
for instructions on how to object to the Settlement.
GO TO THE FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
If you file an objection to the Settlement, you can attend and
request to be heard at the Final Fairness Hearing, either
personally or through an attorney (whom you may retain at your own
expense), at which time the Court will make a final decision as to
whether the proposed Settlement is fair to all members of the
Settlement Class. You must file a request to appear at the Final
Fairness Hearing no later than December 16, 2014. See below for
instructions on how to file a request to appear at the Final
Fairness Hearing, which will be held on January 30, 2015 at 9:00
a.m.
These rights and options -- and the deadlines to exercise them --
are explained in the Notice and in the proposed Settlement
Agreement.
The proposed Settlement will resolve all claims against BHN as
explained in the proposed Settlement Agreement. The Court hearing
this case still has to decide whether to approve the proposed
Settlement. Payments and credits will only be issued if the Court
finally approves the Settlement and any appeals are resolved in
favor of the proposed Settlement. Please be patient.
WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO BE PART OF THE SETTLEMENT?
If you do not want to participate in the proposed Settlement, then
you must send a written request to opt out of the Settlement to
the Settlement Administrator, RG/2 Claims Administration LLC,
postmarked NO LATER THAN December 16, 2014, which opt-out request
must include your name, address, telephone number, federal Social
Security Number or Tax Identification Number, and original
signature. Opt-out requests must be submitted to:
Bright House Networks LLC Settlement
RG/2 Claims Administration LLC
P.O. Box 59479
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479
CAN I PARTICIPATE IN THE FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING?
Any putative Class Member who objects to the proposed Settlement
with BHN, the Settlement Agreement, or the applications for
attorneys' fees and expenses may appear at the Final Fairness
Hearing and present such objections. If you wish to be
represented at the Final Fairness Hearing by a lawyer, you will
have to retain one at your own expense. In order to object, you
must, on or before December 16, 2014, comply fully with the
following requirements:
You must file with the Court a written statement setting forth
your objections to the matters to be considered and the basis for
those objections, together with any documentation you want the
Court to consider. Your objection must be filed in writing with
the Clerk of the Court no later than December 16, 2014 at the
following address:
Bright House Networks LLC Settlement
RG/2 Claims Administration LLC
P.O. Box 59479
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479
If you intend to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing to be heard
regarding your objection, either personally or through an
attorney, you must also file with the Court a written notice of
intention to appear at this same time (that is, on or before
December 16, 2014).
On the same date, you must serve all copies of all such materials,
either by hand or overnight delivery, upon the following counsel:
Joe R. Whatley, Jr.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
2001 Park Place North
1000 Park Place Tower
Birmingham, AL 35203
Tel: (205) 488-1200
Fax: (800) 922-4851
Attorneys for Plaintiff Karen Ann Ishee Parsons
Robert G. Kidwell
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20004
Tel: (202) 434-7300
Fax: (202) 434-7400
Attorneys for Defendant
BRISTOL HARBOUR: Faces Class Action Over Tips; Nov. 6 Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Sherwood, writing for Gates-Chili Post, reports that for six
years, Bristol Harbour Resort pocketed tips that should have gone
to its banquet service staff, according to a class action lawsuit
set to go before a judge next month.
Bristol Harbour "illegally retained gratuities customers paid as
service charges for banquets and similar events" held at the
resort from May 2008 through May 2014, according to the suit filed
on behalf of former Bristol Harbour employee Allison Plante and
all other employees in a similar situation.
The suit filed in state Supreme Court in Ontario County alleges
the class size is believed to be more than 40 current or former
hourly banquet service staff made up of servers, bussers and
bartenders.
"The regulations are very clear," said Justin M. Cordello, the
attorney representing the workers.
He said Bristol Harbour violated state labor law in its handling
of a 20 percent charge on top of its catering bill for hosting
private events, weddings and banquets.
The resort contracts with customers to host events and charges
them a mandatory 20 percent charge on top of the catering bill,
according to the complaint. The resort does not give this
mandatory charge to banquet service staff but "retains the charge
in its entirety," the suit states.
While the resort, during the time period of the suit, referred to
the 20 percent charge as "a gratuity, service charge or
administrative fee," at no time did the resort provide adequate
notification to banquet customers as to how the mandatory 20
percent is distributed or that the service charge is kept by the
resort and is not a gratuity provided to banquet service workers,
the suit alleges.
"We have a very strong case," said Mr. Cordello.
The suit seeks to reimburse workers for wages it claims they are
owed.
Bristol Harbour, at 5410 Seneca Point Road, is a year-round resort
offering full-service restaurant and tavern, an 18-hole golf
course, a golf shop, several conference rooms, a 31-room hotel,
luxury golf cottages and spa, and catering and banquet services
for weddings, graduations and other events at the resort.
Attorney Matt Fusco, with Trevett Cristo Salzer & Andolina P.C. in
Rochester, represents Bristol Harbour in the case. "We don't
believe we violated the New York state Labor Law," he said. He
said the resort pays its banquet servers above the minimum wage
for servers "and therefore we don't do tips," Fusco said.
"We believe we made it clear to our customers that while there is
an administrative fee, that is not a tip that goes to servers," he
added.
As to why he thinks the lawsuit was filed, Mr. Fusco said: "I
think we have one disgruntled employee and one aggressive
attorney."
Arguments in the case will be heard in state Supreme Court in
Monroe County before Judge Matthew Rosenbaum. The date is
tentatively set for Nov. 6.
BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Owner Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Yee, writing for Press-Telegram, reports that a class action
lawsuit was filed against the owner of almost 60 skilled nursing
facilities throughout California, alleging fraud, unfair business
practices and violation of resident rights by intentionally
misrepresenting the quality of services and care provided.
The law firm of Garcia, Artigliere and Medby filed the suit
against Shlomo Rechnitz, owner of Brius Management and Brius LLC,
who owns 57 skilled nursing facilities in a number of cities,
including Downey, Alhambra, Gardena, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Los
Angeles, Norwalk, Pasadena and San Gabriel.
The suit was filed after a three- to four-year investigation that
found the company's facilities are chronically understaffed, said
Stephen M. Garcia, the lead attorney who filed the case. The suit
also alleges that Mr. Rechnitz and his corporate entities hid
their history of violating nursing industry laws and regulations
from patients, prospective patients, and that he chronically
understaffed and underfunded the facilities to enhance his
profits.
In a statement, Brius denied all allegations and fired back at Mr.
Garcia.
"This lawsuit is filled with baseless and untrue allegations," the
statement said. "It is notable that it makes no allegations of
harm to or abuse of any of our patients."
The company claims the lawsuit came after it refused to enter into
a "lucrative" consulting contract with Mr. Garcia, who has been
sued for these tactics. According to a copy of the lawsuit, filed
in October 2012, Mr. Garcia and his partners at the law firm were
sued by Goldstar Healthcare Center of Santa Monica for allegedly
suing nursing homes, then offering to extend legal consulting
services in exchange for not suing them again.
The lawsuit was dismissed in 2013, according to Los Angeles
Superior Court records.
The Brius statement also denies that staffing levels at facilities
are inadequate, saying they "meet and even exceed" the staffing
requirements of the state.
"This lawsuit is a case in point of how anyone can say anything in
a lawsuit regardless of whether it's true," according to the
statement.
Mr. Garcia's lawsuit calls for unspecified monetary damages, along
with compliance with laws governing health care facilities;
reporting future violations to the state Department of Public
Health; drafting a policy and procedure regarding suspected
patient abuse and neglect, among other requirements.
The laws governing nursing homes require a minimum of 3.2 nursing
hours per patient day on average, Mr. Garcia said. The attorney
said he hopes that if the suit is successful, Mr. Rechnitz's
facilities will be placed under the supervision of an independent
auditor.
Patricia McGinnis, executive director of the California Advocates
for Nursing Home Reform, did not comment on the lawsuit directly,
but said nursing home conditions are a major problem.
"Most facilities in California have issues," McGinnis said. "The
(3.2 nursing hours per patient day) requirement is very low. If
you can't meet that, you probably shouldn't be in the business."
And for McGinnis, the for-profit ownership of many skilled nursing
facilities is a problem.
"Their allegiance is to the investors, not to the (nursing home)
residents," she said.
Michael Connors, a Long Term Care Advocate with the California
Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, said he was troubled by the
allegations in Mr. Garcia's lawsuit against Brius. An emergency
motion filed in August by the California Attorney General's Office
against Mr. Rechnitz and Brius, included at the end of the
lawsuit, was particularly troubling, Mr. Connors said.
The motion seeks to block Mr. Rechnitz and his companies from
taking over 19 nursing homes after their management company filed
for bankruptcy.
It calls Mr. Rechnitz and his companies a "serial violator of
rules within the skilled nursing industry," and cites instances of
failure to turn over required audit materials to the California
Department of Health Care Services.
"We're certainly troubled by the poor performance factors and by
the high numbers of deficiencies," Mr. Connors said. "We're
concerned about the quality of care (being delivered)."
CANADA VOLUMES: Recalls Chimei Fluffy Green Onion Waffle
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 17, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Other
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Canada Volumes Import/Export Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario,
Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9330
Affected products: 600 g. and 1200 g. Chimei Fluffy Green Onion
Waffle with codes 4711926729253 and 4711926729147
CASHCALL INC: App. Ct. Affirms Decertification of "Kight" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, on Oct. 9,
2014, upheld a lower court order decertifying a class alleging
violations of Penal Code section 632, the statute prohibiting the
undisclosed monitoring or recording of confidential telephone
conversations, against CashCall Inc.
The appeals case is AMANDA KIGHT et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. CASHCALL, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
D063363 (App. Ct. Calif. 4th Dist.). A copy of the appellate
court's Oct. 9, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/WfuYKy
from Leagle.com.
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips's Brad W. Seiling, Esq. --
bseiling@manatt.com , Joanna S. McCallum, Esq. --
jmccallum@manatt.com , Joanna H. Sattler, and Justin C. Johnson
represent the Defendant and Respondent.
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Pension System Sues Over Fyffes Combination
------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15,
2014, that a purported shareholder of Chiquita Brands
International, Inc., a New Jersey corporation ("Chiquita"), filed
on October 7, 2014, a putative class action in Federal Court in
New Jersey challenging the proposed combination (the
"Combination") between Chiquita and Fyffes plc ("Fyffes"). The
case is captioned City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's
Supplemental Pension System v. Chiquita Brands International Inc.,
et al., Case Number 14-6200-NLH-AMD (D.N.J.).
On October 14, 2014, the plaintiff filed an order to show cause
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15,
2014, that a purported shareholder of Chiquita Brands
International, Inc., a New Jersey corporation ("Chiquita"), filed
on October 7, 2014, a putative class action in Federal Court in
New Jersey challenging the proposed combination (the
"Combination") between Chiquita and Fyffes plc ("Fyffes"). The
case is captioned City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's
Supplemental Pension System v. Chiquita Brands International Inc.,
et al., Case Number 14-6200-NLH-AMD (D.N.J.).
On October 14, 2014, the plaintiff filed an order to show cause
seeking a preliminary injunction (1) delaying the October 24, 2014
vote of Chiquita shareholders on the proposed Combination until
the Cutrale Group and the Safra Group ("Cutrale/Safra") has
completed its due diligence and all material information has been
disclosed to Chiquita shareholders; and (2) enjoining enforcement
of certain provisions of the Supplemental Expenses Reimbursement
Agreement, dated September 25, 2014, between Chiquita and Fyffes
(the "Supplemental ERA") and the Transaction Agreement between
Chiquita, Fyffes, ChiquitaFyffes Limited (formerly known as
Twombly One Limited), a private limited company organized under
the laws of Ireland ("ChiquitaFyffes"), CBII Holding Corporation,
a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
ChiquitaFyffes ("US Holdco"), and Chicago Merger Sub, Inc., a New
Jersey corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of US Holdco
("Merger Sub"), originally entered into on March 10, 2014 and
amended on September 25, 2014.
Chiquita and its board of directors believe that the claims
asserted against them by the plaintiff are without merit and will
defend this case vigorously.
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Class Suit Parties Must Attend Oct. 23 Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
On October 7, 2014, a purported shareholder of Chiquita Brands
International, Inc., a New Jersey corporation ("Chiquita"), filed
a putative class action in Federal Court in New Jersey challenging
the proposed combination (the "Combination") between Chiquita and
Fyffes plc ("Fyffes"). The case is captioned City of Birmingham
Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension System v. Chiquita
Brands International Inc., et al., Case Number 14-6200-NLH-AMD
(D.N.J.).
On October 16, 2014, the judge in the case entered an order that,
among other things, denied plaintiff's request for expedited
discovery and calls for the parties to appear for a show cause
hearing on October 23, 2014, on plaintiff's application for a
preliminary injunction regarding the Combination. Chiquita and its
board of directors believe that the claims asserted against them
by the plaintiff are without merit and will defend this case
vigorously.
CHOY FOONG: Recall s U.loveit Brewed Tea Drink Powders
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 17, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Choy Foong International
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9338
Choy Foong International is recalling U.loveit brand Brewed Tea
Drink Powders from the marketplace because they contain milk which
is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk
should not consume the recalled products.
Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.
If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.
There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.
The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.
The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.
CITIGROUP INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over 401(k) Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Steyer, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that a
federal court judge in New York has rejected a Citigroup request
for summary dismissal of a class-action lawsuit filed by two
participants of a Citigroup 401(k) plan who allege the plan
charged excessive fees.
Judge Sidney Stein, of the U.S. District Court in New York, issued
a ruling Sept. 30 and set Oct. 17 as a date for the plaintiffs and
the Citigroup 401(k) plan investment committee to establish a
schedule for conducting discovery prior to a trial.
James Moore, the co-lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said in an
interview that the timetable for discovery is up to Mr. Stein,
adding that the process might take six months. If the case goes
to trial, "in a case like this," the trial might start 12 months
from now, said Mr. Moore, a partner in law firm McTigue Law.
A spokesman for Citigroup didn't return a request for comment by
press time.
The case is now 7 years old. The original complaint made
allegations of fiduciary breach relating to the merger in July
2001 of Travelers Group and Citicorp to form Citigroup,
Mr. Stein's opinion said. The corporate merger resulted in the
merger of respective 401(k) plans into a single Citigroup plan.
The issue before Mr. Stein was based on the merged 401(k) plan
offering some mutual funds affiliated with Citigroup as well as
funds not affiliated with Citigroup. The two lead plaintiffs say
they each invested in one of the affiliated funds, "which they
allege all charged excessive fees," thus causing a breach of
fiduciary duty, Mr. Stein's ruling said.
