/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141029.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 29, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 215 Headlines AEROTEK INC: Accused of Discriminating Against Cuban Employee ALBION LABORATORIES: Sued Over Sale of Blended Form of Magnesium ALCOA INC: Petitions for Fees & Costs Dismissed AUTOLIV INC: Operating Margin Declined Due to Class Settlements ANGIE'S LIST: Indiana Court Approves Accord in "Fritzinger" ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Purported Securities Suit in Indiana Court APEX ASSET: Faces Suit Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations APRIA HEALTHCARE: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act AUDI AG: Recalls 850,000 A4 Sedans Over Software Glitch AUTOLIV INC: Oct. 30 Opt Out Deadline for Direct Purchasers AUTOLIV INC: Facing 4 Class Action Lawsuits in Canada AUTOLIV INC: Hearing on CLPT Settlement This Week BUMBLE BEE: Class Suit Alleging Tuna Misrepresentation Remanded CANADIAN HOCKEY: Faces Class Action Over Minimum Wage Law Breach CAPITAL COLLECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act CMS ENERGY: Arguments in Supreme Court Case Set for Early in 2015 CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Court Refused to Disqualify Gibson Dunn CRITTENDEN REGIONAL: Faces Second Class Action Following Collapse DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Hip Implant Suit DIRECTV INC: Fails to Pay All Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says DOMETIC CORP: Removes "Connell" Liability Suit to W.D. Arkansas DONALD TRUMP: Liable for Operating Unlicensed School, Court Rules E-Z RENT A CAR: "Legg" Suit Moved from California to Florida ELDREDGE LUMBER: Accused of Discriminating Against Iraq Veteran ELECTRONIC ARTS: Battlefield 4 'Puffery' Is Not Fraud, Judge Says ELNA CO: Faces "Quathimatine" Suit Over Capacitor Price Fixing FIRST AMERICAN: Class Cert. Granted in Lewis and Raffone Suits FIRST AMERICAN: Narrow Class Certified in "Edwards" Case FIRST AMERICAN: Class in "Gale" Case Was Decertified FIRST AMERICAN: Plaintiff in "Kirk" Case Files Appeal FORD MOTOR: Explorers Expose Passengers to Lethal CO, Suit Claims FRANKLIN FEDERAL: Faces Class Action Over Glen Allen Merger FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Internet Outages FUJI HIBACHI: Class Members are Entitled to OT Premium, Suit Says GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Bergman Files Ignition-Switch Class Action GENERAL MOTORS: 107 Putative Class Actions Over Recalled Vehicles GENERAL MOTORS: Provides Update on GM Korea Wage Litigation GENERAL MOTORS: Trial in GMCL Dealers' Case Ongoing GOLDMAN SACHS: Urges Court Not to Certify Gender-Bias Suit Class GT ADVANCED: Faces "Opperman" Class Suit Over 95% Stock Drop GT ADVANCED: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action HARMONY GOLD: South Africa Class Action Ongoing HARMONY GOLD: U.S. Class Action Has Concluded HARVEST MANAGEMENT: Former Executive Chef Files OT Class Action HERBALIFE LTD: Requests for More Time to Finalize Settlement KAYCAN LTD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA KODIAK OIL: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action LA MICHOACANA VARIETY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims LIMOUSINES OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Removes "Novoa" Suit to S.D. Florida LORILLARD INC: Unit a Defendant in 6,361 Product Liability Cases LORILLARD INC: No Ruling Yet on Unit's Motions in "Major" Case LORILLARD INC: No Cases Scheduled for Trial in Remainder of 2014 LORILLARD INC: Judge Wants 200 Cases Trial Ready by January 2015 LORILLARD INC: Florida Court Dismissed 3,567 Engle Progeny Cases LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 20 Engle Progeny Cases LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 121 Engle Progeny Trials LORILLARD INC: Unit a Defendant in 31 Personal Injury Cases LORILLARD INC: No Trial in Flight Attendant Cases as of Oct. 20 LORILLARD INC: Lorillard Tobacco A defendant in 61 Filter Cases LORILLARD INC: Plaintiffs File Reply Brief in Kansas Case LORILLARD INC: No Substantive Activity in Class Action Since 2001 LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Enters Settlement in FACTA Violation Suit LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Securities Suit in Virginia Court LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Lawsuit by RWA Over "Unsolicited" Ad LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Stock Suit by Retirement Trust in Va. MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Accrued $3.3 Million Liability in Settlement MIAMI-DADE CTY, FL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages MICROSOFT CORP: 3 Antitrust Cases Pending in Canada MICROSOFT CORP: Says Remaining Cost of Settlements at $300 Million MICROSOFT CORP: Interlocutory Appeal Okayed in US Cell Phone Suit MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Litigation Not Yet Active MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim MUSCLEPHARM CORP: "Bey" Suit Transferred From Nevada to Colorado NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Refuses to Junk Football Players Suit NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued by Student Athlete Over Improper Wages NATURE'S BOUNTY: Sued for Falsely Advertising Ginkgo Biloba Pills NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 260,000 Cars Over Defective Air Bags NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Faces Suit Over Fuel Surcharges in Col. ORACLE CORP: Accused of Entering Into Restricted Hiring Agreement PERDUE FARMS: False Advertising Class Action Dismissed PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT: Removes "Zeto" Class Suit to D. New Jersey REDBOX AUTOMATED: Ruling in Video Privacy Suit Affirmed RETROPHIN INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action RICHARD ADJMI: Family Chauffer Wants to Recover Unpaid Overtime RJM ACQUISITIONS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act SEI INVESTMENTS: Plaintiffs to Appeal Denial of Motion to Remand SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Excessive Use of Oil SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Sanders" Product Liability Suit in Alabama SYNGENTA AG: Class Actions Over Viptera Corn Seeds Pile Up TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: "Cook" Suit Consolidated in Securities MDL TV PRODUCTS: Chauffer Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages UNITED NATIONS: Haitians Seek Court OK to Send Cholera Complaint UNITIL CORP: Decision of Mass. Supreme Judicial Court Pending USG CORP: Reached Agreement in Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Suit WELLS FARGO: Gets Final OK of $14.7MM Settlement in "Dyer" Suit WEST BROM: Class Action Over Mortgage Rate Hike Can Proceed ZOOM MEDIA: Sued for Not Properly Paying Earned Commission Wages * Experts Address Issue on Electronic Health Records Cybersecurity ********* AEROTEK INC: Accused of Discriminating Against Cuban Employee ------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Pineda v. Aerotek Inc. d/b/a Aerotek Commercial Staffing, and Netmro, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-23923-RNS (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2014) is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, to redress injury done to the Plaintiff by the Defendants' alleged discriminatory treatment on the basis of his race, color and national origin (Cuba). The Plaintiff was employed by Aerotek and Netmro, and the parties had a contractual relationship with each other. Aerotek, Inc. is a Foreign for Profit U.S. corporation doing business in Dade County as Aerotek Commercial Staffing. Aerotek is a staffing agency that provides customized staffing services to different industries. Netmro, Inc. is a Florida based corporation authorized to conduct business in Florida. Netmro is a supplier of consumable products, chemicals, and associated materials to the aerospace, aircraft, industrial and marine markets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ALBION LABORATORIES: Sued Over Sale of Blended Form of Magnesium ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Holliday, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Albion Laboratories, Inc., Vitacost.Com, Inc., DrVita, Inc., and John Does 1 through 50, Case No. 9:14-cv-81294-DMM (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2014) is brought on behalf of individuals, who purchased indirectly from the Defendants a blended form of magnesium glycinate and magnesium oxide known as Magnesium Bisglycinate Chelate Buffered, in which magnesium oxide is not listed in the supplement facts panel on the label, in contravention of the law. Albion Laboratories, Inc. is a Utah corporation headquartered in Clearfield, Utah. Albion manufactures and supplies mineral amino acid chelate nutrition to industries worldwide. Vitacost.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Vitacost has marketed and sold nutrition supplements, including the Blended Product, worldwide. DrVita, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. DrVita operates, inter alia, through the trade name of DrVita.com. DrVita has marketed and sold nutrition supplements, including the Blended Product, worldwide. The Doe Defendants are companies whose names are presently unknown to the Plaintiff, but are believed to have marketed and sold nutrition supplements, including the Blended Product, worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott R. Shepherd, Esq. Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 E-mail: sshepherd@sfmslaw.com nzipperian@sfmslaw.com - and - Richard W. Meirowitz, Esq. 10 Muncy Avenue, Suite 606 West Babylon, NY 11704 Telephone: (917) 612-3409 E-mail: Meirowitz@aol.com - and - Kim E. Richman, Esq. REESE RICHMAN LLP 875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: krichman@reeserichman.com ALCOA INC: Petitions for Fees & Costs Dismissed ----------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a class action and Alcoa Inc. agreed to dismiss their respective petitions for fees and costs, and the case has been fully resolved, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. Plaintiffs alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated their rights to vested health care benefits. Plaintiffs additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their health benefits would never change. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys' fees. Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a class action. During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class, and bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims. Trial in the matter was held over eight days commencing September 22, 2009 and ending on October 1, 2009 in federal court in Knoxville, TN before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge. On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or amendment of the judgment order, which sought, among other things, a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to 2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs must pay. Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On June 11, 2012, the court issued its memorandum and order denying plaintiffs' motion for clarification and/or amendment to the original judgment order. On July 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's March 9, 2011 judgment. On July 12, 2012, the trial court stayed Alcoa's motion for assessment of costs pending resolution of plaintiffs' appeal. The appeal was docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as case number 12-5801. On August 29, 2012, the trial court dismissed plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees without prejudice to refiling the motion following the resolution of the appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 9, 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the trial court's denial of plaintiffs' claims for lifetime, uncapped retiree healthcare benefits. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing on May 22, 2013 to which Alcoa filed a response on June 7, 2013. On September 12, 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. The trial court is now considering Alcoa's request for an award of costs, which had been stayed pending resolution of the appeal, and the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees, which had been dismissed without prejudice to refiling following resolution of the appeal. On December 17, 2013 the United States Supreme Court docketed the plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as Charles Curtis, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioners v. Alcoa Inc., et al., Docket No.13-728. Alcoa's opposition to this petition was filed on January 16, 2014 and Petitioners filed their reply on January 29, 2014. On February 24, 2014, the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the matter ends the substantive litigation and affirms Alcoa's collectively bargained cap on the Company's contributions to union retiree medical costs. By order dated June 26, 2014, the trial court denied plaintiff's petition for award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Thereafter, the plaintiffs and Alcoa agreed to dismiss their respective petitions for fees and costs. The case has been fully resolved. AUTOLIV INC: Operating Margin Declined Due to Class Settlements --------------------------------------------------------------- Autoliv Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that operating income decreased by $53 million to $506 million and the operating margin by 1.4pp to 7.3%. This decline in the operating margin was mainly due to the settlements of antitrust related class actions in the United States. Research, Development and Engineering (R, D&E) net, was $33 million higher due to costs for growth and high engineering costs in active safety. Costs related to the capacity alignment program were $26 million and costs related to antitrust matters (including settlements of class actions) were $74 million compared to $8 million and $6 million respectively for the same period one year ago. The Company's net cash position (non-U.S. GAAP measure) decreased by $210 million during the quarter to $86 million at September 30, 2014. This was mainly due to the Company's repurchase of its common shares amounting to $239 million and a quarterly dividend payment that reduced net cash by $49 million. Gross interest- bearing debt decreased by $4 million to $1,771 million. Autoliv's net cash (non-U.S. GAAP measure, see reconciliation table above) position decreased by $425 million during the first nine months 2014, to $86 million due to the common share repurchases of $430 million, dividends totaling $147 million and the payment of $70 million for the settlement of antitrust related class actions in the U.S. The decrease was partly offset by strong cash flow particularly in the first and third quarter. ANGIE'S LIST: Indiana Court Approves Accord in "Fritzinger" ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana approved the settlement reached in the suit Fritzinger v. Angie's List, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On August 14, 2012, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the "Court"). The lawsuit alleges claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging that the Company automatically renews membership fees at a higher rate than customers are led to believe, breaching their membership agreements. On September 22, 2014, the Court issued an Order approving the parties' proposed settlement terms. Under the settlement terms, total cash payments to the class will be $107. Additionally, 734,299 class members will receive a one month Angie's List membership, and 353,130 class members will receive a five dollar e-commerce voucher. The Company estimates that attorney's fees and litigation fees will amount to $875. The Company recorded a $4,000 legal accrual related to the settlement at December 31, 2013. Based on the terms of the proposed settlement approved by the Court during the quarter, the Company revised its estimate of liability and reduced the legal accrual recorded to $3,550 at September 30, 2014. ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Purported Securities Suit in Indiana Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. is facing a consolidated lawsuit alleging breach of the Securities Act in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On December 23, 2013, the first of two putative securities class action complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, naming the Company and various of its current and former directors and officers as defendants. The first complaint is styled as Baron v. Angie's List, Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-2032. On January 9, 2014, the second putative securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The second complaint is styled as Bartolone v. Angie's List, Inc., et al. Both complaints allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making material misstatements in and omitting material information from the Company's public disclosures concerning the Company's business prospects. On June 16, 2014, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed United Food & Commercial Workers Local 464A Pension Fund as lead plaintiff ("Local 464A"). On August 29, 2014, Local 464A filed its consolidated Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges that Angie's List made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding its paid membership model ("PPM"). The defendants' responsive pleading was due on October 28, 2014. APEX ASSET: Faces Suit Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Moeller, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Apex Asset Management, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-06496-JAP-DEA (D.N.J., October 21, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com APRIA