Citigroup asked for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs
failed to make a claim within the legal time limit. "Defendants
contend that the action is untimely because plaintiffs possessed
'actual knowledge' of the alleged breach more than three years
before they filed suit," the ruling said. (The affiliated funds
were added to the Citigroup investment lineup in July 2001 and
April 2003).
"Specifically, defendants point to documents distributed to
participants listing the fees and effectively disclosing the
affiliated status of the funds," the ruling said.
However, Mr. Stein said the defendants "have presented no evidence
-- let alone undisputed evidence -- that plaintiffs knew that the
affiliated funds' fees were higher than alternatives with
comparable performance."
COMCAST CABLE: "Ogbuehi" FLSA Suit Gets Prelim. Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted Tysheika Ogbuehi's
motion for an order preliminary approving a class settlement and
provisionally certifying the settlement class in the action
Ogbuehi initiated against Comcast of California/Colorado/Florida
/Oregon, Inc.
The case arises from the alleged failure of defendant Comcast
Cable Communications Management, LLC (incorrectly named as Comcast
of California/Colorado/ Florida/Oregon, Inc.) to properly
compensate plaintiff and other employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the California Labor Code, California
Industrial Welfare Commission order provisions and the California
Business and Professions Code.
The Spivak Law Firm and the United Employees Law Group are
appointed as class counsel, the judge ruled.
The judge further ruled that preliminary certification of the
following class and collective action is granted: All persons
employed by Comcast in the State of California from February 26,
2009 through and including the implementation of the California
Call Center Closure [on November 30, 2012], who held positions as
Virtual Customer Account Executives, and were not paid a severance
payment that was offered as a result of the California Call Center
Closure.
The Class Settlement provides for a $100,000 gross settlement
amount, which will used to (1) make class member payments; (2)
make a $2,500 payment for penalties recovered under the Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA); (3) pay for a $5,000 enhancement
award for the class representative; (4) pay for $5,000 for claims
administration costs.
Class counsel and plaintiff are directed to file a motion for
attorney's fees, costs, and class representative payment by
December 1, 2014.
The case is TYSHEIKA OGBUEHI, Plaintiff, v. COMCAST OF
CALIFORNIA/COLORADO/FLORIDA/OREGON, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:13-CV-00672-KJM-KJN (E.D. Calif.). A copy of the District
Court's Oct. 2, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/CAfQr7
from Leagle.com.
Comcast of California/Colorado/Florida/Oregon, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Daryl S. Landy, Esq. -- dlandy@morganlewis.com ,
Jennifer Adkins Tomlin, Esq. -- jtomlin@morganlewis.com , &
Theresa Mak, Esq. --tmak@lewismorgan.com -- of Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP.
COMMUNITY BANK: Accrued $2.8MM As Part of Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Bank System, Inc. reported in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2014, that total
operating expenses for the third quarter of 2014 included an
accrual of $2.8 million with respect to the settlement of a
pending class action lawsuit involving the sufficiency of consumer
notice requirements for certain of the Company's collateral
recovery activities, similar to other class actions filed against
a number of other financial institutions over the last four years.
The Company contests the allegations and asserted affirmative
defenses to the claims, however, the settlement the Company was
able to achieve was, in its judgment, a superior outcome for
shareholders when measured against the risks and resources
required for litigation. The settlement is subject to final court
approval.
Community Bank System, Inc. operates more than 190 customer
facilities across Upstate New York and Northeastern Pennsylvania
through its banking subsidiary, Community Bank, N.A. With assets
of approximately $7.5 billion, the DeWitt, N.Y. headquartered
company is among the country's 150 largest financial institutions.
In addition to a full range of retail and business banking
services, the Company offers comprehensive financial planning and
wealth management services and operates a full service insurance
agency providing personal and business insurance products. The
Company's Benefit Plans Administrative Services, Inc. subsidiary
is a leading provider of employee benefits administration and
trust services, actuarial and consulting services to customers on
a national scale. Community Bank System, Inc. is listed on the New
York Stock Exchange and the Company's stock trades under the
symbol CBU. For more information about Community Bank visit
www.communitybankna.com or http://ir.communitybanksystem.com.
CRP SANITATION: Class Wants to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Baez, Nicholas D'Apice, Gregg A. Martin, Jader Mazo, Jose
Mercado, Dwayne Ridenhour, and Thomas D. Sputo, Individually and
on behalf of other persons similarly situated who were employed by
C.R.P. Sanitation, Inc. d/b/a CRP Sanitation Inc. d/b/a Got To Go
Portable Restrooms, and City Carting & Recycling, et al. v. C.R.P.
Sanitation, Inc. d/b/a CRP Sanitation Inc. d/b/a Got To Go
Portable Restrooms, and City Carting & Recycling, Gary Carbone,
Richard Carbone, Ronald Carbone, and Anthony Carbone, Or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by C.R.P. Sanitation, Inc.
d/b/a CRP Sanitation Inc., d/b/a Got To Go Portable Restrooms,
City Carting & Recycling, Gary Carbone, Richard Carbone, Ronald
Carbone, and Anthony Carbone, Advantage Capital Partners, Charles
Booker, Jeffrey Craver, Richard Hummell, Philip Marshall, Justin
Obletz, and W. Anthony Touts, III, Evergreen National Indemnity
Company, John Doe Bonding Companies 1-5, and John and Jane Does,
Case No. 7:14-cv-08247-VB (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2014) is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid wages and
overtime premium.
C.R.P. Sanitation, Inc., is a New York domestic corporation
headquartered in Cortland Manor, New York. The Company is engaged
in the sanitation business. City Carting & Recycling is a
Connecticut domestic corporation headquartered in Cortland Manor,
New York. Gary Carbone, Richard Carbone, Ronald Carbone, and
Anthony Carbone own and operate CRP and City Carting.
Advantage Capital Partners, based in Glens Falls, New York, is a
private hedge fund that has taken an ownership position in the CRP
and City Carting. Charles Booker, Jeffrey Craver, Richard
Hummell, Philip Marshall, Justin Obletz, and W. Anthony Touts, III
are principals of Advantage.
Evergreen National Indemnity Company is a surety company
authorized to do business in New York. The Doe Defendants are
currently unknown.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph J. Cinquemani, Esq.
CINQUEMANI & ASSOCIATE, PC
99 Lafayette Avenue
White Plains, NY 10603
Telephone: (646) 517-2058
Facsimile: (914) 437-5455
E-mail: jcinquemani@aol.com
CSX CORP: Proceedings in Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Case Deferred
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court has deferred proceedings on the merits of the
Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation pending the outcome of the
class certification remand proceedings, CSX Corporation said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 15, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 26, 2014.
In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSX's
principal operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSXT"),
and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.
In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision.
In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the
class certification decision and remanded the case to the District
Court to reconsider its class certification decision. In October
2013, the District Court held a case management conference to
determine the scope and schedule of the remand proceedings. The
District Court has deferred proceedings on the merits of the case
pending the outcome of the class certification remand proceedings.
CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity in that particular period or for the full
year.
CSX Corporation ("CSX"), and together with its subsidiaries (the
"Company"), based in Jacksonville, Florida, is one of the nation's
leading transportation companies. The Company provides rail-based
transportation services including traditional rail service and the
transport of intermodal containers and trailers.
CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Sangiorgio" Suit Over Untimely Wage Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Sangiorgio, on behalf of himself and all Others similarly
situated v. CVS Rx Services, Inc., CVS Pharmacy, Inc., CVS Albany,
LLC, and CVS Caremark Corporation, Case No. 605358/2014 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nassau Cty., October 10, 2014) alleges that CVS failed to pay
regular wages owed to the Plaintiff and the Class Members on a
timely basis for the actual hours they worked, in violation of the
New York Labor Law.
CVS Pharmacy Inc. is a Rhode Island corporation headquartered in
Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS Caremark Corporation is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Woonsocket. CVS Albany, LLC is a New
York limited liability company headquartered in Albany, New York.
CVS Rx Services, Inc. is a New York domestic corporation
headquartered in Woonsocket. CVS is a retail pharmacy chain that
sells prescription drugs and general merchandise at over 400
locations across New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
900 Merchants Concourse, Suite 314
Westbury, NY 11590
Telephone: (516) 228-5100
Facsimile: (516) 228-5106
CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Zimmerman" Suit Over Unpaid Extra Work Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Zimmerman and Ronald Landman, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CVS Rx Services, Inc., CVS Pharmacy,
Inc., CVS Albany, LLC, and CVS Caremark Corporation, Case No.
605360/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., October 10, 2014) seeks
an award of the Plaintiffs and class members' unpaid wages, plus
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs arising out of CVS's alleged
violations of the New York Labor Law in connection with its
failures to pay regular wages for their extra work time.
CVS Pharmacy Inc. is a Rhode Island corporation headquartered in
Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS Caremark Corporation is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Woonsocket. CVS Albany, LLC is a New
York limited liability company headquartered in Albany, New York.
CVS Rx Services, Inc. is a New York domestic corporation
headquartered in Woonsocket. CVS is a retail pharmacy chain that
sells prescription drugs and general merchandise at over 400
locations across New York.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
900 Merchants Concourse, Suite 314
Westbury, NY 11590
Telephone: (516) 228-5100
Facsimile: (516) 228-5106
CVS PHARMACY: "Sternfeld" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Sternfeld, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CVS Rx Services, Inc., CVS Pharmacy, Inc., CVS Albany,
LLC, and CVS Caremark Corporation, Case No. 605359/2014 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nassau Cty., October 10, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid
wages earned by the Plaintiff and the proposed class during the
Class Period.
CVS Pharmacy Inc. is a Rhode Island corporation headquartered in
Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS Caremark Corporation is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Woonsocket. CVS Albany, LLC is a New
York limited liability company headquartered in Albany, New York.
CVS Rx Services, Inc. is a New York domestic corporation
headquartered in Woonsocket. CVS is a retail pharmacy chain that
sells prescription drugs and general merchandise at over 400
locations across New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
900 Merchants Concourse, Suite 314
Westbury, NY 11590
Telephone: (516) 228-5100
Facsimile: (516) 228-5106
DYNEGY INC: Trial in Duke Energy Case Set to Begin in July 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation said in its Audited Financial Statements filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 6, 2014,
that in January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual,
industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke
Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio.
Plaintiffs alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired with Duke Energy
Retail to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for
certain large business customers by entering into non-public
option agreements in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges
to Duke Energy Ohio's Rate Stabilization Plan (RSP) implemented in
early 2005. In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter
as a class action. Trial has been set to begin on July 27, 2015.
Midwest Generation's disclosure was made as part the Form 8-K
Current Report filed by Dynegy Inc. with the SEC.
E.&B.'S NATURAL: Recalls 27,948 Lbs. of Raw Lamb Products
---------------------------------------------------------
E.&B.'s Natural Way, a Frederick, Md. establishment, is recalling
approximately 27,948 pounds of raw lamb products because they were
not presented at the border for USDA-FSIS Import Inspection, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full inspection,
a possibility of adverse health consequences exists.
The lamb products were packaged on Oct. 21, 2013, Sept. 2, 20, 21
and 22, 2014. These products are subject to recall:
-- Lamb Packs;
-- Lamb Bone-In Legs;
-- Lamb Boneless Legs;
-- Lamb Saddles;
-- Lamb Racks;
-- Lamb Loins;
-- Lamb Shoulders;
-- Lamb Shanks;
-- Lamb Trim; and
-- Lamb for Stew
The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "IS
A022 EFTA" and include a label indicating "Product of Iceland."
These products were shipped to retail establishments in Washington
and Oregon where the products would have been repackaged.
The problem was discovered during a routine review using the
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) database. ACE is a web-
based portal for the collection and use of international trade
data maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The
failure-to-present was the result of the importing establishment
not following appropriate procedures.
FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.
FSIS issues a Public Health Alert for an imported product when the
country of origin recalls the product. FSIS issues a recall for
imported product when the product is not presented for inspection
at the U.S. border.
A failure-to-present (FTP) occurs when importers fail to present a
shipment to FSIS for import inspection prior to the product
entering U.S. commerce. Failure-to-present will result in the
recall of the product.
Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Blair Gordon, Owner, at (301) 471-5615.
FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls
EMPLOYER'S CHOICE: Sued for Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Frazier v. Employer's Choice, LLC, a Arizona company; Harry
De Leon and Carole De Leon, husband and wife, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02279-DKD (D. Ariz., October 15, 2014) alleges that the Defendants
had a consistent policy and practice of requiring the Company's
employees to work well in excess of 40 hours per week without
paying them time and a half for hours worked over 40 hours per
week.
Employer's Choice, LLC, was incorporated in the state of Arizona,
and has its principal place of business in Goodyear, Arizona. The
Individual Defendants are residents of Maricopa County, Arizona,
and are the owners of Employer's Choice.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trey Dayes, Esq.
Sean Davis, Esq.
PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 288-1610
Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com
EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everyware Global, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2014, that the
Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit in a complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio. The complaint alleges that the
Company and certain of its current and former executive officers
violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
issuing allegedly false or misleading statements concerning the
Company. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages. The
Company intends to vigorously defend these claims.
FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Inks MoU to Settle Merger Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Fortegra Financial Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2014,
that two putative class action lawsuits were filed in connection
with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 11, 2014, by
and among Fortegra Financial Corporation (the "Company"), Tiptree
Operating Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
("Parent"), Caroline Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Holdings"),
Caroline Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Holdings ("Merger Sub"). Parent is
beneficially owned by Tiptree Financial Inc. ("Tiptree"). The
Merger Agreement provides that, on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will
merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company
continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Holdings.
The actions are entitled Stein v. Fortegra Financial Corporation,
et al., Case No. 16-2014-CA-005825-XXXX-MA, pending in the Fourth
Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, State of Florida (the
"Court") and Hickey v. Fortegra Financial Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 16-2014-CA-006485-XXXX-MA, also pending in the Court.
Such lawsuits were filed against the Company, the members of its
Board of Directors, Parent, Holdings and Merger Sub. The
complaints, as amended, allege, among other things, that the
amount of consideration to be paid in the Merger is inadequate,
that the members of the Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary obligations to the Company's stockholders in approving
the Merger Agreement and related agreements, engaging in an unfair
sales process and failing to make adequate disclosures to the
Company's stockholders, and that the other named defendants aided
and abetted the breach of those duties. The amended complaints
seek various forms of relief, including injunctive relief that
would, if granted, prevent or delay the completion of the Merger
and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.
On October 13, 2014, the Company, the Company's Board of
Directors, Parent, Holdings and Merger Sub entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the lawsuits
regarding the settlement of these actions.