HEALTHCARE: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Escobar, individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Apria Healthcare Group Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Apria Healthcare, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-01699-JLS-AN (C.D. Cal., October 22, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Max Benowitz, Esq. LOUIS MAX BENOWITZ LAW OFFICES 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: louis@benowitzlaw.com - and - David Pourati, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID POURATI APC 1801 Century Park East, Suite 1830 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-2888 Facsimile: (310) 553-2888 E-mail: David@Pourati.com AUDI AG: Recalls 850,000 A4 Sedans Over Software Glitch ------------------------------------------------------- Eric Pfanner, William Boston and Megumi Fujikawa, writing for The Wall Street Journal, report that the spotlight on vehicle quality intensified on Oct. 23 with two global auto makers taking measures to address passenger safety. Audi AG, the luxury brand of Volkswagen AG, recalled 850,000 Audi A4 sedans because of a software glitch that can prevent air-bag deployment. Audi officials said the problem isn't associated with the high- profile Takata Corp. air-bag defects that affect at least 12 million vehicles globally. Audi didn't identify its air-bag supplier. A software update for the problem takes "a matter of three minutes," Audi said. It is investigating accidents that might be related to the problem. Audi's action is the latest in an industry burdened by recalls. There have been tens of millions of vehicle recalls issued this year, costing auto makers billions of dollars and denting the reputations of executives and the companies they run. Separately, Honda Motor Co. on Oct. 23 said top executives would take pay cuts over the next 90 days, and the company created a new post to oversee safety changes. The company cited recalls in Japan involving motor and engine problems, and it said the pay cuts aren't related to defective Takata air bags that the company is currently working to replace in cars more than a decade old. Honda President Takanobu Ito will have his pay reduced by 20% for three months. "We deeply apologize again for having caused a great deal of trouble for our customers," Honda said. On Oct. 23, it recalled 425,825 Honda Fit and other vehicles in Japan because a problem with the ignition coil or power-supply circuit could cause the engine to stop. Pay cuts are a traditional way for Japanese executives to take responsibility or signal concern for poor performance or other lapses. Honda said the new safety executive, Koichi Fukuo, would take steps to prevent quality issues from recurring and "lead Honda's companywide reform of the quality assurance structure." The appointment, which follows the creation of a similar role at Nissan Motor Co. earlier this year, shows the increasing concern among Japanese auto makers after Toyota's $1.2 billion settlement this year of a criminal investigation into how it dealt with unintended acceleration cases, and a widening U.S. investigation into General Motors Co.'s handling of a problem with ignition switches. Takata faces congressional scrutiny, and The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office is investigating Takata's past statements to regulators about the safety of its air bags. Honda has been most exposed to the defective Takata air bags made between 2000 and 2007 that are the source of nearly eight million recalls involving 10 auto makers. A part owner in Takata, a Japanese auto supplier, Honda has recalled more than six million cars in connection with defective air bags that can explode with too much force. Nissan said on Oct. 23 it is calling back an additional 260,000 vehicles in Japan, Europe and China over air-bag concerns, even though there have been no reports of injuries. The financial toll continues to grow. GM, having issued 75 recalls this year, said on Oct. 23 that it spent an additional $700 million on repair costs in the third quarter. Takata is taking a hit as its biggest rival, Sweden's Autoliv Inc., said on Oct. 23 that it has been taking business from Takata over the past three months. Takata's share price, which fell 23% Tuesday, resumed its slide on Thursday, falling another 6.2% after remaining unchanged on Wednesday. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amplified its concern about Takata's air bags last week, urging U.S. car owners in regions of hot and humid climates to go to a dealer and replace front air bags immediately. If replacement parts are unavailable, then affected buyers are encouraged to avoid sitting in the front passenger seat and have front air bags deactivated. NHTSA, already under fire for how it responded to the widespread and deadly ignition-switch defect in GM vehicles, apologized for how it has handled some of its recent communication with U.S. consumers. On Oct. 22, NHTSA apologized for problems with its recall website, which crashed on Oct. 21, and for providing inaccurate data on which models are affected by the Takata air-bag recalls. "We greatly regret that the information provided in our initial safety advisory was inaccurate and that we have experienced signification problems with our web site," the regulatory agency said in a statement. NHTSA blamed the website problems on what it described as a "software change that affects how the system interacts with the Internet" and ruled out any traffic overload or hacking. The U.S. agency didn't explain why the first advisory released on Monday containing a list of models affected by the Takata recalls was inaccurate and undersized. It only offered that the list didn't include the "full universe of affected vehicles." The list now contains 7.8 million vehicles, five million of which are Hondas. AUTOLIV INC: Oct. 30 Opt Out Deadline for Direct Purchasers ----------------------------------------------------------- The deadline to opt out of the U.S. class action settlement for direct purchasers is October 30, 2014, Autoliv Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti- competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. Plaintiffs in these civil antitrust class actions generally allege that the defendant suppliers of occupant safety systems have engaged in long-running global conspiracies to fix the prices of occupant safety systems or components thereof in violation of various antitrust laws and unfair or deceptive trade practice statutes. Plaintiffs in these civil antitrust class actions make allegations that extend significantly beyond the specific admissions of the Company's Department of Justice plea. The Company denies these overly broad allegations. Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases seek to represent purported classes of direct purchasers, auto dealers and end-payors (i.e. consumers) who purchased occupant safety systems or components either directly from a defendant or indirectly through purchases or leases of new vehicles containing such systems. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs in the Canadian cases seek to represent purported classes encompassing direct and indirect purchasers of such products and seek similar relief under applicable Canadian laws. Specifically, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors are defendants in a total of eighteen purported antitrust class action lawsuits filed between July 2012 and October 2013. Fourteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and have been consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi- District Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On May 30, 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives of each of the three classes of plaintiffs in the MDL. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay $40 million to the direct purchaser settlement class, $6 million to the auto dealer settlement class, and $19 million to the end-payor settlement class, for a total of $65 million. This amount was expensed during the second quarter of 2014. In exchange, the plaintiffs agreed that the plaintiffs and the settlement classes would release Autoliv from all claims and demands that were or could have been asserted in the MDL. The direct purchaser settlement is subject to potential downward adjustments to a floor of $24 million based on the volume of Autoliv's sales represented by direct purchasers who may elect to opt out from the direct purchaser settlement class. Each settlement can be voided if opt- outs exceed certain thresholds. On July 1, 2014, the settlements received preliminary court approval. Each settlement remains subject to final approval by the MDL Court following notice to the settlement class, an opportunity for settlement class members to object or opt out, and a fairness hearing. The deadline to opt out of the class settlement for the direct purchasers is October 30, 2014. It is currently anticipated that the fairness hearing for the direct purchaser class settlement will occur in December 2014, and that notices to the settlement classes and the fairness hearings for the other two class settlements will be deferred by the plaintiffs and the MDL Court for processing with additional, future settlements due to the cost of giving notice to large settlement classes. These settlements, if approved, will not resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt out of the settlements or the claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities. AUTOLIV INC: Facing 4 Class Action Lawsuits in Canada ----------------------------------------------------- Autoliv Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that four lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 18, 2013; M. Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et al., filed in the Queen's Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina in the province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The Canadian cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of both direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems. The Company denies the overly broad allegations of these lawsuits and intends to defend itself in these cases. While it is probable that the Company will incur losses as a result of these Canadian antitrust cases, the duration or ultimate outcome of these cases currently cannot be predicted or estimated and no provision for a loss has been recorded as of September 30, 2014. There is currently no timeline for class certification or discovery in the Canadian cases. AUTOLIV INC: Hearing on CLPT Settlement This Week ------------------------------------------------- A hearing is scheduled for the end of October 2014 to approve the settlement in the class action by the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis, Autoliv Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On April 17, 2013, the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis ("CLPT") filed a purported class action securities lawsuit against Autoliv and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action File No. 13-CIV-2546) (the "Lawsuit"), and later added as a third individual defendant an employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The amended complaint alleged, among other claims, misrepresentations or failures to disclose material facts that artificially inflated the Company's stock price in violation of the federal securities laws, in particular Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. CLPT purports to bring the Lawsuit on behalf of a class of purchasers of common stock of the Company between October 26, 2010 and July 21, 2011. CLPT seeks to recover damages in an unspecified amount. On June 27, 2014, the Company announced that it entered into a memorandum of understanding with CLPT reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the Lawsuit and the claims of the alleged class for a payment of $22.5 million. The parties subsequently entered into a definitive settlement agreement. The agreement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by the Company or any of the individuals named in the complaint. The defendants are settling to eliminate the uncertainties, risk, distraction and expense associated with protracted litigation. The agreement is subject to final approval by the court. A hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for the end of October 2014. If approved, the settlement will resolve the claims asserted in the Lawsuit against the Company and the individuals named in the complaint, including the claims of the settlement class members who do not opt out of the settlement. Autoliv has recorded a net expense of approximately $4.5 million in its results for the second quarter of 2014. The balance of the settlement amount will be paid by Autoliv's insurance carrier. BUMBLE BEE: Class Suit Alleging Tuna Misrepresentation Remanded --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge refused to dismiss a class action accusing Bumble Bee Foods of misrepresenting tuna and related products as "rich in natural Omega-3," but remanded the lawsuit to Superior Court. Lead plaintiff Tricia Ogden sued San Diego-based Bumble Bee in 2012. She claimed the company's seafood products, labeled "rich in natural Omega-3" or "excellent source Omega-3," were misbranded. Bumble Bee sells canned and pouched tuna, salmon, shrimp, crabs, clams, oysters, sardines, mackerel, and chicken. Several of the products sported a logo or seal with the allegedly bogus claims, Ogden said, which conveyed to consumers "the net impression that a food makes only positive contributions to a diet, or does not contain any nutrients at levels that raise the risk of a diet-related disease or health-related condition." Companies that sold similar products with unauthorized Omega-3 claims were found to be in violation of labeling law by the Food and Drug Administration, Ogden said. Bumble Bee specifically, she added, made food label claims that were prohibited by federal and California law. Ogden sought class certification in May 2013, and Bumble Bee moved for summary judgment in August 2013. In January, the San Jose Federal Court granted in part and denied in part Bumble Bee's motion. The court granted summary judgment on Ogden's claims for damages, finding that she failed to provide sufficient evidence that she was entitled to restitution under the Unfair Competition Law, Fair Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, or disgorgement under the unfair competition and fair advertising laws. The court also granted summary judgment on Ogden's sole federal claim, holding that it "fail[ed] as a matter of law." But the court ruled that Ogden was entitled to pursue injunctive relief. Ogden subsequently withdrew her motion for class certification, and both parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice earlier this year. In April, six weeks after the litigation had ended, three plaintiffs filed the instant class action lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The putative class was limited to California consumers. Bumble Bee sought to remove the case to Federal Court in June. Bumble Bee filed a motion to dismiss or stay the case the same month, which the plaintiffs opposed in August. U.S. District Judge Lucy on Oct. 16 granted the plaintiff class's motion to remand the case to Santa Clara County and denied as moot Bumble Bee's motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit. Koh said Bumble Bee failed to show that the Federal Court had subject matter jurisdiction. "Plaintiffs argue in their motion to remand that removal was improper because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over their lawsuit," Koh wrote. "According to plaintiffs, they have 'pleaded no claims under federal law, and plaintiffs' proposed class consists of California residents only.'" Koh cited the ruling in Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, (1986), in which the U.S. Supreme Court found no federal question jurisdiction in a lawsuit over the drug Bendectin, which allegedly caused birth defects. "Bumble Bee offers no reason why the issue of FDCA misbranding is more 'substantial' here than it was in Merrell Dow," Koh wrote. "Not only are the federal issues insufficiently substantial under Merrell Dow, but exercising jurisdiction over this California class action would circumvent the FDCA's [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act] lack of a private cause of action. Although the court recognizes that it has already evaluated some of the substantive state law issues involved in this case, the court did so only because it had jurisdiction under CAFA [Class Action Fairness Act]." The 9-page ruling adds: "With no federal statutory hook to maintain jurisdiction here, the court finds that the 'congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities' tips in favor of remanding." Koh also denied plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees or costs, citing 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). "'(A)n order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal,'" Koh wrote. "The Supreme Court has explained that 'courts may award attorney's fees under Section 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.'" Bumble Bee, Koh said, "had an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal." The case is Patrick Garrett v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Case No. 5:12-CV-02546-LHK, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. CANADIAN HOCKEY: Faces Class Action Over Minimum Wage Law Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Cribb, writing for Toronto Star, reports that an unprecedented class action lawsuit striking at the economic foundations of junior hockey in Canada alleges the Canadian Hockey League and its teams "conspired" to force young players into signing contracts that breach minimum wage laws. A statement of claim filed in a Toronto court on Oct. 17 and obtained by the Star, seeks $180 million in outstanding wages, vacation, holiday and overtime pay and employer payroll contributions