The Company and the other named defendants have vigorously denied,
and continue vigorously to deny, that they have committed or aided
and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged
in any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged
in the litigation, and expressly maintain that, to the extent
applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with their
fiduciary and other legal duties. The Company believes that no
further supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws;
however, to avoid the risk of the stockholder class actions
delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the
expense of defending such actions, the Company has agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the Merger, all of which are
set forth below. The settlement will not affect the amount of
consideration to be paid in the Merger. Nothing in this Current
Report or any settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal
necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth
herein. The memorandum of understanding stipulates that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to the Company's
stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy
of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the
Court, it is anticipated that it will resolve and release all
claims in all actions that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and
any disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims
for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law).
In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition before
the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid
by Fortegra or its successor, which the defendants may oppose.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the 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.
GENERAL MOTORS: Suit Over Ignition-Switch Recalls Moved to N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to WHMI, an attempt by General Motors to cancel
discovery has been struck down in a local woman's class-action
lawsuit against the automaker. Lorie Briggs of Pinckney is suing
GM for economic losses after safety recalls in February included
one of her vehicles. GM issued the recall of certain vehicles due
to a potentially-dangerous defect in the ignition system.
Ms. Briggs' attorney, Alyson Oliver, says the carmaker knew about
the defect and even tried to secretly correct it, but the
company's failure to properly inform customers has left many,
including Ms. Briggs, with worthless cars that cannot be resold.
Ms. Briggs filed suit in May in federal court in Detroit. GM says
bankruptcy protection removes any liability it has for economic
losses tied to its vehicles, and recently it tried to extend that
logic by claiming bankruptcy protected them from being required to
turn over documents for discovery. The case has been moved to New
York to be tried by the same judge handling GM's bankruptcy case,
and he struck down that argument so limited discovery can now take
place. Ms. Oliver tells WHMI this is a win, but the judge may
not necessarily extend the same logic to the argument that GM is
immune to liability for economic loss. The class-action lawsuit
now has representation from every state in the union for
plaintiffs who want to claim economic losses as a result of the
defects. Ms. Oliver says she is not sure how many plaintiffs are
participating at this point.
GLOBAL X: Recalls Solar Chandelier & Solar Gazebo Light
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 17, 2014
Posting date: October 17, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-41807
Affected products: For Living brand Villa Solar Chandelier and
Naturally Solar brand Solar Gazebo Light
The recall involves solar lights manufactured by Global X. The
lights have a black metal top with crackle glass body and are used
in areas where they can hang, such as in a gazebo. The lights are
powered by a lithium-ion battery.
Products included in the recall have a date code of 04-14 and 05-
14. For example, the date code 04-14 represents the month and
year of manufacture for April 2014. The date code is located on
the bottom of the solar panel.
The lithium-ion battery in the unit may overheat which poses a
fire hazard.
Global X has received 25 reports of incidents related to the use
of these products, some involving battery breakage, overheating,
smoke and property damage. One injury has been reported, whereby
the consumer burned their hands.
Health Canada received one report of a consumer that burned their
hands.
Global X distributed 1,400 lights to Canadian Tire and 13,392
lights to Costco. The number of lights sold to consumers is
unknown.
The recalled solar lights were manufactured in China and sold from
April 2014 to August 2014.
Companies:
Manufacturer ZhuHai Super Bright New Energy Limited
ZhuHai
China
Distributor Global X
Kowloon
China
Customers should immediately stop using the recalled lights and
return the product to the store where it was purchased, either
Canadian Tire or Costco, for a full refund.
GRADY ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Capital Credits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Murphy, writing for Thomasville Times-Enterprise, reports
that what started as a complaint about ruts in Gordon Clyatt's
yard has turned into a class action lawsuit involving Grady
Electric Membership Corporation (EMC), Mr. Clyatt and other EMC
members. The suit was filed on Oct. 7 in the Superior Court of
Grady County.
According to the suit, "This case involves the failure of the
Grady Electric Membership Corporation and its directors and
officers to return profits (approximately $43.5 million) called
'capital credits' to plaintiff members and their class. This case
also involves the breach of various contractual and fiduciaries
duties by the individual defendants."
Tommy Rosser Jr., president and general manager of Grady EMC,
stated that Grady EMC denies all the allegations and will
"vigorously defend" itself. He said that a letter addressing the
suit was set to go out to members on Oct. 6.
Mr. Rosser asked that members be patient as the truth comes out
through the legal process.
Mr. Clyatt said in an interview on Sept. 18 that he simply tried
to find out how to go to Grady EMC board meeting to complain about
an EMC truck leaving ruts in his front yard. Mr. Clyatt said his
interest was ignored until he received an email on April 10 from
someone he's never met or seen directing him to a couple of
websites.
"Now unbeknown to me, all I'm concerned about are ruts in my yard,
so I go to these websites and there are 990 IRS forms for Grady
EMC," said Mr. Clyatt. "The first one I pull up is where in 2011
Mr. Tommy Rosser Sr. made $368,000 in salary. And I said, 'Wow.'
Other CEOs of EMCs of the same size make about $100,000 a year
less."
"The next site I go to is where in about 2000 someone from Grady
EMC went to United National Bank in Cairo and purchased bank stock
when the company was being organized. You've got to understand, a
co-op, because it's a non-profit, the only thing a co-op can do is
buy and sell electricity. That's on the first line of their
income tax form," Mr. Clyatt continued.
The websites also showed Mr. Clyatt that in 2004 the stock that
was purchased by someone at the EMC was sold.
"It didn't say who it was sold to. It just says it was sold,"
said Mr. Clyatt. "They purchased the stock for $250,000 and sold
it for $375,000."
HOBBY LOBBY: Calif. Court Tosses "Ortiz" Wages Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A California district court dismissed, without prejudice, Maribel
Ortiz's putative class claims against Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., so
that they may be addressed in arbitration, as required by the
parties' Mutual Arbitration Agreement.
Under the putative class action, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant
has failed to pay her and all other similarly situated individuals
for all vested vacation pay, failed to pay at least minimum wages
for all hours worked, failed to provide accurate written wage
statements, and failed to timely pay them all of the owed final
wages following separation of employment.
The case is MARIBEL ORTIZ, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. HOBBY
LOBBY STORES, INC., an Oklahoma corporation; and DOES 1 through 50
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-CV-01619 (E.D. Calif.). A
copy of the District Court's Sept. 30, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/adQBDffrom Leagle.com.
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cheryl Denise
Orr, Esq. -- Cheryl.Orr@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.
INDIANA: BMV to Commence Class Action Refund Process
----------------------------------------------------
The Journal Gazette reports that the Indiana Bureau of Motor
Vehicles announced it will begin issuing claim forms to Hoosiers
entitled to refunds dating back to 2004. While just 3.5 percent
of the motorists who registered vehicles during that period are
eligible, the refunds and interest total about $29 million.
BMV Commissioner Don Snemis said the agency will use all
reasonable measures to locate anyone entitled to a refund.
National databases will be used to locate those who might have
moved out of Indiana. There also are plans for a website where
forms can be printed. Unclaimed funds will be turned over to the
Indiana Unclaimed Property program, administered through the
attorney general's office.
The efforts still fall short, according to Irwin Levin, the
attorney who represented plaintiffs in the class action suit that
prompted the refunds.
"The glaring weakness is the requirement that people whose names
and addresses they know still have to fill out a form," he said.
"When our government has illegally overcharged people, they
shouldn't create hoops for people to go through when it's
unnecessary."
J.CREW GROUP: Fails to Pay OT and Meal Period Premiums, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Duberry; individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. J.Crew Group, Inc., an
unknown business entity; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. BC560613 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., October 14, 2014)
accuses the Defendant of violating the California Labor Code by
not paying overtime, meal period premiums and rest period
premiums, among other things.
J.Crew Group, Inc., is a business entity and an employer whose
employees are engaged throughout the state of California,
including the County of Los Angeles. The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com
JAMES HARDIE: Dragged Back Into Suit Over Leaky School Buildings
----------------------------------------------------------------
3News reports that James Hardie Industries, the global building
materials supplier, has been dragged back into the New Zealand
Government's class action over leaky school buildings with a
cross-claim filed against the company by another defendant.
James Hardie NZ Holdings was named as a defendant in April last
year when the Ministry of Education first filed the suit, later
cutting a deal with the Government department in a confidential
settlement.
However, it has now been pulled back into the action, with another
defendant filing a cross-claim against the building materials
maker, according to financial statements lodged with the Companies
Office.
"The company is not yet able to determine the amount or range of
loss, if any, that the company's may become liable for in future
periods," the James Hardie NZ accounts say.
"Accordingly, the company has not recorded a provision for the New
Zealand Ministry of Education Claim as of 31 March 2014."
The defendant isn't named in the accounts, and the Australian
company declined to comment on the matter.
The ministry says fixing up 800 buildings in more than 300 schools
will cost some $1.5 billion.
It is still pursuing legal action against Carter Holt Harvey after
the New Zealand-owned building products maker failed in a bid to
have the case quashed.
James Hardie has been involved in a number of leaky building cases
in New Zealand, and as September 30 last year, the group took a
provision of $US20.4 million ($NZ26 million).
ASX-listed CSR also reached a similar settlement with the ministry
at the start of this year, which it recognized as a proportion of
a $9.5 million provision in the New Zealand unit's 2013 accounts
filed with the Companies Office in August.
KIA MOTORS: Suit Over Defective Sorento Crankshaft May Be Amended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unhappy Kia Sorento buyers can amend claims the automaker
knowingly sold them vehicles subject to catastrophic engine
failure, reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.
A class action filed against Kia Motors America Inc. alleges that
the 2002-2009 Sorento was designed with a defective crankshaft
assembly that breaks off the spring guide pin and causes the
engine to fail.
The plaintiffs also assert the company had "longstanding knowledge
of the problem," but failed to inform them Sorentos are
"predisposed to have the front pulley balancer snap."
The initial complaint asserts claims for violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act; breach of express and implied warranty; negligence; and
breach of contract.
The plaintiffs sought damages for "costly repairs" and "diminished
intrinsic resale value," as well as declaratory relief.
Kia moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on March 5,
2013, and though the plaintiffs moved to amend their claims later
that month, they did not file a proposed amended complaint until
last month.
The amended complaint adds several new plaintiffs and includes
additional fraud counts under common law as well as Ohio, Florida,
South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington state law.
The plaintiffs propose a class of current and former owners and
lessees of first generation 2002-2009 Kia Sorentos equipped with a
Hyundai-manufactured 3.5L 24-valve DOHC V6 engines.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Hammer partially denied the motion
on October 14, rejecting claims under Washington and South
Carolina law, and for all but one consumer under Ohio law. But he
went on to say the plaintiffs can add claims under Florida law,
finding that alleged misrepresentations to consumers about their
warrantees and other matters satisfied the standard under Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The case is Yvonne Robinson, et al. v. Kia Motors America Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00006-ES-MAH, in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
KIMBALL INT'L: Class Suit Settlement Impacts Historical Net Income
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kimball International, Inc. said in a filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 6, 2014, that historical net
income for fiscal year 2014 included $3.5 million of after-tax
income resulting from settlements received related to two class
action lawsuits in which Parent was a class member, and $2.1
million of after-tax expense related to spin-off costs.
The Company also said that Other General Income in fiscal year
2014 included pre-tax settlements received of $5.7 million related
to two antitrust class action lawsuits in which Kimball
Electronics was a class member.
"We recorded no Other General Income during fiscal year 2013," the
Company said.
The disclosure was made as part of the Company's Amendment No. 5
to Form 10 General Form for Registration of Securities, filed with
the SEC.
KINDER MORGAN: Vows to Fight Investor Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------
Collin Eaton, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that
investors who thought death would get them before taxes are facing
a grim reality in Kinder Morgan's $44 billion deal to combine the
pieces of its pipeline empire.
If it goes through -- and at least three lawsuits are trying to
stop the deal -- thousands of individuals and institutions will
pay taxes now on gains they thought would be deferred under the
company's corporate structure.
For years, investors have piped billions of dollars into Kinder
Morgan and other energy transportation companies structured as
master limited partnerships -- the cash-machine darlings of
investors looking for yields higher than on typical bonds in an
era of low interest rates.
Master limited partnerships, developed in the 1980s, pay out all
of the income that isn't needed for operations to investors called
unit-holders. Taxes on the quarterly distributions are deferred
until the holder dies or sells the securities -- unlike taxes on
typical corporate dividends, which are due on each year's tax
return.
Kinder Morgan's proposed reorganization will dismantle the MLPs
under its corporate umbrella, giving investors in those
partnerships a choice of cash payments, shares in the publicly
traded corporate parent Kinder Morgan Inc., or a combination.
Kinder Morgan Inc. pays taxable dividends.
Four investors have filed separate proposed class action lawsuits
in Delaware against Kinder Morgan or one of its affiliates,
seeking to include hundreds or thousands of other investors
scattered across the United States in an effort to kill the
transactions before they close next year. Two of the suits have
been consolidated.
Kinder Morgan says it will fight the lawsuits, and that their
focus on taxes misses the opportunities for investors to profit in
the consolidated company.
Only 8.3 percent of Kinder Morgan's 461.7 million master limited
partnership units are held by insiders, including company leaders
who assembled the consolidation deal. More than 740,000
individual and institutional investors hold Kinder Morgan MLP
units.
Kinder Morgan CEO Richard Kinder announced in August that the
energy transportation giant would consolidate its multiple parts
into a single publicly traded company.
Kinder Morgan CEO Richard Kinder announced in August that the
energy transportation giant would consolidate its multiple parts
into a single publicly traded company. When the proposed deal
closes, many longtime holders who had counted on tax-fee quarterly
cash infusions in retirement instead will face an income tax bill
containing accumulated tax levies that otherwise might have been
deferred for years.
People who had planned to pass Kinder Morgan securities to their
spouses or children tax-free after their deaths are suddenly
anticipating taxes they never planned to pay.
"That creates a problem for people," said Gil Baumgarten,
president of Houston financial advisory firm Segment Wealth
Management. "You can imagine how someone who made decisions 10 to
20 years ago is upset because the rug was pulled out from under
them."
The Kinder Morgan transaction, rolling its 50,000 miles of U.S.
pipelines and 180 storage terminals into one balance sheet, would
be the second-largest energy deal in U.S. history after Exxon
Corp.'s $74.5 billion acquisition of Mobil Corp. in 1999,
The pipeline firm has about 2,800 employees in Houston and more
than 11,000 across the United States.
Kinder Morgan investor Irwin Berlin filed the most recent proposed
class action lawsuit against the company on Oct. 3, claiming its
leaders overlooked potentially "crippling tax losses" for
investors.
With taxes considered, Berlin's lawsuit said, investors in Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners, the master limited partnership that
operates the bulk of the company's pipeline network, will
effectively see a 4 percent loss on the deal.
Kinder Morgan has said in filings related to its proposed
consolidation that the exchange of MLP units for Kinder Morgan
Inc. shares or cash will be taxed as ordinary income, which
carries a tax rate as high as 40.5 percent.
Kinder Morgan estimated that taxes could average $12.39 per unit
if Kinder Morgan Inc. shares were priced at $36.12. The shares
closed at $36.47 on Oct. 10.
Berlin's petition notes that if the MLP stayed in place, investors
who sold units they had held for at least a year would incur
capital gains, which carry lower tax rates. Capital gains are the
difference between the cost of an asset and the price at which it
sells.
The lawsuit also alleges that the subsequent dividends from Kinder
Morgan Inc. would be less than the cash distributions from the
MLP, and would lack the income tax deferment.
But it will probably take more than an argument about tax
liabilities to convince a court to stop the deal, said Praveen
Kumar, a University of Houston finance professor and executive
director of the UH Global Energy Management Institute.
"They have to prove there was something improper about the sale of
the asset," Mr. Kumar said. Investors losing money because of
taxes "isn't managerial malfeasance. The tax risk in the event of
a sale is something they should have been anticipating."
Investor lawsuits often lead to out-of-court settlements because
it is difficult for plaintiffs to prove that a deal is unfair, but
companies want to avoid the "very significant" cost of litigating
cases and the delays of a trial, said Trey Branham, a Dallas
attorney who specializes in class action lawsuits and commercial
litigation but who isn't involved in the cases.
Kinder Morgan spokesman Larry Pierce said the firm believes the
allegations in the lawsuit are factually and legally incorrect,
and it intends to defend the case vigorously. On average, he said
in an email, the unit-holders "will be substantially better off on
both a pre-tax and an after-tax basis."
Mr. Pierce said it's incorrect to focus only on the potential
taxes and ignore investors' prospects for future gains, which they
could see by trading their units for shares in Kinder Morgan Inc.
The deal offers unit holders in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners
three options for each unit they hold in the master limited
partnership: They can take 2.48 shares of Kinder Morgan Inc., 2.2
shares plus $10.77 in cash, or $91.72 in cash.
Units of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners surged after the company
announced the deal in August, and the firm said the reorganization
will allow it to accelerate its growth in North America. Units
closed on Oct. 10 at $89.62.
"Any deal like this is going to attract lawsuits," said
Jason Stevens, an analyst with Morningstar, adding Kinder Morgan
isn't obligated to follow a script for every investor's retirement
plan.
KODIAK OIL: Dismissal of Fioravanti, Booth & Rogowski Cases Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. on July 13, 2014, entered into a definitive
agreement among Kodiak, Whiting Petroleum Corporation ("Whiting")
and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Whiting ("Whiting Canadian Sub")
under which Whiting Canadian Sub would acquire all of the
outstanding common shares of Kodiak as part of a plan of
arrangement (the "arrangement").
In connection with the arrangement, six purported class action
lawsuits were filed on behalf of Kodiak shareholders in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado: Quigley and
Koelling v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-
cv-02023, filed July 22, 2014 (the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed this lawsuit on September 24, 2014; Fioravanti v.
Krysiak, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02037, filed July 23, 2014 (the
"Fioravanti Case"); Wilkinson v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2074, filed July 25, 2014; Goldsmith v.
Krysiak, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2098, filed July 29, 2014;
Rogowski v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-
cv-2136, filed July 31, 2014 (the "Rogowski Case"); and Reiter v.
Peterson, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02176, filed August 6, 2014,
and one purported class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of
Kodiak shareholders in Denver District Court, State of Colorado:
The Booth Family Trust v. Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp., et al., Case No.
14-cv-32947, filed July 25, 2014 (the "Booth Case").
This last case was removed to the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on September 4, 2014 and is pending in
that court now as Case No. 1:14-cv-2457.
On October 2, 2014, the defendants filed a motion in the
Fioravanti Case to consolidate all the pending actions before a
single judge.
It is possible that other related suits could subsequently be
filed. The allegations in the six remaining lawsuits are similar.
They purport to be brought as class actions on behalf of all
shareholders of Kodiak.
The complaints name as defendants the individual members of the
Kodiak board of directors, Whiting and Whiting Canadian Sub and
list Kodiak as a nominal party or a defendant. Additionally, one
complaint lists James Henderson, Kodiak's Chief Financial Officer,
as a defendant. The complaints allege that the Kodiak board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties to Kodiak shareholders by,
among other things, failing to engage in a fair sale process
before approving the arrangement and to maximize shareholder value
in connection with the arrangement. Specifically, the complaints
allege that the Kodiak board of directors undervalued Kodiak in
connection with the arrangement and that the Kodiak board of
directors agreed to certain deal protection mechanisms that
precluded Kodiak from obtaining competing offers.
The complaints also allege that Whiting and Whiting Canadian Sub
aided and abetted the Kodiak board of director's alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek, among other things,
injunctive relief preventing the closing of the arrangement,
rescission of the arrangement or an award of rescissory damages to
the purported class in the event that the arrangement is
consummated, and damages, including counsel fees and expenses.
Whiting and Kodiak believe each lawsuit is without merit.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss with prejudice the
Fioravanti Case, the Booth Case and the Rogowski Case on September
26, 2014, October 2, 2014 and October 3, 2014, respectively, and
expect to file motions to dismiss with prejudice for the remaining
cases in the near future if the lawsuits are not first
consolidated before a single judge.
One of the conditions to the closing of the arrangement is that no
law, order, injunction or judgment has been enacted or issued by
any government entity that has the effect of prohibiting the
consummation of the arrangement. Consequently, if any lawsuit is
successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting Whiting or
Kodiak from consummating the arrangement on the agreed upon terms,
the injunction may prevent the arrangement from being completed
within the expected timeframe, or at all. Furthermore, if the
arrangement is prevented or delayed, the lawsuits could result in
substantial costs, including any costs associated with the
indemnification of directors. The defense or settlement of any
lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the time the
arrangement is completed may adversely affect the combined
company's business, financial condition or results of operations.
LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Facing Class Action Over Evaporator Coils
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company is
the defendant in an attempted class action lawsuit which alleges
that evaporator coils in certain of the Company's residential air
conditioning products are susceptible to a type of corrosion that
can result in coil leaks, and asserts claims for relief.
"We dispute the allegations in the lawsuit. The outcome related to
this action is uncertain and we therefore cannot reasonably
estimate the amount of any potential impact," the Company said.
LEVY & WHITE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carol Lannan and Ann Winn, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Levy & White and Robert R. White, Case No.
1:14-cv-13866-MBB (D. Mass., October 15, 2014) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Ryan, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
125 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 439-6730
Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
E-mail: eryan@baileyglasser.com
LINKTECH WORLDWIDE: Suit Seeks Redress From Unsolicited Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark W. Coerver, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LinkTech Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
07972 (C.D. Cal., October 15, 2014) is brought against the
Defendant to secure redress because it willfully violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by causing unsolicited calls to
be made to the Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular
telephones through the use of an auto-dialer and artificial or
pre-recorded or artificial voice message.
LinkTech Worldwide, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered
in Beverly Hills, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Dufour, Esq.
SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP
22440 Clarendon Street, Suite 200
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 591-4300
Facsimile: (818) 591-4315
E-mail: mdufour@swlegalgrp.com
- and -
W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Brian B. Kilpatrick, Esq.
Hughes Ellzey, Llp
Galleria Tower I
2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
jarrett@hughesellzey.com
brian@hughesellzey.com
LIONSGATE: Former Williams Window Show Intern Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Siegemund-Broka, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports
that Lionsgate is the latest to face a familiar Hollywood legal
situation: a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of its unpaid
interns.
Anthony Tart, a former intern on The Wendy Williams Show, is
claiming in a complaint filed on Oct. 10 in a New York district
court that he and other interns are entitled to payment for their
work on the talk show. He's suing Lionsgate and affiliated
Debmar-Mercury, a producer of Wendy Williams, to recover wages he
claims he and similarly situated interns are owed under New York
and federal labor laws.
His tasks on the show included washing dishes, getting coffee,
picking up art supplies and throwing out garbage, he claims. He's
arguing, in the same fashion as other former interns litigating
against their employers, that his work didn't meet the Department
of Labor's standards for unpaid internships.
In particular, his complaint holds, the production companies
benefited from the interns' work but provided the interns no
academic or vocational training, and it would have required hiring
employees in the absence of the interns.
It's the argument that former Fox Searchlight interns Alex Footman
and Eric Glatt made successfully in their landmark win against the
studio last year, a ruling that came with a class action
certification over internships throughout Fox Entertainment Group.
That decision -- which is currently under appeal -- led to the
swath of internship lawsuits filed against studios and companies
including ICM, Warner Music, Viacom and NBCUniversal.
Lionsgate, which produces films including The Hunger Games series
and television like Mad Men and Orange Is the New Black, continued
not paying its interns even after most studios introduced paid
internship programs in the fallout of the Fox Searchlight
decision, the Los Angeles Times reported. It's providing pay for
its upcoming spring internships, however.
Tart is not proposing a class to represent interns throughout
Lionsgate. If certified, his class action would only cover former
and current interns on The Wendy Williams Show. His complaint
estimates there are about 100.
He is represented by Lloyd Ambinder at Virginia & Ambinder and
Jeffrey Brown at Leeds Brown, who've represented numerous former
interns pursuing similar litigation, including those suing Warner
Music and Atlantic Records. More recently, they represented an
intern in a lawsuit against David Letterman's production company
and CBS, which the intern withdrew one day after filing. She
reportedly later told the New York Post that her "beguiling legion
of lawsuit-hungry lawyers" had coerced her into the lawsuit.
A Lionsgate spokesman declined to comment on the current lawsuit.
LKP ENGINEERING: Faces Class Action Over August Power Outage
------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Abraham, writing for Aspen Daily News, reports that eight
more people and two additional Aspen businesses have joined a
class-action lawsuit filed against the companies allegedly
responsible for the August power outage that left a large section
of downtown without electricity for hours.
Gilbert Vanderaa, the owner of Brunelleschi's Dome Pizza, and five
employees join two other workers of the restaurant who filed suit
on Aug. 11, seven days after the outage, against LKP Engineering,
Odell Drilling and Aspen homeowner Patricia Gorman.
The companies were testing the soil at Ms. Gorman's home on East
Hallam Street when workers severed several utility lines,
according to the city of Aspen, which cited the firms for three
violations of the municipal code. Power was knocked out for about
12 hours, costing restaurants and other businesses tens of
thousands of dollars when they were forced to close.
Brunelleschi's estimates it lost about $20,000, and the attorney
for the Bootsy Bellows nightclub has said that business, which is
also suing the companies in a separate lawsuit, lost roughly
$40,000.
Luiza Petrovska, the owner of Edwards-based LKP Engineering,
apologized for the incident the day after the outage. She said she
believed LKP, which hired Odell, had followed standard procedures
before digging in the alley behind the home. That included using
colorado811.org, a utility notification center and a third-party
clearing house that tells crews who to contact to locate below-
grade infrastructure.
But in answering the Brunelleschi's lawsuit, LKP denies the
allegations and says nine entities, including the Utility
Notification Center of Colorado that provides the 811 service, may
be at fault. The list of non-parties to the lawsuit who may be at
fault also includes the city of Aspen's electric department, the
property manager of Gorman's home, SourceGas and Comcast.
"Plaintiffs' claims and damages, if any, may be the result of
unforeseeable circumstances, which could not have been reasonably
anticipated by LKP, and for which LKP is not legally responsible,"
the answer to the lawsuit says.
Brunelleschi's attorney, Daniel Becnel of Aspen, amended the
class-action lawsuit in an Oct. 7 filing to include Vanderaa and
five more employees; Aspen Sports Medicine and Stan Cheo, who
works there; James Marolda, a personal trainer; and Salon Tullio.
The plaintiffs "were unable to earn an income due to the negligent
conduct of the defendants," Mr. Becnel wrote.
In addition to those parties, Bootsy Bellows filed its own
lawsuit. Cache Cache, Pinons and Brexi LLC, which does business
as Steakhouse No. 316, also are suing in a separate lawsuit.
MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN: Sued for Calling Class Without Prior Consent
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Story, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC, a Delaware limited-
liability company, Case No. 2:14-cv-02422-JAM-DAD (E.D. Cal.,
October 15, 2014) alleges that the Defendant has violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by contacting individuals on
their cellular telephones through an artificial telephone dialing
system or by using an artificial or prerecorded voice without
first obtaining their express written consent, hence, invading
their right to privacy.
Mammoth is a Delaware limited-liability company with its principal
place of business located in Mammoth Lakes, California. Mammoth
operates, manages, and owns the ski resort located in Mammoth
Lakes.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
Abigail A. Zelenski, Esq.
David Zelenski, Esq.
Christine M. Pham, Esq.
JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
114 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 630-7280
Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com
abigail@jlglawyers.com
david@jlglawyers.com
christine@jlglawyers.com
- and -
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
MGreenstone@glancylaw.com
MANNA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 17, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Manna International Trading Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Possibly
National
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9299
Industry is recalling Ottogi curry products from the marketplace
because they contain mustard which is not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to mustard should not consume the recalled
products.
Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.
If you have an allergy to mustard, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.
There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.
The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.
The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Judgment in Proposition 100 Suit Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In denying bail to undocumented immigrants charged with a range of
felony offenses, Arizona went too far to address a relatively
minor problem, reports Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service, citing
a 9th Circuit ruling entered on October 15, 2014.
Pushed by two now-disgraced elected officials, voters in the state
approved the law known as Proposition 100 in 2006. It prohibits
bail and pretrial release for all undocumented immigrants arrested
for serious felonies, but also for nonviolent crimes such as
unlawful copying of a sound recording, altering a lottery ticket,
tampering with a computer and theft of property.
The brainchild of then-Rep. Russell Pearce, who went on to
engineer the state's controversial S.B. 1070, Proposition 100
received vocal backing from then-Maricopa County Attorney Andrew
Thomas. They both claimed that Arizona had a major problem with
illegal immigrants jumping bail and avoiding prosecution, and that
the law would help change that.
Two criminal suspects denied bail under the new law launched a
challenge in 2007 with the help of the American Civil Liberties
Union, alleging violations of their due-process rights.
Angel Lopez-Valenzuela was denied bail for a drug-smuggling
charge, while Isaac Castro-Armenta was denied bail for aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, and assisting a criminal
syndicate. They hoped to represent a class against Maricopa
County, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and others.
Though a divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed
summary judgment for the state last year, the appellate court
agreed this past January to rehear the case en banc. The court
reversed 9-2 on October 15, finding the law unconstitutionally
broad and "sweeping."