for thousands of young players given as little as $35 a week for practices, games, training and travelling that could add up to more than full-time hours. The league and its teams "conspired and agreed together . . . to act in concert to demand or require that all players sign a contract which the defendants knew was unlawful," the claim alleges. "Such conduct was high-handed, outrageous, reckless, wanton, deliberate, callous, disgraceful, wilful and in complete disregard for the rights of the (players)." The allegations have not been proved in court. David Branch, president of the CHL, said on Oct. 19 that he hadn't yet seen a copy of the lawsuit but said the league "will vigorously defend the way our teams operate." "Our position is our players are amateur student athletes and we provide the best playing experience to our 1,300 players. . . It's important that we defend this because it could have a huge impact on all amateur sport in this country." CAPITAL COLLECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Vasyliy Krylyuk, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital Collection Service, Inc. d/b/a Capital Collection Service and Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-05969-RB (E.D. Pa., October 21, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tiffany Wirth, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Capital Management Services, LP and Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-05968-LFR (E.D. Pa., October 21, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tiffany Wirth, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC and Does 1 Through 10 Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-05966-LFR (E.D. Pa., October 21, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com CMS ENERGY: Arguments in Supreme Court Case Set for Early in 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CMS Energy Corporation and Consumers Energy Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, have been named as defendants in five class action lawsuits arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report trade information. Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs are making claims for the following: full consideration damages, treble damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorney fees. After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court based on FERC preemption. Plaintiffs filed appeals in all of the cases. The issues on appeal were whether the district court erred in dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a federal Sherman Act antitrust claim. The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases, but other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants. In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court decision and remanded the case to the district court judge for further proceedings. The appellate court found that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims. In August 2013, the joint defense group in these cases, of which CMS Energy defendants are members, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In July 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear this case. Arguments are expected to occur early in 2015 with an opinion expected in the first half of 2015. These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of liability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would be based on widely varying models previously untested in this context. If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases could have a material adverse impact on CMS Energy's liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations. CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Court Refused to Disqualify Gibson Dunn ------------------------------------------------------------ Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge considering conflict-of-interest claims against Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher sided on October 16, 2014, with the powerful law firm. Though she said Gibson Dunn "engaged in troubling conduct" in HLP Properties LLC v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield found no need to disqualify its lawyers from the case. The finding comes in a lawsuit by Manhattan developer HLP Properties to make Con Edison's subsidiary pay $24 million for the cleanup of a site once known as the West 18th Street Gas Works. Between 1834 and the early 1900s, Con Edison dumped large amounts of coal tar and other pollutants in the soil and groundwater in its operations there, the lawsuit alleges. The West Chelsea neighborhood is currently experiencing a real estate boom after the city transformed once-abandoned, elevated train tracks into the vibrant High Line Park. HLP Properties says that it has spent at least $3.6 million so far in government-mandated remediation, and it expects to spend $24 million more. Gibson Dunn's Randy Mastro filed the suit for HLP a day after spearheading an action in New York to rescue Chevron from a $9.5 billion judgment in Ecuador over oil contamination. Mastro's claims of a "shakedown" in the Amazon persuaded a federal judge here to rule this past March that the Ecuadorean verdict had been "procured by corrupt means." Con Edison meanwhile sought to evade Mastro's attempt to have it foot HLP's bill by pointing out that another Gibson Dunn partner, Washington-based John Olson, signed an engagement letter with Con Edison's parent company in 2003. HLP retained Gibson Dunn in 1999. Though Schofield found that Gibson Dunn lawyers had met with Con Edison representatives about the environmental dispute "on at least four occasions" between those years, Con Edison's subsidiary did not cry foul about the alleged conflict until 2014. Schofield found "no indication of an actual or apparent conflict in loyalties," but said Gibson Dunn should have sought waivers from both parties to guard against the potential for one. The judge also suggested that Con Edison's lawyers may have drummed up controversy for "tactical" reasons. To avoid leaving HLP without its longtime legal team, Schofield refused to disqualify Gibson Dunn. "Were it not for this consideration, the outcome of this motion might well have been different," her opinion states. Mastro applauded the decision. "We're gratified by the court's decision denying this belated motion to disqualify our firm from continuing to represent a client we've been representing for the past 15 years adverse to a Con Edison subsidiary when, only years later, Con Edison then retained our firm to represent its parent board on unrelated matters, knowing of our firm's adversity to its subsidiary," Mastro said in an email. "This motion was brought for transparent tactical reasons, it failed, and now, we look forward to litigating this case to resolution and holding this Con Edison subsidiary responsible for the costs of remediating this site." Gibson Dunn is still awaiting judgment from the 2nd Circuit regarding a defense in yet another case that could pose trouble for its Ecuadorean litigation. In this third case, the firm represents one of the entities accused in a class action of "sewer service." The practice involves buying debt on the cheap, failing to serve a complaint on the debtor and then filing a false affidavit claiming that the notice has been served. At a hearing this past February, Gibson Dunn attorney Miguel Estrada told the 2nd Circuit that federal anti-racketeering law does not allow the class led by Monique Sykes to sue for injunctive relief. Lawyers for the Ecuadoreans have claimed that success for this argument in the 2nd Circuit could void the legal basis for Chevron's RICO victory against them. Chevron meanwhile denounced the controversy as a "stunt" by the Ecuadoreans and denied any concern with its lawyers. While Chevron did not deny that the Gibson Dunn strategy in Sykes completely contradicted its own, the oil giant predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court would ultimately decide the legal controversy. No court date has been set for Chevron's showdown with the Ecuadoreans in the 2nd Circuit. The case is HLP Properties, LLC, et al. v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01383-LGS, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. CRITTENDEN REGIONAL: Faces Second Class Action Following Collapse ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that the ultimately fatal financial troubles at Crittenden Regional Hospital in West Memphis might have started three years ago, according to a federal lawsuit filed last month against the hospital's former directors. The lawsuit was filed by former employee Rhonda Michelle Goodfellow, who is seeking class-action certification for her case. She accused the hospital and its directors of using employees' money that was earmarked for the hospital's self- insured health benefit plan as operating revenue for the hospital, possibly as far back as 2011. She is the second employee to sue over the allegations that the hospital took the employees' health insurance