"Proposition 100 categorically denies bail or other pretrial
release and thus requires pretrial detention for every
undocumented immigrant charged with any of a broad range of
felonies, regardless of the seriousness of the offense or the
individual circumstances of the arrestee, including the arrestee's
strong ties to and deep roots in the community," Judge Raymond
Fisher wrote for the majority. "The defendants maintain that this
unusual, sweeping pretrial detention statute, directed solely at
undocumented immigrants, comports with substantive due process.
It does not. The Supreme Court has made clear that "[i]n our
society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or
without trial is the carefully limited exception.'"
Given the relative absence of evidence that Arizona ever truly had
an "acute" problem with illegal immigrants jumping bail, the court
found the law "excessive in relation to the state's legitimate
interest in assuring arrestees' presence for trial."
"Even if some undocumented immigrants pose an unmanageable flight
risk or undocumented immigrants on average pose a greater flight
risk than other arrestees, Proposition 100 plainly is not
carefully limited because it employs an overbroad, irrebuttable
presumption rather than an individualized hearing to determine
whether a particular arrestee poses an unmanageable flight risk,"
the ruling states.
Judge Richard Tallman argued, in one of two dissents, that the
majority had denied the state and its voters their deserved
deference. He was joined by Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, who also
wrote his own dissent.
"In striking down Proposition 100, the majority sets aside the
policy judgment of the Arizona legislature and nearly 80 percent
of Arizona's voting electorate, telling the state it really
doesn't have an illegal immigration problem adversely affecting
its criminal justice system," Judge Tallman wrote. "But Arizonans
thought Proposition 100 was the solution to an ineffective bail
system that was letting too many illegal aliens avoid answering
for their serious felony charges. They were concerned that these
offenders, who often lack community ties, too often skirt justice
by fleeing the state or the country before trial. Plaintiffs-
Appellants Lopez-Valenzuela and Castro-Armenta are good examples.
Between the two of them they were charged with aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, theft by extortion, assisting a
criminal syndicate, and transportation of a dangerous drug."
Tallman noted that, in a 2006 interview on CNN's "Lou Dobbs
Tonight," then-Maricopa County Attorney Thomas said that Arizona
had a "tremendous problem with illegal immigrants coming into the
state, committing serious crimes, and then absconding, and not
facing trial for their crimes."
"Faced with this continuing problem, Arizona took a logical next
step by denying bail to illegal aliens who commit serious felony
offenses," he wrote. "Because Proposition 100 is not excessive in
relation to Arizona's compelling regulatory interest in ensuring
that illegal aliens who commit serious felony offenses stand
trial, I respectfully dissent."'
A disciplinary panel disbarred Thomas in 2012, finding that he had
abused his power by targeting political rivals on the Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors with unsubstantiated criminal
investigations and charges.
Pearce, Proposition 100's sponsor in the Arizona Legislature, was
recalled by voters in 2011.
The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:
Andre I. Segura, Esq.
Esha Bhandari, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad Street, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 607-3300
Facsimile: (212) 607-3318
- and -
Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
Kenneth J. Sugarman, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 343-0775
E-mail: cwang@aclu.org
- and -
Daniel Pochoda, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
P.O. Box 17148
Phoenix, AZ 85011
Defendants-Appellees Maricopa County and Joseph M. Arpaio are
represented by:
Timothy J. Casey, Esq.
SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C.
1221 East Osborn Road, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85014-5540
Telephone: (602) 277-7000
Facsimile: (602) 277-8663
E-mail: timcasey@azbarristers.com
Defendant-Appellee Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery is
represented by:
Bruce P. White, Esq.
Anne C. Longo, Esq.
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEYS
MARICOPA COUNTY CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
222 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 506-8541
Amici Curiae Constitutional Criminal Law and Immigration Law
Professors are represented by:
Anthony O'Rourke, Esq.
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SUNY BUFFALO LAW SCHOOL
710 O'Brian Hall, North Campus
Buffalo, NY 14260-1100
Telephone: (716) 645-3097
E-mail: aorourke@buffalo.edu
Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice are
represented by:
Kathleen E. Brody, Esq.
OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
2929 North Central Avenue, 21st Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2793
Telephone: (602) 640-9387
Facsimile: (602) 640-9050
E-mail: kbrody@omlaw.com
- and -
Amy Kalman, Esq.
Mikel Steinfeld, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER
620 W. Jackson Street, Suite 4015
Phoenix, AZ 85003
- and -
David Euchner, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE PIMA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER
33 North Stone Avenue, Suite 2100
Tucson, AZ 85701
Telephone: (520) 724-6800
The appellate case is Angel Lopez-Valenzuela; Isaac Castro-Armenta
v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Case No. 11-16487, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District Court
case is Angel Lopez-Valenzuela; Isaac Castro-Armenta v. Joseph M.
Arpaio, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00660-SRB, in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona.
MEDTRONIC INC: Infuse Class Action May Impact Covidien Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Spencer, writing for Star Tribune, reports that a federal
judge in Minneapolis has pushed forward a lawsuit involving
Medtronic Inc.'s problematic Infuse bone growth product that could
complicate the company's controversial $43 billion acquisition of
Covidien.
U.S. District Judge John Tunheim will let lawyers for Medtronic
investors explore an alleged coverup of Infuse's bad side effects
by Medtronic officials and doctors the company paid to do
research. Off-label use of Infuse has allegedly injured thousands
of patients.
Mr. Tunheim also said the plaintiffs in the investors' class
action lawsuit could pursue a claim that former Medtronic CEO
William Hawkins purposely made misstatements to stock analysts to
hide the fact that the Food and Drug Administration had refused to
approve the next iteration of Infuse, a product called Amplify.
Experts say the ability to examine Mr. Hawkins' alleged
misstatements, along with alleged manipulation of scientific
research to cover up Infuse problems, could produce damaging
publicity as Medtronic tries to consummate an already contentious
attempt to buy the Irish devicemaker Covidien. If the investors'
case gets to a jury that believes company officials knew of
Infuse's problem but tried to hide them, a legal shield Medtronic
has used to avoid thousands of personal injury claims might also
be pierced.
"A deep-down examination of their behavior as a company puts some
real pressure on them to settle [the suit]," said David Prince, a
product liability specialist at William Mitchell College of Law in
St. Paul.
Medtronic, which had sought to have the charges dismissed, said it
is innocent.
"It is important to note this was an early procedural decision and
does not determine the merits of the remaining claims," the
company said in an e-mail statement to the Star Tribune. "We
strongly deny there was any violation of the securities laws and
look forward to addressing these claims on the merits."
At issue is whether Medtronic intentionally misled investors by
shaping Infuse research done by doctors to whom the company paid
$210 million from 1996 to 2010. In some cases, the shareholders
suit claims, Medtronic edited results of studies to overstate the
usefulness of Infuse in patients recovering from spinal surgery
while downplaying harmful side effects, including abnormal bone
growth into nerves, male impotence and risks of cancer.
The class-action suit claims that Medtronic's meddling in the
research artificially propped up Medtronic share prices, while
revelations of that same meddling eventually drove share prices
down, costing investors tens of millions of dollars.
Mr. Tunheim turned down a Medtronic motion to dismiss claims that
a company "scheme to downplay risks in the clinical studies led to
increased usage of Infuse and 'explosive' sales and revenue
growth." At its height, Infuse generated almost a $1 billion a
year in sales.
What is Medtronic BMP Infuse?
Medtronic Infuse is a new type of bio-engineered bone graft
product that has been promoted as an alternative to traditional
spinal fusions, where bone is harvested from another area of the
body or used from a cadaver.
The FDA approved Infuse recombinant human bone morphogenetic
protein (rhBMP-2) for limited use during spinal fusion procedures
where the lumbar spine is approached through the front
(anteriorly) and the product is applied to an absorbable collagen
sponge that is placed within an "LT-Cage" that is implanted to
encourage bone growth and fuse the gaps between the vertebrae.
According to The Legal Examiner's Shezad Malik, it is alleged that
Medtronic illegally promoted the device for non-approved uses,
with most sales of Infuse involving procedures that were never
approved by the FDA, for example the posterior approach for spinal
fusion, cervical neck fusion and use in the jaw and long bone
fractures.
Medronic Quietly Settles Some BMP Infuse Lawsuits
In May, a month before it announced plans to acquire Covidien,
Medtronic settled 950 Infuse suits for $22 million and announced
plans to hold $120 million to $140 million in reserve to settle
3,800 outstanding suits, The Legal Examiner discloses.
Medtronic Infuse Hiding Behind Federal Pre-Emption Shield
Many injured patients alleging side effects from Infuse have been
blocked from doing so by a legal shield called pre-emption that
limits the ability to bring personal injury suits against makers
of FDA-approved devices without specific allegations of fraud.
According to experts, if Medtronic settles the current
shareholders' suit without admitting wrongdoing, the chances of
injured Infuse patients proving fraud becomes very difficult.
It is ironic that injured patients' road to the courthouse is
blocked, while Medtronic has paid millions in settlements over the
Infuse product to shareholders, whistle blowers, and the federal
government. Shareholders who sued Medtronic over Infuse in 2008
received an $85 million settlement in 2012. Medtronic admitted no
wrongdoing.
New Shareholder Law Suit
The new shareholders case, brought in 2013 by the West Virginia
Pipe Trades Health and Welfare Fund, the Hawaii state Employees'
Retirement System, and Union Asset Management Holding AG, relies
heavily on disclosures in a 2012 report by the U.S. Senate Finance
Committee, a 2011 issue of the Spine Journal and a 2013
reinterpretation of Infuse research data by the Yale University
Open Data Access Project.
All of these studies reveal that Infuse was no better or safer
than traditional forms of treatment, despite research that claimed
otherwise by doctors who had been paid millions by Medtronic. In
addition, the Senate found that some studies had been selectively
edited at times by Medtronic's marketing department to downplay
problems, according to The Legal Examiner.
MILESTONE AV: Recalls Sanus Simplicity Television Wall Mounts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Milestone AV Technologies LLC of Eden Prairie, Minn., of Taiwan,
announced a voluntary recall of about 207,000 Sanus Simplicity
SLF5 flat screen television wall mounts. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The nut securing the television to the main arm assembly can
loosen causing the attached television to become detached from the
arm assembly, posing an impact hazard.
Milestone has received two reports of the television becoming
detached from the arm assembly. One injury to a shoulder has been
reported.
The recall involves the Sanus Simplicity model SLF5. The wall
mounts are black and made of metal. They are about 30 inches long
and 18 inches tall. The center bar of the mount can extend out to
about 13 inches. The mounts fit most 37 inch to 80 inch, flat-
panel televisions up to125 lbs. The words "Sanus Simplicity" are
located on the top left corner of the box the product is sold in
and on the instructions manual. The words are not found directly
on the product. The model numbers can be found on the product
label sticker located on the metal wall plate, under the plastic
cover that covers the top horizontal bar.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Ce9Yr2
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Costco from July 2013 to Sept. 2014 for about $125.
The company is contacting consumers and providing a free repair
kit. Consumers should follow the instructions to do the repair
provided in the letter and contact Milestone if they have any
questions or concerns.
MILLENNIUM NURSING: Fails to Pay Nurses and Aids' OT, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vicki Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Millennium Nursing and Rehab Center, Inc., Case No.
5:14-cv-01973-CLS (N.D. Ala., October 15, 2014) is brought on
behalf of current and former nurses and aids, who have worked at
Millennium and were not paid overtime for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a week.
Millennium owns and operates a nursing and rehabilitation center
in Huntsville, Alabama.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Camp, Esq.
WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
The Kress Building
301 19th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 314-0500
Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
E-mail: rcamp@wigginschilds.com
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: $4MM Tentantive Deal Reached in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14,
2014, for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2014, that the parties in
a class action agreed to a stipulation for a proposed $4 million
class settlement to be covered by insurance proceeds, subject to
Court approval.
On June 11, 2012, the Company announced the pending restatement of
the Company's financial statements for the periods ending on or
before April 30, 2012 (the "June 11, 2012 Announcement"), related
to the Company's accounting treatment of rebates associated with
volume discounts provided by vendors. The restated financial
statements were filed on January 11, 2013. After the June 11, 2012
Announcement, stockholders of the Company commenced three
purported class actions in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts arising from the circumstances
described in the June 11, 2012 Announcement (the "Securities
Actions"), entitled, respectively:
* Irene Collier, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph
C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11044-DJC, filed June
12, 2012 (the "Collier Action");
* Alexander Shnerer Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph
C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11078-DJC, filed June
18, 2012 (the "Shnerer Action"); and
* Harold Heszkel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C.
Lawler, and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11279-DJC, filed July
11, 2012 (the "Heszkel Action").
Each of the Securities Actions purports to be brought on behalf of
those persons who purchased shares of the Company between
September 26, 2007 through and including June 8, 2012 (the "Class
Period") and alleges that failure to timely disclose the issues
raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement during the Class Period
rendered defendants' public statements concerning the Company's
financial condition materially false and misleading in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. On February 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the Securities Actions. The
Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 11, 2013.
On March 26, 2014, following a November 8, 2013 hearing, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and, on May 26, 2014, the
Company answered the Amended Complaint. In October 2014, the
parties agreed to a stipulation for a proposed $4 million class
settlement to be covered by insurance proceeds, subject to Court
approval. The settlement will be presented for preliminary
approval at a hearing to be scheduled by the Court.
ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., through its wholly owned
subsidiaries, ModusLink Corporation ("ModusLink") and ModusLink
PTS, Inc. ("ModusLink PTS"), provides comprehensive supply chain
and logistics services (the "Supply Chain Business") that are
designed to improve clients' revenue, cost, sustainability and
customer experience.
NATIONAL OILWELL: Accused of Discrimination by Female Ex-Worker
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bobbie-Jean Sweetin v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P. and Grant
Prideco, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-02935 (S.D. Tex., October 16,
2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
amended by the Equal Pay Act, to correct and recover for the
Defendant's alleged unlawful employment practices on the basis of
the Plaintiff's sex (female) and her protected complaints
involving sex discrimination.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Navasota, Grimes County, Texas.
She was employed by the Defendants.
NOV is a foreign limited partnership formed in Delaware and
headquartered in Houston, Harris County, Texas. Grant Prideco is
a foreign for-profit corporation formed in Delaware and
headquartered in Houston, Harris County, Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terrence B. Robinson, Esq.
Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
KENNARD BLANKENSHIP ROBINSON PC
5433 Westheimer, Suite 825
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 742-0900
Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com
NATIONWIDE GENERAL: Removes Lindsay Class Suit to W.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lindsay Transmission, LLC, a
Missouri limited liability company, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
Nationwide General Insurance Company, Case No. 14JO-CC00249, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Johnson County, Missouri County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
(Kansas City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-
cv-00903-ODS to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from insurance-related dispute.
The Defendant is represented by:
Douglas S. Beck, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
Telephone: (816) 474-6550
Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
E-mail: dbeck@shb.com
NOVA SCOTIA: Premier Apologizes for Abuse at Halifax Orphanage
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Premier Stephen McNeil has
apologized to the former residents of the Nova Scotia Home for
Colored Children for the abuse and neglect they faced at the
Halifax orphanage.
Mr. McNeil said it is one of his province's great tragedies that
their cries for help were met with silence and the pain that some
of them endured is something that no child should experience.
"We hear your voices and we grieve for your pain," Mr. McNeil said
on Oct. 10.
"For the trauma and neglect you endured and the lingering effects
on you and your loved ones, we are truly sorry."
The apology, which Mr. McNeil delivered in the legislature, was
greeted with a standing ovation from a number of people, including
some of the former residents.
"It's very moving," said Tony Smith, one of the former residents.
"This historical apology is an apology we, the former residents,
dreamed of but believed this dream would never come to light."
People who lived in the home as children allege that they were
subjected to physical, psychological and sexual abuse over several
decades.
Class-action lawsuits were launched by the former residents
against the home and the provincial government, which ended in
settlements totaling C$34 million. The home came to a C$5-million
settlement with the plaintiffs in July 2013 and the Nova Scotia
Supreme Court approved a C$29-million award from the province a
year later.
The lawyer who represents the former residents has said nearly 250
people who lived at the home from 1921 until 1989 are eligible for
the class-action settlement payouts. That agreement is before the
Nova Scotia Supreme Court, where a judge has asked the law firm
who worked on the case for the plaintiffs to provide a legal
precedent to support their proposal to have people who joined the
lawsuit in later years absorb some of the legal costs of the
earlier claimants. The lawyers have asked to be paid C$6.6
million in legal fees, a proposal also subject to court approval.
A ruling is expected on Oct. 16.
The Liberal government has also promised to hold a public inquiry
into the alleged abuse. Mr. McNeil has said the terms of
reference will be set out to give former residents an opportunity
to publicly share their stories. The home is now a short-term
residential facility for children of all races.
OMNICARE INC: Arguments in Securities Litigation Set for Nov. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
the Supreme Court's new term includes cases challenging investors'
burden of proof in securities litigation and whether 401(k) plan
fiduciaries can be sued for investment choices made years earlier.
Almost of as much interest to large institutional investors and
their lawyers is the court's decision -- just days before
scheduled arguments -- to not hear a securities class-action case
testing the time limits for plaintiffs to join such lawsuits.
Questions about fiduciary duty will be answered after the court
hears arguments next year in Tibble et al. vs. Edison
International et al., but also could come up in another case that
the court has been petitioned to accept, Tussey et al vs. ABB Inc.
et al.
The securities case, Omnicare Inc. vs. Laborers District Council
Construction Industry Pension Fund et al., will be heard first,
with arguments scheduled for Nov. 3.
After reaching settlements resolving allegations of kickbacks, the
pharmaceutical services firm was sued by the pension fund, which
claimed Omnicare misled investors in its registration statement
for an initial public offering. Since then, lower courts have
disagreed on whether such statements are challengeable facts or
simply subjective opinions, and how much more investors seeking
damages would have to prove.
Omnicare's court filing "has proposed a rule that would
effectively immunize (securities) issuers from liability," said
Blair Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- San Diego-based managing
partner at securities litigation firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP. Mr. Nicholas is one of the lawyers who filed an
amicus brief on behalf of 40 U.S. and foreign public pension funds
representing $2 trillion in combined assets. "The integrity of
the offering process and federal securities law would effectively
be eviscerated," he said. "Public pension plans rely on the
veracity of the statements, and opinions of material facts make up
a significant portion" of such statements.
The presence of several foreign pension fund interests, including
Royal Mail Group's GBP3.3 billion ($5.34 billion) pension fund and
APG Asset Management, which oversees the e325 billion ($417.49
billion) assets of the ABP pension fund, Heerlen, Netherlands, on
the amicus brief "really shows how important it is to foreign
investors who rely on the opinions in the registration statement
when investing in the U.S.," said Mr. Nicholas.
Shifting due diligence
If the Supreme Court discourages investors from taking
registration disclosures at face value, that ruling is expected to
shift more due diligence to large investors themselves, regardless
of whether they have the staff and budget for it. Such a ruling
also could dim investors' appetite for new company offerings,
which are having a banner year, said Michael Stocker, New York-
based partner with Labaton Sucharow LLP, which represents
investors in these kinds of lawsuits. With no track record to go
on during initial offerings, a looser standard for statements made
in offerings "could well change institutional investors' risk
tolerance for IPOs," he said.
Lawyers representing institutional investors say it is also worth
noting a case the Supreme Court will not hear.
Originally scheduled for the court's Oct. 6 opening day arguments,
a securities litigation case brought by the $25.1 billion
Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System, Jackson, against
a now-defunct mortgage firm challenged the time limits for
investors to join or opt out of class-action lawsuits. The
petition was supported by other pension funds including the $294.2
billion California Public Employees' Retirement System,
Sacramento; $188.3 billion California State Teachers' Retirement
System, West Sacramento; $45.3 billion Colorado Public Employees'
Retirement Association, Denver; $15.5 billion Montana Board of
Investments, Helena; and $130.2 billion Texas Teacher Retirement
System, Austin. But with settlements pending in the original
case, the Supreme Court took it off the docket.
Leaving the question split in lower courts "means a potential big
problem for investors," said Mr. Stocker. To protect their right
to sue or join class-action lawsuits, investors "might have to
file placeholders. We counsel institutional investors to be tuned
in to this."
Large investors "have to be far more proactive," agreed
Mr. Nicholas. "Investors can't sit around and wait for an opt-out
deadline."
Statue of limitations
In 2015, the Supreme Court is expected to break ground on how to
interpret the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's six-year
statute of limitations on fiduciary-breach lawsuits.
The Tibble et al. vs. Edison International et al. case challenging
whether such claims are time-barred, "is a first," said attorney
Nancy Ross, a partner in Mayer Brown LLP's employment and ERISA
litigation practice in Chicago. "We have never seen the court
address the scope of the statute of limitations on fiduciary-
breach claims." Arguments are expected to be scheduled for
February, with a decision in early summer.
Edison International is the parent of Southern California Edison,
Rosemead, Calif., sponsor of the $4 billion Edison 401(k) plan.
Some plan participants complained fiduciaries breached their duty
by continuing to offer higher-cost retail mutual funds when
institutional-class funds were available. In a statement, the
company said that actions in the best interests of participants
"are reflected in numerous rulings in our favor," including the
appeals court denial of the class action, which led to the
plaintiffs' petition to the Supreme Court. That petition was
filed in October 2014 by Jerome J. Schlichter --
jschlichter@uselaws.com -- managing partner of law firm Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, St. Louis, citing differences among courts as to
when the statute of limitations begins and ends.
In deciding whether to take the case, the Supreme Court sought the
opinion of U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., who argued
that time-barring such claims is wrong because "ERISA imposes a
continuing duty of prudence on plan fiduciaries."
The solicitor general's position "is recognition of the importance
of this issue in protecting retirement assets," said
Mr. Schlichter in an interview. "Is there an ongoing clock that
is applicable to the ongoing actions?" Expanding the time frame
would increase fiduciaries' duty to monitor investment choices,
for both fees and performance, which is a good practice anyway,
said Mr. Schlichter. "There are many plan sponsors and
fiduciaries doing the right thing. If they have been doing the
right thing, they don't have to do anything (different)."
'All about balance'
Ms. Ross thinks with the increased visibility of ERISA issues in
the courts, the Supreme Court justices will tread carefully before
changing the six-year timeframe for fiduciaries to be sued for
breach of duty. She noted the justices already have admonished
lower courts in other rulings about not making it too onerous for
sponsors to offer retirement plans. "If there's a pattern, it's
the Supreme Court recognizing the nation's dependence on employer-
provided retirement security. It's all about balance," said
Ms. Ross.
A second legal argument raised in Tibble, but set aside by the
Supreme Court when it accepted the case, is whether plan
fiduciaries should be accorded deference in cases alleging breach
of duty.
That issue could still come up if the court grants a related
petition brought by plaintiffs in Tussey et al. vs. ABB Inc. et
al., to address the issue of deference.
PARTY CITY: Recalls Deluxe Fantasy Feather Boa
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 20, 2014
Posting date: October 20, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Flammability Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-41825
Affected products: Deluxe Fantasy Feather Boa (black colour)
The recall involves the Deluxe Fantasy Feather Boa in black colour
only (Item #250092, UPC 809801705936).
Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the Deluxe Fantasy Feather Boa (black colour) does not meet
the requirements for textile flammability under Canadian law.
If exposed to a flame such as from candles, matches or lighters,
the Deluxe Fantasy Feather Boa (black colour) could catch fire and
possibly cause burns to consumers.
Neither Party City Canada nor Health Canada has received reports
of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of these costume accessories.
For tips to help consumers celebrate Halloween safely, see the
following Health Canada's publications: Halloween Safety and
Reminding Canadians to have a safe Halloween.
Approximately, 787 of the recalled costume accessories were sold
at Party City and Halloween City retail stores across Canada.
The recalled costume accessories were manufactured in China and
sold from Jan. 2012 to Oct. 2014.
Companies:
Distributor Party City Canada
North York
Ontario
Canada
Consumers should stop using the recalled product and should return
it to their nearest Party City retail store for a full refund or
store credit.
PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST: Removes "Dezarraga" Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Dezarraga v. Public Health
Trust of Dade County, Case No. 14-23331-CA-01, was removed from
the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23809-KMM to
the proceeding.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antonio Gabriel Hernandez, Esq.
ANTONIO G. HERNANDEZ P.A.
4 SouthEast 1st Street, 2nd Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 282-3698
Facsimile: (786) 513-7748
E-mail: hern8491@bellsouth.net
- and -
Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
Jared H. Beck, Esq.
BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205
Miami, FL 33186
Telephone: (305) 234-2060
Facsimile: (786) 664-3334
E-mail: elizabeth@beckandlee.com
jared@beckandlee.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher Charles Kokoruda, Esq.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Jackson Memorial Hospital
1611 NW 12th Avenue, West Wing, Suite 109
Miami, FL 33136
Telephone: (305) 585-1313
E-mail: kokorud@miamidade.gov
RADIUS HOSPITAL: Suit Seeks 60 Days Wages/Benefits Under WARN Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon D. Marshall, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Radius Hospital Management II, Inc. d/b/a Radius
Specialty Hospital, Case No. 1:14-cv-13867 (D. Mass., October 15,
2014) seeks to recover from the Defendant 60 days wages and
benefits, pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.
According to the complaint, on October 2, 2014, the Defendant
terminated without notice the employment of its approximately 350
or so full-time employees, including the Plaintiff.
Radius Hospital Management II, Inc., doing business as Radius
Specialty Hospital, is a Massachusetts corporation with its
principal place of business located in Boston, Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew C. Moschella, Esq.
Jennifer L. Ioli, Esq.
SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP
101 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 646-2000
E-mail: mcmoschella@sherin.com
jlioli@sherin.com
- and -
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com
rsr@outtengolden.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Rabinowitz" Suit Transferred to New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Rabinowitz, et al. v. Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00801, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Newark). The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:14-cv-06356 to the proceeding.
The action is brought to recover restitution in connection with
the purchase of Samsung-brand televisions that were falsely
marketed and advertised by Samsung as "LED TVs," "LED HDTVs" or
"LED televisions." The lawsuit also seeks an injunction
requiring, among other things, Samsung to engage in a corrective
advertising campaign to alert consumers in California as to the
true nature of these televisions.
According to the complaint, the televisions at issue are not "LED
TVs," but instead are LCD TVs that use light emitting diodes
(LEDs) instead of cold cathode fluorescent lights (CCFLs) to light
the liquid crystal display (LCD) panel that is present in each of
the televisions at issue.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
Patrick B. Clayton, Esq.
ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 693-0700
Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
E-mail: fscarpulla@zelle.com
jzahid@zelle.com
pclayton@zelle.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Scott A. George, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 564-2300
Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Hayward J. Kaiser, Esq.
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
11377 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 312-2000
Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
E-mail: hjk@msk.com
- and -
Daniel R. Shulman, Esq.
Gregory R. Merz, Esq.
Kathryn J. Bergstrom, Esq.
Dean C. Eyler, Esq.
GRAY PLANT & MOOTY
500 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 632-3000
Facsimile: (612) 632-4444
E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com
gregory.merz@gpmlaw.com
katie.bergstrom@gpmlaw.com
dean.eyler@gpmlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John Adam Karaczynski, Esq.
Hyongsoon Kim, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER FELD LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 229-1020
Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
E-mail: jkaraczynski@akingump.com
kimh@akingump.com
- and -
Reginald David Steer, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
580 California Street, 15th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 765-9500
Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
E-mail: rsteer@akingump.com
SEARS CANADA: Store Owner Case Certified as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit by a "Sears Hometown" store owner in Woodstock,
Ontario was certified as a class action on September 8, 2014,
Sears Canada Inc. said in its Form F-10 Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2014.
On July 5, 2013, a "Sears Hometown" store owner in Woodstock,
Ontario launched a class action lawsuit on behalf of approximately
260 Sears Hometown dealers across Canada who became dealers on or
after January 1, 2011 against Sears Canada and Sears, Roebuck and
Co. (together with Sears Canada, the "Sears Defendants"), a
subsidiary of Sears Holdings. The claim alleges that the Sears
Defendants breached contractual duties and duties under provincial
franchise laws by forcing the Hometown store dealer-owners to work
for subsistence-level compensation and by depriving them of any
realistic opportunity to share in the profits generated by the
Hometown store system. The claim also alleges that Sears Canada
has encroached on the dealers' protected market areas through
direct-channel sales. The dealer plaintiffs seek $100 million in
damages and injunctive relief. The action was certified as a class
action on September 8, 2014.
Although Sears Canada intends to vigorously defend these
allegations, it believes the outcome is indeterminable, and the
monetary damages, if any, cannot be reliably estimated.
SHOP PACKAGING: Recalls 115,505 Lbs. of Chicken Wing Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shop Packaging LLC, a New Bedford, Mass. establishment, is
recalling approximately 115,505 pounds of chicken wing products
due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced. The products were processed with a releasing agent
containing soy lecithin, a known allergen which is not declared on
the product label.
The chicken wing products were produced on various dates between
Aug. 8 and Oct. 10, 2014. The product subject to recall includes:
-- 20-lb. bags containing "Chicken Mid-joint Wing." The
products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"P-46946" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These
products produced were shipped to a distribution location in
New York.
The problem was discovered by a FSIS inspector. The company
sprayed a vegetable and canola oil, which contains soy lecithin,
on their conveyor belt. FSIS has determined that the spray has
been used since Aug. 8th of this year.
FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.
FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.
Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Ron Sylvia, President, at (508) 961-7552.
SOVEREIGN GRACE: Sex-Abuse Class Action Ruling Appeal Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Allen, writing for Baptist News Global, reports that a new
lawsuit alleging widespread child abuse and cover-up involving
Sovereign Grace Ministries is expected to be filed soon in
Virginia.
Maryland's highest court of appeal declined Sept. 22 to review
what has been described as largest evangelical sex-abuse case to
date, leaving intact lower-court decisions dismissing the class-
action lawsuit on legal technicalities.
The Court of Appeals, the highest tribunal in Maryland, declined
without comment to review a June 26 decision by the Court of
Special Appeals dismissing Doe v. Sovereign Grace Ministries.
The lawsuit, originally filed in October 2012 in Montgomery
County, Md., alleged a culture of enabling and covering up
pedophilia in churches associated with Sovereign Grace Ministries,
a Calvinistic church-planting network based in Louisville, Ky.
Special Court of Appeals Judge Deborah Eyler ruled that a group of
alleged abuse victims and their families did not follow proper
procedure in filing their appeal of an earlier dismissal in
circuit court, and therefore her appellate court could not legally
consider their argument.
In May 2013, Montgomery County Circuit Judge Sharon Burrell ruled
that plaintiffs had missed a window of opportunity to sue for
sexual abuse damages within three years of turning 18.
In their appeal, the plaintiffs said they were suing not over the
abuse, per se, but alleged collusion by church leaders that didn't
come to light until 2011.
None of the decisions dealt with the truthfulness of allegations
in a second amended class-action complaint filed May 14, 2013,
alleging a conspiracy originating at a church in Maryland and
spreading across the country in the "family" of SGM churches.
The 46-page complaint alleged in sometimes graphic detail the
molestation of numerous boys and girls by multiple offenders and
decisions by SGM leaders to discourage church members from
reporting it to secular authorities and handle it internally as a
matter of corrective church "discipline."
Nathaniel Morales, 56, one of the alleged molesters in the civil
lawsuit, was convicted Aug. 14 in criminal court and sentenced to
40 years in prison for abusing boys while working in youth
ministries and leading Bible studies at SGM-affiliated Covenant
Life Church in Gaithersburg, Md.
During testimony, Mr. Morales' lawyer questioned former Covenant
Life pastor Grant Layman about whether he withheld information
from the police about the abuse allegations against his client.
"Did you have an obligation to report the alleged abuse?" public
defender Alan Drew asked Layman during cross examination. "I
believe so," Mr. Layman said. "And you didn't," Mr. Drew
responded. "No," Mr. Layman said.
Mark Prater, executive director of Sovereign Grace Ministries,
posted an open letter Oct. 9 denying "in the strongest terms
possible" that any SGM leaders conspired to cover up sexual or
physical abuse of children.
Mr. Prater added, however, that the ministry is reviewing child-
protection policies in member churches and will offer child sexual
abuse awareness training at a conference for pastors and church
leaders later this month.
Susan Burke, the Baltimore attorney who represented the alleged
victims in the Maryland lawsuit, said in June that similar
litigation will be filed in Virginia in the "relatively near
future."
SPIRIT HALLOWEEN: Recalls Feather Boas and Feather Wings
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 17, 2014
Posting date: October 17, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and
Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Flammability Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-41819
Affected products: Feather boas and feather angel wings
The recall involves the feather boas of various colors and black
and white large feather angel wings:
Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the feather boas and large feather angel wings do not meet
the requirements for textile flammability under Canadian law.
If exposed to flame such as from candles, matches or lighters, the
feather boas and large feather angel wings could catch fire and
possibly cause burns to consumers.
Neither Spirit Halloween nor Health Canada has received reports of
consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of
these costumes.
For tips to help consumers celebrate Halloween safely, see the
following Health Canada's publications: Halloween Safety and
Reminding Canadians to have a safe Halloween.
Approximately 490 units of the recalled costumes were sold at
Spirit Halloween stores across Canada.
The recalled costumes were manufactured in China and sold from
Aug. 28, 2014 to Oct. 6, 2014.
Companies:
Manufacturer Spencer Gifts, LLC
Egg Harbour Township
New Jersey
United States
Consumers should not wear or not let their children wear the
recalled products and return them to Spirit Halloween for a refund
or dispose of it.
SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: PositiveSingles.com-Related Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
SuccessfulMatch.com won District Court approval of its bid for
dismissal of a putative class action alleging violations of
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CRLA).
The case is JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v.
SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM, a California Corporation Defendant, Case No.
CASE NO. 13-CV-03376-LHK (N.D.Calif.).
SuccessfulMatch.com is a California corporation that operates a
variety of dating sites. Among the dating sites Defendant
operates is PositiveSingles.com, which is marketed to persons with
sexually transmitted diseases. PositiveSingles.com is designed to
help people with STDs meet others who are similarly situated or
accepting of members' medical conditions.
Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that Defendant
fraudulently and deceptively failed to disclose that profiles
created through PositiveSingles.com could be viewed on Defendant's
affiliate sites.
In a Sept. 30, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/S1UPyVfrom
Leagle.com, District Judge Lucy Koh granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' UCL and CLRA claims for failure to meet Rule
9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. The dismissal is without
prejudice.
If Plaintiffs elect to file a Second Amended Complaint curing the
deficiencies identified, they have to do so within 14 days of the
date of the Order, the Court rule. Failure to meet the 14-day
deadline to file a Second Amended Complaint or failure to cure the
deficiencies identified in the Order will result in a dismissal
with prejudice. Plaintiffs may not add new causes of action or
parties without leave of the Court or stipulation of the parties.
Successfulmatch.com, Defendant, represented by Virginia Anne
Sanderson, Esq. -- ginny@KRInternetLaw.com -- of Kronenberger
Burgoyne, LLP.
SYNNEX CORP: Says "Other Income" Down Due to Class Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
SYNNEX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2014, that the decrease in other
income (expense), net during the three months ended August 31,
2014 was due to $12.3 million received from a class-action legal
settlement during the three months ended August 31, 2013. The
decrease in other income (expense), net in the nine months ended
August 31, 2014 was due to $9.4 million lower benefit from a
class-action legal settlement, higher foreign exchange losses and
lower earnings on the Company's deferred compensation investments.
SYNNEX is a business process services company, optimizing supply
chains and providing customer care solutions for its clients.
TRANSCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Continuum Capital Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Transcept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2014,
that Continuum Capital filed on October 3, 2014, a purported
shareholder class action on behalf of themselves and the other
stockholders of Transcept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Transcept") in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra
Costa, against Transcept, its current directors, and Paratek
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Paratek"). The lawsuit alleges that
Transcept's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Transcept stockholders in connection with the proposed merger
and acted on the basis of alleged conflicts of interests, and that
Transcept's registration statement dated September 29, 2014
contains material misstatements and omissions. The lawsuit also
alleges that Paratek aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that
Transcept and its Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties, injunctive relief including enjoining the merger of
Paratek into Tigris Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly
owned subsidiary of Transcept, contemplated by that certain
Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated June 30,
2014 by and among Transcept, Paratek, Merger Sub, and Tigris
Acquisition Sub, LLC (the "Merger Agreement"), and the issuance of
Transcept shares to the Paratek stockholders pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, and an award of compensatory damages and
attorney's fees.
Transcept believes that the suit is without merit and intends to
defend vigorously against the suit.
US INVESTIGATIONS: Faces WARN Class Action Over Lay-Off in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
embattled government contractor U.S. Investigations Services, LLC,
already under fire for its background investigations of alleged
secrets-leaker Edward Snowden and Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis,
is now facing a proposed class action asserting it violated
federal law when it laid off 1,200 workers in Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff Thomas Karaniewsky brought suit on Oct. 3 on his own
behalf and for others whom U.S. Investigations recently laid off
without the 60-days written notice the federal Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) requires before a mass
layoff or plant closing.
Mr. Karaniewsky, a record searcher at the company's Grove City,
Pa., facility, was one of an estimated 2,500 U.S. Investigations
employees countrywide axed in recent weeks, out of a workforce of
about 5,700, according to his complaint, Karaniewsky v. USIS, in
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and
other court documents.
He alleges that he was furloughed without pay on Aug. 7, and
received a termination letter on Sept. 24, with a Sept. 30
official termination date -- far fewer than the 60-day statutory
requirement. Mr. Karaniewsky is asking for relief in the form of
unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday and
vacation pay, pension and 401(k) contributions and other benefits,
for 60 days, all of which would have been covered and paid during
the 60 days before the layoffs.
The putative class action comes in the wake of the Sept. 9
announcement by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management that it
was ending its $3 billion worth of contracts with USIS for
background investigations.
The reason given was the massive security breach the company
suffered in mid-August, a cyberattack that OPM said compromised
the personal information of as many as 25,000 government workers.
The breach "has all the markings of a state-sponsored attack," OPM
said in a statement.
U.S. Investigations also faces a federal fraud investigation for
allegedly violating the federal False Claims Act by falsely
representing that 660,000 background checks were complete when
they actually were not, according to a complaint filed Jan. 22 by
the U.S. Justice Department in federal court in Montgomery, Ala.
The company has also come under congressional fire for its cursory
security investigations of former National Security Agency
contractor, who allegedly leaked as many as 200,000 secret
documents, and government contractor Alexis, who killed 12 and
injured three at the Navy Yard on Sept. 16, 2013; he allegedly had
been exhibiting signs of mental illness which the U.S.
Investigations background probe did not reflect.
Plaintiffs' attorney is Samuel Cordes, of Samuel J. Cordes &
Associates.
VOXX INTERNATIONAL: $5.2MM Received From Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
VOXX International Corporation announced financial results for its
Fiscal 2015 second quarter and six-months ended August 31, 2014.
The Company reported total other expenses for the Fiscal 2015
second quarter of $5.7 million as compared to total other income
of $5.4 million in the Fiscal 2014 second quarter. In the Fiscal
2015 second quarter, the Company took a non-cash charge of $6.7
million, representing the devaluation loss related to its
Venezuelan bonds that were re-measured at August 31, 2014. In the
Fiscal 2014 second quarter, the Company recorded a gain of $6.1
million, $5.2 million related to funds received in a class action
settlement and $0.9 million in funds received as part of a
recovery of funds from a prior customer, offset by a $1.2 million
accrual for estimated patent settlements with certain third
parties. There were other offsetting factors for the comparable
periods.
The Company reported total other expenses for the six month period
ended August 31, 2014 of $4.8 million as compared to total other
income of $5.2 million in the six month period August 31, 2013.
The Company recorded a $6.7 million charge representing the
devaluation loss related to its Venezuelan bonds that were
remeasured at August 31, 2014, resulting in a net Venezuela
currency devaluation and translation for the comparable periods of
$6.2 million. Additionally, other net decreased $4.4 million,
primarily as a result of the $5.2 million and $0.9 million
received as part of a class action lawsuit and recovery funds from
a customer, respectively, in the Fiscal 2014 six month period,
offset by a $1.2 million accrual for estimated patent settlements
with certain third parties. The net result was a $10.0 million
decline in total other income (expense) for the comparable
periods, which adversely impacted net income.
VOXX International Corporation (NASDAQ:VOXX) is the new name for
Audiovox Corporation, a company that was formed over 45 years ago
as Audiovox that has grown into a worldwide leader in many
automotive and consumer electronics and accessories categories, as
well as premium high-end audio. Through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, VOXX International proudly is recognized as the #1
premium loudspeaker company in the world, and has #1 market
positions in automotive video entertainment and remote starts,
digital TV tuners and digital antennas. The Company's brands also
hold #1 market share for TV remote controls and reception products
and leading market positions across a wide-spectrum of other
consumer and automotive segments.
WESTERN UNION: Attorney Fee Orders in "Tennille" Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class member/objector N. A. Bacharach, Jr., appeals to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from the Sept. 23,
2014 Order Modifying Magistrate Judge's Recommendation re Attorney
Fees; October 15, 2014 Amended Order Modifying Magistrate Judge's
Recommendation re Attorney Fees, nunc pro tunc to September 23,
2014; Minute Order Granting Motion for Relief from Order re
Attorney Fees, the Motion is treated as a Motion to Clarify and is
Granted; and the October 15, 2014 Order re: Motion for Attorney
Fees.
The Objector-Appellant is represented by:
Paul S. Rothstein, Esq.
PAUL S. ROTHSTEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
626 NE 1st Street
Gainesville, FL 32601
Telephone: (352) 376-7650
Facsimile: (352) 374-7133
E-mail: psr@rothsteinforjustice.com
The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:
Seth Alan Katz, Esq.
BURG, SIMPSON, ELDREDGE, HERSH & JARDINE, PC
40 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112
Telephone: (303) 792-5595
Facsimile: (303) 708-0527
E-mail: skatz@burgsimpson.com
- and -
Christopher Adam Seeger, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 584-0700
Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Jonathan N. Shub, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
1515 Market Street, #1380
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 564-2300
Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
- and -
James Edward Cecchi, Esq.
John M. Agnello, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
Five Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068-1741
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
jagnello@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Jamie Elisabeth Saltz Weiss, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
Highland Park, IL 60035
Telephone: (847) 433-4500
Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
E-mail: Jamie@Qulegal.com
Jeff@Qulegal.com
- and -
Richard Joseph Burke, Esq.
QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
1010 Market Street, Suite 1310
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (847) 433-4500
Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
E-mail: Richard@Qulegal.com
- and -
Jimmy Spurlock Calton, Jr., Esq.
CALTON LEGAL SERVICES
226 East Broad Street
Eufaula, AL 36027
Telephone: (334) 687-3563
Facsimile: (334) 687-8500
E-mail: caltonlegal@gmail.com
- and -
Mitchell Baker, Esq.
MITCH BAKER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
1543 Champa Street, #400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 592-7353
Facsimile: (303) 571-1001
E-mail: mitchbaker@estreet.com
The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:
Geraldine Mary Alexis, Esq.
Jason A. Yurasek, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94111-4131
Telephone: (415) 344-7000
Facsimile: (415) 344-7050
E-mail: GAlexis@perkinscoie.com
JYurasek@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Jess Alexander Dance, Esq.
Leonard H. MacPhee, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1900 16th Street, Suite 1400
Denver, CO 80202-5255
Telephone: (303) 291-2300
Facsimile: (303) 291-2400
E-mail: jdance@perkinscoie.com
lmacphee@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Laura Lisa Sandoval, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 506-3900
Facsimile: (212) 506-3950
E-mail: lsandoval@steptoe.com
- and -
Thomas Milton Barba, Esq.
STEPTOE &JOHNSON LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-1704
Telephone: (202) 429-8127
Facsimile: (202) 261-9838
E-mail: tbarba@steptoe.com
Interested Party Commonwealth of Massachusetts is represented by:
Gillian R. Feiner, Esq.
MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
One Ashburton Place, #2019
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 963-2571
Facsimile: (617) 727-5765
E-mail: gillian.feiner@state.ma.us
The appellate case is James P. Tennille, et al. v. The Western
Union Company and Western Union Financial Services, Inc., Case No.
14-1424, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit. The trial court case is James P. Tennille, et al. v. The
Western Union Company and Western Union Financial Services, Inc.,
Case No. 09-cv-00938-JLK, consolidated with Case No. 10-cv-00765-
JLK, in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.
WHOLE FOODS: Dist. Court Dismisses "Gedalia" False Ad Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Melinda Harmon granted Whole Foods Market Services'
bid to dismiss the putative class action URI GEDALIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:13-CV-3517 (S.D. Texas).
In an Opinion and Order dated Sept. 30, 2014 available at
http://is.gd/7Z331bfrom Leagle.com, Judge Harmon denied
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs filed the class action suit against Whole Foods
individually and on behalf of all persons who have purchased Whole
Foods's private-label 365 Organic and 365 Everyday Value products
that are allegedly falsely labelled as being organic, natural,
and/or genetically modified(GMO)-free. Plaintiffs sought
certification as a nationwide class, or, in the alternative, as
either state statutory sub-classes, or as Texas and California
sub-classes. The Complaint asserts violations of California's
Organic Products Act (COPA), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA),
False Advertising Law (FAL) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
Plaintiffs Gedalia and Lewis are residents of Houston, Texas and
Encino, California, respectively.
WFM Private Label Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Misty Ann Cabaniss Blair, Giovanna A. Ferrari, Esq. --
gferrari@seyfarth.com , Jay William Connolly, Esq. --
jconnolly@sefarth.com , Joseph J Orzano, Esq. --
jorzano@seyfarth.com of Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
WILMINGTON TRUST: DoJ Seeks to Intervene in Securities Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Milford, writing for The News Journal, reports that
federal prosecutors appear to be closing in on primary targets in
their more than two-year investigation into the demise of
Wilmington Trust Co.
Prosecutors want to halt until March the legal discovery process
of a parallel shareholders' lawsuit, which they believe could
undermine the government's case at a critical point.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Delaware and the criminal fraud
section of the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to
intervene in the civil securities case brought by institutional
investors against Wilmington Trust officers and directors.
Experts say the filing to stay discovery in the overlapping civil
case, including deposing witnesses, is unusual in the federal
district of Delaware -- and reinforces the notion that a break in
the criminal case is coming.
According to the government, the shareholders' litigation calls
for 23 current and former Wilmington Trust employees to be deposed
between Oct. 20 and Dec. 19.
Some "would certainly be witnesses in any criminal case brought by
the government," prosecutors argue. Courts have issued stays to
protect the government's interest in preventing targets of an
investigation from obtaining information though the civil process,
the government argues.
"Permitting the depositions of these individuals to move forward
would allow the bank and those bank defendants who are subjects or
targets of the government investigation to potentially 'disrupt
and perhaps undermine' the investigation," reads the government's
memorandum in support of its motion.
Wilmington Trust, founded by du Pont family members in 1903, was
famous for its conservative and sound banking policies. But
during Delaware's residential building boom of the last decade,
the institution departed from its historical practices.
Believing in its lending relationships with Delaware developers,
the bank placed a huge bet on serving as the lender for explosive
growth in Kent and Sussex counties.
When the economy soured in 2008, it proved disastrous. By October
2010, the bank was unable to hang on and agreed to be acquired by
M&T Bank Corp. of Buffalo, New York, at a fire sale price.
The fallout from the sale resulted in large losses for
shareholders, employee job cuts and the end to Wilmington Trust as
an independent institution.
Since then, federal prosecutors in Delaware have brought six
criminal actions in the case, including the prosecution of three
former Wilmington Trust officials. Former bank officials who have
pleaded guilty, including the bank's Delaware market manager Brian
Bailey, are cooperating with investigators.
According to prosecutors, Bailey and others engaged in a practice
of causing matured loans that were past due not to be reported to
the Federal Reserve. A matured loan is one in which the principal
payment is past due and must be repaid in full to the lender
unless the bank extends it through a new agreement, the filing
says.
Bailey and others at the bank, including Joseph Terranova, who
headed Wilmington Trust's Delaware commercial real estate
division, would cause matured loans to be waived if the loans were
current on the interest payment and considered to be in the
process of extension, the information alleges. This led to
Wilmington Trust not reporting to the Federal Reserve and others
the full extent of past due loans, prosecutors allege.
Bailey pleaded guilty to one count that he conspired to cause the
bank to make a false entry in a report to federal regulators.
Mr. Terranova pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
When asked by U.S. District Judge Richard Andrews about the
conspiracy at his August plea hearing, Bailey said "everyone" in
his area was working to extend the maturity of past due loans,
including people working "above" and "below" him.
By the end of December 2009, the total amount of matured loans not
reported to the Federal Reserve as past due or nonaccrual status
because they were listed as "waived" was more than $373 million,
according to court documents. Of that amount, approximately, $330
million in loans were at least 90 days past due with some up to
1,280 days past due, according to the filing.
The criminal investigation and securities lawsuit substantially
overlap and the current shareholders' complaint survived a motion
to dismiss after it was amended to incorporate details of the
prosecutions, the government argues.
Hannah Ross -- hannah@blbglaw.com -- partner at the New York City-
based Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann law firm, which is
handling the shareholder lawsuit, did not return an email asking
for comment.
After the bank was acquired by M&T, shareholders filed a series of
securities fraud class action lawsuits against the bank, board
members and top managers, including former chief executive
Ted Cecala and former President Robert V.A. Harra Jr. The court
consolidated the claims into one case, which had been on track to
go to trial next year. According to the lawsuit, top officers at
Wilmington Trust knew past due loans were being misrepresented.
Investors, who want their losses covered, allege the officers and
directors conspired to fraudulently conceal hundreds of millions
of dollars' worth of past-due and non-performing loans at the
bank. By no later than October 2009, the lack of reporting of
past due loans had become so egregious it had the full attention
of the bank's most senior officers, including Messrs. Cecala and
Harra, the lawsuit alleges.
The bank and its senior officers then devised a "mass extension"
scheme that made 1,250 past due loans valued at more than $1.7
billion -- or 25 percent of the bank's commercial loan portfolio
-- "go away," the lawsuit alleges.
The "mass extension" scheme deliberately excluded more than 800
troubled loans from being reported in the 2009 financial
statements, the lawsuit alleges.
As a result, the number of total concealed past due loans rose
from $105 million in the fourth quarter of 2008 to $373 million in
the fourth quarter of 2009, the lawsuit alleges.
According to the shareholders, the bank wanted to "erase
delinquent loans" from its year-end financial statements, which
the bank then used to raise $274 million from "unsuspecting
investors" in the February 2010 stock offering.
The government argues in its recent filing that the public
interest will be advanced by a limited stay of the investor
proceeding.
"If additional charges arise out of the criminal investigation,
the government will be in a stronger position than plaintiffs to
remedy any tangible harm to the public relating to conduct alleged
in the private securities lawsuit," the government says.
WILSON WADDELL: Removes "Coderre" Suit to Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Coderre v. Wilson Waddell Company,
LLC, et al., Case No. CACE-14-016996 (08), was removed from the
17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft.
Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-
62377-WPD to the proceeding.
The lawsuit seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Joseph Marshall Bober, Esq.
Samara Robbins Bober, Esq.
BOBER & BOBER, P.A.
1930 Tyler Street
Hollywood, FL 33020
Telephone: (954) 922-2298
Facsimile: (954) 922-5455
E-mail: peter@boberlaw.com
samara@boberlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
1645 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 200
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 383-9200
E-mail: noah.storch@csklegal.com
YUM! BRANDS: Briefing Compelete in Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the motion to dismiss in class actions against Yum!
Brands, Inc. is complete, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 6, 2014.
In early 2013, four putative class action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain executive officers alleging claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future
business and financial condition. The four complaints were
subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
On August 5, 2013, lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment
GmbH, filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Amended
Complaint") on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased the Company's stock between February 6, 2012 and
February 4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint no
longer includes allegations relating to misstatements regarding
the Company's business or financial condition and instead alleges
that, during the Class Period, defendants purportedly omitted
information about the Company's supply chain in China, thereby
inflating the prices at which the Company's securities traded.
On October 4, 2013, the Company and individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Briefing on the motion
to dismiss is complete. The Company denies liability and intends
to vigorously defend against all claims in the Amended Complaint.
A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range
of loss cannot be made at this time.
Yum! Brands, Inc. operates, franchises or licenses a worldwide
system of over 40,000 restaurants in more than 125 countries and
territories, primarily through the concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and
Taco Bell.
YUM! BRANDS: Plaintiffs Filed Motion for Interlocutory Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions filed a motion
for interlocutory appeal of the court's dismissal order, Yum!
Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 6, 2014.
Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Sec. 17200. Some plaintiffs also seek penalties
for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory
"waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's
Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
California state-wide class of hourly employees.
These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and
final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the
court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation
and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four
separate meal and rest break classes.
On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three of the proposed
classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal
break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative
class members, and the class notice and opportunity to opt out of
the litigation were mailed on January 21, 2014.
Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to
strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the
second amended complaint.
On August 29, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment. On that same date, the court granted
Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one of the California
Private Attorney General Act claims and ruled that the plaintiffs
were barred from seeking class certification for any of the nine
claims where class certification had been denied or no class
certification motion was filed.
On October 6, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for interlocutory
appeal of the court's dismissal order.
Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.
Yum! Brands, Inc. operates, franchises or licenses a worldwide
system of over 40,000 restaurants in more than 125 countries and
territories, primarily through the concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and
Taco Bell.
YUM! BRANDS: Hearing Held on Cross-Summary Judgment Motions
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the parties' cross-summary judgment motions is set
for October 22, 2014, in the class action styled Bernardina
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp., Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 14, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 6,
2014.
On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior
Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and
former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various
violations of California labor laws including failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay
all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200.
This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal
court and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged
violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private
Attorneys General Act. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the
action in light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case
was denied on October 30, 2013.
In April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of
plaintiff's legal theory as to her meal break claim before
conducting full discovery. A hearing on the parties' cross-summary
judgment motions is set for October 22, 2014.
Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.
Yum! Brands, Inc. operates, franchises or licenses a worldwide
system of over 40,000 restaurants in more than 125 countries and
territories, primarily through the concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and
Taco Bell.
YUM! BRANDS: Court Grants Final Okay to Settlement in Moeller Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
The court granted final approval of the settlement in the class
action lawsuit Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., Yum! Brands,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 14, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 6, 2014.
In December 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.
In August 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging,
among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated against the
class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by
failing to make its restaurants in California accessible to the
class. Plaintiffs contended that queue rails and other
architectural and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants
relating to the path of travel and use of the facilities by
persons with mobility-related disabilities did not comply with the
U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil
Rights Act (the "Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons
Act (the "CDPA"). Plaintiffs requested: (a) an injunction ordering
Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations;
(b) that the court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the
Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c) monetary relief under the Unruh
Act or CDPA. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, sought the
minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the
Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of
the class. Plaintiffs contended that there may have been more than
100,000 individuals in the class.
In February 2004, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. The class included claims for injunctive relief and
minimum statutory damages.
In May 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, which sought a judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. In
August 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating. In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.
In December 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for summary
judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiffs to select one
restaurant to be the subject of a trial. Following the trial, the
court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in October
2011 ruling that plaintiffs established that classwide injunctive
relief was warranted with regard to maintaining compliance as to
corporate Taco Bell restaurants in California. The court declined
to order injunctive relief at the time. The court also found that
twelve specific items at the exemplar store were once out of
compliance with applicable state and/or federal accessibility
standards.
Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class in August 2011,
and in July 2012, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
decertify the previously certified state law damages class but
denied Taco Bell's motion to decertify the ADA injunctive relief
class. In September 2012, the court set a discovery and briefing
schedule concerning the trials of the four individual plaintiffs'
state law damages claims, which the court stated would be tried
before holding further proceedings regarding the possible issuance
of an injunction. The court subsequently issued an order modifying
its October 2011 Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law deleting
the statement that an injunction was warranted. Plaintiffs
appealed that order, and on June 24, 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's appeal.
On January 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking issuance of
a classwide injunction, and Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss
both the individual and class ADA claims based on a lack of
jurisdiction.
On April 24, 2014, the parties agreed to settle this matter. On
June 4, 2014, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and on September 24, 2014, the court granted final
approval.
Yum! Brands, Inc. operates, franchises or licenses a worldwide
system of over 40,000 restaurants in more than 125 countries and
territories, primarily through the concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and
Taco Bell.
YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Smith" Case to Execute Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut,
Inc., intend to execute a settlement agreement and file a motion
with the court for settlement approval on or before November 3,
2014, Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 6, 2014.
In July 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza
Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado. The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut did not properly
reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile costs,
uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to
represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law. In January
2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a
nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery
drivers.
However, in March 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut's pending
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave to
amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, which
dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA
claims, asserted state-law class action claims under the laws of
sixteen different states. Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their
complaint a second time.
In August 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend.
Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. In July 2011, the court granted Pizza Hut's motion with
respect to plaintiffs' state law claims but allowed the FLSA
claims to go forward. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Conditional Certification in August 2011, and the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in April 2012. The opt-in period closed on
August 23, 2012, and 6,049 individuals opted in.
On February 28, 2014, Pizza Hut filed a motion to decertify the
collective action, along with a motion for partial summary
judgment seeking an order from the court that the FLSA does not
require Pizza Hut to reimburse certain fixed costs that delivery
drivers would have incurred regardless of their employment with
Pizza Hut.
On September 24, 2014, the parties entered into a Term Sheet
setting forth the terms upon which the parties had agreed to
settle this matter. The parties intend to execute a settlement
agreement and file a motion with the court for settlement approval
on or before November 3, 2014.
Pursuant to the parties' agreement, one issue, the mileage of an
average round trip, remains outstanding and will be submitted for
arbitration.
Yum! Brands, Inc. operates, franchises or licenses a worldwide
system of over 40,000 restaurants in more than 125 countries and
territories, primarily through the concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and
Taco Bell.
*********
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 202-362-8552.
* * * End of Transmission * * *