premium money. Both lawsuits are seeking class-action status and are pending. The cases might be merged together. "We do not know exactly when the diversion of funds commenced" because discovery hasn't started, one of Ms. Goodfellow's attorneys, Tim Edwards of Memphis, told Arkansas Business. "We know there had been problems with payment of claims for several years back, so we assume that's when the diversion of employee funds that were deducted from paychecks" started. The hospital's failure to forward the money to the third-party administrator resulted in the employees being responsible for paying medical bills that they assumed were covered by insurance, Ms. Goodfellow's lawsuit said. The law firm for the hospital and its officers and directors said in a statement that there wasn't a deliberate attempt to damage the hospital's finances. "The evidence we have seen contradicts the allegation that contributions collected from employees for the Health Plan were used for anything unrelated to the Health Plan and employee health benefits," Mark Peters -- mark.peters@wallerlaw.com -- of Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, of Nashville, Tennessee, said in a statement. "Employee contributions typically accounted for less than a quarter of the claims annually incurred under the Health Plan. The Hospital made additional contributions to the Health Plan." Ms. Goodfellow's 41-page complaint also shines a little more light on the collapse of the nonprofit hospital, which was operated by Crittenden Hospital Association. CHA filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection last month and listed $33.3 million in debts and $27.75 million in assets. Ms. Goodfellow's lawsuit alleged that the hospital's directors knew that "without additional capital CHA would ultimately fail. Therefore, in an effort to financially prop up CHA, the Officer and Director Defendants decided that CHA could save money if CHA simply 'took a pass' on making the necessary and required contributions to the Plan." Through the alleged scheme, the hospital deducted an average of about $200 a month from employees' wages, supposedly to pay for health insurance. By not paying the third-party administrator, the hospital kept about $100,000 per month and more than $4 million between 2011 and September 2014, the lawsuit said. "We can only assume that it was being used for operating capital," Mr. Edwards said. "We don't have any evidence that it was used for anything other than keeping the doors of the hospital open." Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is Cigna Health & Life Insurance Co., of Bloomfield, Connecticut, which was the third- party administrator of the hospital's self-insured plan. When hospital employees would quiz Cigna as to why their claims weren't being paid, "Cigna would respond that [the employees] were fully covered and they were under health insurance," Mr. Edwards said. In September, though, employees learned that they haven't had any coverage since May, he said. "It was quite a shock to them," Mr. Edwards said. Ms. Goodfellow has received medical bills totaling $9,500 that she thought she had coverage for, the lawsuit said. Peters said that hospital officials had asked providers not to pursue payment from the hospital's employees. So far, at least three providers have agreed not to pursue payment from the employees. The U.S. Department of Labor is looking into the health insurance issue, according to an affidavit filed last month in the bankruptcy case by the hospital's former CEO, Gene Cashman. Cigna, Mr. Cashman wrote, claimed it was owed $32,000 for administrative fees and would not handle claims for the Crittenden Regional employees until it was paid. Mr. Cashman said the $32,000 was sent, but Cigna then said more was owed for stop-loss premiums. The hospital didn't have the money to pay that, so Cigna canceled its contract, he said. "The true amount owed on health insurance claims is still unknown," Mr. Cashman wrote. Crittenden County Judge Woody Wheeless said last week he's still trying to find a buyer for the hospital. DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Hip Implant Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a jury issued a favorable verdict for defendants Depuy Orthopedics, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, after an almost two-month-long trial in the first bellwether case in the hip replacement device multidistrict litigation in Dallas federal court. Michael Powell -- mpowell@lockelord.com -- a partner in the Dallas office of Locke Lord, represents DePuy and Johnson & Johnson. Mr. Powell served as lead for Locke Lord on this case. He did not immediately return a call seeking a comment. "We are pleased with the jury's decision, which reflects the facts of this case," Mindy Tinsley, a company spokeswoman, said in a press release. "The evidence showed that ULTAMET Metal-on-Metal was designed to meet the needs of patients and is backed by clinical data showing a track record of safety and effectiveness in reducing pain and restoring mobility for patients suffering from chronic hip pain." The statement noted that "[t]he company expects additional cases to be tried in the coming months and remains committed to the long-term and vigorous defense of the allegations in these lawsuits." Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm in Houston, who represents the plaintiff in the case along with Wayne Fisher of Fisher, Boyd, Johnson & Huguenard, also in Houston, emailed his conclusion about the trial outcome: "A tough first battle in a long war. We look forward to pressing on with some more ammunition," he wrote. This first bellwether case was scheduled to help set a pattern for future trials in the MDL, which includes more than 4,000 complaints related to the hip replacement system filed against its manufacturers. In the bellwether case, Herlihy-Paoli v. DePuy Orthopaedics, the plaintiff, Kathleen Herlihy-Paoli, filed a complaint in July 2012 alleging that "defendants have known, or should have known, that the Pinnacle device was not safe or durable and presented a considerable risk of injury to those implanted with it." In her complaint, the plaintiff also alleged that "defendants knew, or should have known, of reports that metal-on-metal implants, such as the Pinnacle, generated unusually high amounts of metal debris over time due to unusual, premature or increased wear and tear. This debris can spread throughout the surrounding bone and tissue and cause serious complications and damage." DIRECTV INC: Fails to Pay All Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zaid Al Azawi, Ernesto Alanis, Jr., Forrest Alford, Jon Allen, Reynaldo Arreaga, Ronald Chase, Christian Colon, Gregory Dooley, Cody Edge, Richard Elliott, Juan Garcia, Robert Gardner, Garnett Gerlt, Paul Granger, Jonathan Guajardo, Chimya Johnson, Dana Johnson, Man Leung, Weldon Nix, Cesar Posadas, Gustavo Rodriguez, Edward Rodriguez, Alejandro Sosadelgado, John Spence, Andrew Umbaugh, Joseph Waldrop, Bill Arellano, Jimmy Baines, Roger Goras, Kenneth Haynes, Tony Mallard, Xavier McCook, Joby Vega, and Marvin Edwards v. DirecTV, Inc., DirecTV, LLC, MasTec North America, Inc., and Multiband Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-02962 (S.D. Tex., October 17, 2014) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay all minimum wage and overtime wages due to the Plaintiffs, failing to properly calculate the Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay for determining the overtime premium pay owed, and improperly deducting money from the Plaintiffs' pay. DIRECTV, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in El Segundo, California. DIRECTV is the largest provider of satellite television services in the United States. MasTec North America, Inc. is a Florida corporation headquartered in Coral Gables, Florida. Multiband Corp. is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in New Hope, Minnesota. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. Couhig, Jr. Jonathan P. Lemann COUHIG PARTNERS, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3250 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 588-1288 Facsimile: (504) 588-9750 E-mail: couhigre@couhigpartners.com lemannjp@couhigpartners.com - and - Jesse B. Hearin, III, Esq. HEARIN, LLC 1009 Carnation Street, Suite E Slidell, LA 70460 Telephone: (985) 639-3377 Facsimile: (877) 821-8015 E-mail: jbhearin@hearinllc.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan D. O'Dell, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP CA Bar No. 290802 500 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5826 Facsimile: (619) 400-5832 E-mail: odell@stuevesiegel.com DOMETIC CORP: Removes "Connell" Liability Suit to W.D. Arkansas --------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled Connell, et al. v. Dometic Corporation, Case No. 29CV-14-117-1, was removed from the Hempstead County Circuit Court to the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Texarkana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-04136-PKH to the proceeding. The lawsuit concerns a fire to a camper trailer, which was owned by the Plaintiffs and located in Hempstead County, Arkansas, at the time of the fire. The Connells allege that the cooling unit installed in the Dometic refrigerator was defectively designed or constructed in a defective and improper manner so that it caused the fire made subject of the Complaint. Dometic Corporation is a Kentucky for profit corporation doing business worldwide supplying certain appliances to the RV and Marine industries. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard N. Watts, Esq. WATTS, DONOVAN & TILLEY, P.A. 200 S. Commerce St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1406 Facsimile: (501) 372-1209 E-mail: richard.watts@wdt-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Kyle Ray Wilson, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 371-0808 Facsimile: (501) 376-9442 E-mail: kwilson@wlj.com DONALD TRUMP: Liable for Operating Unlicensed School, Court Rules ----------------------------------------------------------------- In a rough court week for Donald Trump, one court found the property magnate personally liable for operating an investment school without a license, just as one of his former models brought a labor class action, reports Molly Willms at Courthouse News Service. The October 15 decision comes in a case New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman brought against Trump last year for fraud, claiming Trump Entrepreneur Initiative -- formerly Trump University -- had cheated students out of $40 million. Beginning in 2004, Trump operated the school with entrepreneur Michael Sexton. Students who signed up for a free seminar were encouraged to sign up for another seminar on real estate investment strategies, but this one cost $1,500, the decision by the New York County Supreme Court states. The court found that Trump's school also encouraged students to participate in "Trump Elite Programs" that cost upwards of $20,000 and involved a year of one-on-one mentoring. Schneiderman said Trump lied about having handpicked the school's instructors. Further, promises the students would receive extensive support were not fulfilled, and the Elite programs provided little or no additional assistance, according to the complaint. Even a special appearance by Trump himself turned out to be a sham, the lawsuit states, noting that students had their picture taken with a life-size photograph of "The Apprentice" star. New York previously wrote Trump University to cease operation without an education license, the decision states. This led the school to remove the word "university" from its name but continue operating as usual, the court found. Though Justice Cynthia Kern found that the statute of limitations had elapsed on some of the attorney general's requests, she held Trump Entrepreneur Initiative liable for operating without a license. Trump and Sexton, who served as the school's president, knew that the school's continued operation was against the law, the decision states. The court also dismissed a counterclaim by the Trump defendants for malicious prosecution. A determination of damages will follow further proceedings on the state's remaining claims. Just as the state court was issuing its decision, a model filed a federal class action in Manhattan against Trump Model Management, claiming she was paid just $3,880 for 21 modeling jobs over three years, despite being promised $225,000. Alexia Palmer says she was charged so much for expenses that she took home less than 2 percent of her base salary of $75,000 yearly. "The lure of a higher wage of $75,000, well above the legally required prevailing wage of $45,490 per year, was done merely to get models to agree to work for the defendants while the defendants would later 'offset' such outlandish wage offer [sic] by directly withholding money from the plaintiff for obscure expenses," the complaint states. Palmer was allegedly sent to a dermatologist, asked to take walking lessons, forced to travel in expensive limousines and "constantly supplied with numerous unnecessary makeup kits," the complaint states. Trump made her foot the bill each time, she claims. Trump Model Management then lied on Palmer's H1-B visa applications and Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers, stating it was paying her the agreed-upon amount, the complaint states. Palmer hopes to represent a class seeking damages and an injunction for fraud and violations of federal anti-racketeering law and federal labor law. Palmer is represented by: Naresh Gehi, Esq. GEHI & ASSOCIATES 118-21 Queens Blvd., Suite 409, Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-5999 The first case is The People of the State of New York, by Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York v. The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC f/k/a Trump University LLC, et al., Case No. 451463/13, in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York. E-Z RENT A CAR: "Legg" Suit Moved from California to Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Legg v. E-Z Rent A Car, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01124, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-01716-PGB-DAB to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kira M. Rubel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KIRA RUBEL 555 West Beech Street, Suite 230 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (800) 836-6531 E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com - and - Scott David Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 664 E Hallandale Beach Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephen R. Smerek, Esq. WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Telephone: (213) 615-1735 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 E-mail: ssmerek@winston.com ELDREDGE LUMBER: Accused of Discriminating Against Iraq Veteran --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Hart, an Individual residing in the Town of Sanford, County of York, and State of Maine v. Eldredge Lumber & Hardware, Inc., a Maine Corporation doing business in the Town of York, County of York, and State of Maine, Case No. 2:14-cv-00420-JDL (D. Me., October 21, 2014) challenges the Defendant's alleged unlawful: (1) discrimination against the Plaintiff on the basis of his disability in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act; (2) retaliation against the Plaintiff for requesting a reasonable accommodation for his disability in violation of the MHRA, the ADA and USERRA; and (3) refusal to retain or reinstate the Plaintiff to his position as a result of his past military service and service-related disabilities, in violation of USERRA. Mr. Hart was employed by Eldredge as a commercial driver from May 2013 until his termination on October 23, 2013. Upon being hired by Eldredge, he said he disclosed that he was a disabled veteran of the Iraq War. Eldredge Lumber & Hardware, Inc. is a Maine Corporation doing business in Maine and operating in the Town of York, County of York, and state of Maine. Eldredge is a lumber and hardware company in York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura H. White, Esq. William J. Gallitto, Esq. BERGEN & PARKINSON, LLC 62 Portland Rd., Suite 25 Kennebunk, ME 04043 Telephone: (207) 985-7000 E-mail: lwhite@bergenparkinson.com wgallitto@bergenparldnson.com ELECTRONIC ARTS: Battlefield 4 'Puffery' Is Not Fraud, Judge Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Arts stockholders cannot claim securities fraud over the game developer's corporate "puffery" in extolling the virtues of its troubled "Battlefield 4" game, reports Julie Baker-Dennis at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling entered on October 20, 2014. Lead plaintiffs Ryan Kelly and Louis Mastro filed a class action suit last year against Electronics Arts and its officers and executives, for making false assurances to investors about the readiness of its action game "Battlefield 4." They represent anyone who purchased Electronic Arts common stock between May 8, 2013 and Dec. 5, 2013. While Electronic Arts has a history of developing successful video games for existing and next-generation gaming consoles -- with "Battlefield 3" generating more than 10 percent of the company's total revenue in 2012 -- investors and gamers alike also knew of the company's history of botched game launches and failed attempts to transition its games to different consoles. Investors and gamers tuned in to video game conferences where "BF4" garnered positive prelaunch reviews at live demonstrations. At the Electronic Entertainment Expo in 2013, EA's demonstration on Microsoft's Xbox One went on to nab 21 awards -- leading to a huge jump in preorders for the game. Despite challenges in development, the atmosphere at EA remained positive. "BF4" executive producer Patrick Bach also denied a possible release delay by stating "Luckily we've overcome those hurdles" in a prelaunch interview. But customer complaints immediately followed Electronic Arts' three-string rollout, beginning with the release of the game for existing consoles on Oct. 29, 2013. Common complaints included that the game would not start or gave crash error messages, and that it froze so often that customers said it was unplayable. It took more than three months for the company to fix BF4's defects. Investors pointed to eight statements made by EA's executives -- all defendants in the action -- about the technology and development of "BF4," including one by CEO Andrew Wilson stating that they had achieved "a level of quality at launch that we didn't get to last time and our teams are already starting to think about investment in new innovation for the future." Electronic Arts and its executives lobbied for a dismissal of the investors' securities fraud claims, arguing that the investors had not shown they had relied on the misstatements in buying stock. The company also pointed out that five of the eight statements which some of the investors claim to have relied on were actually made after they had purchased EA stock. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston acknowledged this, and held that Kelly and Mastro cannot pursue securities fraud claims based on statements made after their Oct. 16, 2013 stock purchases. However, Illston said she will allow the investors to substitute new lead plaintiffs who bought stock based on misstatements made on Oct. 29 and Dec. 3. -- provided their stock was purchased after those dates. The judge also agreed with EA that some of the alleged misstatements amounted to nothing more than corporate confidence. "Defendant [CFO Blake] Jorgensen's Oct. 29, 2013 statement comparing 'BF4' to a World Series ace pitcher is puffery," Illston wrote. "Defendant Wilson's Oct. 29, 2013 statement explaining that EA 'worked more closely with Microsoft and Sony throughout the entire process' resulting in a 'launch slate of games that are the best transition games that I've ever seen come out of this company' is an inactionable opinion, as well as a vague statement of corporate optimism." Illston also dismissed investors' claims of intentional or deliberate recklessness, finding that "the complaint fails to adequately allege falsity and scienter for reasons articulated by defendants." Kelly and Mastro have until November 3rd to fix their complaint. The case is Ryan Kelly and Louis Mastro v. Electronic Arts, Inc., et al., Case No. C 13-05837 SI, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. ELNA CO: Faces "Quathimatine" Suit Over Capacitor Price Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Quathimatine Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Divicom, USA, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated v. ELNA Co., Ltd., ELNA America Inc., AVX Corporation, Kemet Corporation, Kemet Electronics Corporation, NEC-Tokin Corporation, NEC-Tokin America, Inc., Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., Hitachi Chemical Co. America, Ltd., Hitachi AIC Inc., Nichicon Corporation, Nichicon (America) Corporation, Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation, United Chemi-Con Corporation, Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic Electronic Devices Co. Ltd., Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Sanyo North America Corporation, Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.), Inc., Rohm Co. Ltd., Rohm Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Rubycon Corporation, Rubycon America Inc., Samsung Electromechanics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electro- Mechanics America, Inc., Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd., Taiyo Yuden (USA) Inc., Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., and Toshin Kogyo Co., Ltd., Case No. 4:14-cv-04704-KAW (N.D. Cal., October 22, 2014) alleges violations of antitrust laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants are guilty of unlawful conduct to restrain competition in the market for aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors. Capacitors, together with resistors and inductors, typically make up what are known in the electronics industry as "passive component parts." Capacitors are found in nearly every electronic product on the market in a wide variety of industries, including consumer products (audio and visual), telecommunications, automotive, computer, and industrial equipment. ELNA Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business located in Yokohama, Japan. ELNA Co., Ltd. produced and sold aluminum electrolytic capacitors during the Class Period. ELNA America Inc. is a California corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of ELNA Co., Ltd. with its principal place of business in Gardena, California. ELNA America Inc. sold and distributed aluminum electrolytic capacitors during the Class Period. The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Capacitors globally and in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq. Todd A. Seaver, Esq. One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com tseaver@bermandevalerio.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212)-907-0700 Facsimile: (212)-818-0477 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com - and - Damon J. Chargois, Esq. Kamran Mashayekh, Esq. MASHAYEKH & CHARGOIS, LLP One Riverway, Suite 1700 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 840-6313 Facsimile: (713) 622-1937 E-mail: damon@cmhllp.com kamran@cmhllp.com FIRST AMERICAN: Class Cert. Granted in Lewis and Raffone Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a court has only granted class certification in Lewis and Raffone lawsuits. First American said the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents face lawsuits that they charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance transaction. The lawsuits include: 1. Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on September 29, 2010 and pending in the United States District Court of New Jersey, 2. Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on February 26, 2009 and pending in the United States District Court of Pennsylvania, 3. Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, 4. Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on February 14, 2004 and pending in the Circuit Court, Nassau County, Florida, and 5. Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on December 19, 2005 and pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. All of these lawsuits are putative class actions. A court has only granted class certification in Lewis and Raffone. The class originally certified in Slapikas was subsequently decertified. For the reasons stated above, the Company has been unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is immaterial to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole. FIRST AMERICAN: Narrow Class Certified in "Edwards" Case -------------------------------------------------------- First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a narrow class has been certified in the case, Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on June 12, 2007 and pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that the Company purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as an inducement to refer title insurance underwriting business to the Company or gave items of value to title insurance agents and others for referrals of business in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Company has been unable to estimate the possible loss or the range of loss. FIRST AMERICAN: Class in "Gale" Case Was Decertified ---------------------------------------------------- First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the class originally certified in the Gale case was decertified. Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., was filed on October 16, 2006 and is pending in the United States District Court of Connecticut. The lawsuit alleges the Company engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss. FIRST AMERICAN: Plaintiff in "Kirk" Case Files Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company faces lawsuits that alleged it overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and services, denied home warranty claims, and gave items of value to developers, builders and others as inducements to refer business in violation of certain other laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain obligations, including: 1. Bushman v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed on November 21, 2013 and pending in the Circuit Court of the State of Michigan, County of Washtenaw, 2. Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States District Court of New Jersey, 3. Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on July 14, 2008 and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, 4. Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, 5. Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, 6. Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, 7. Snyder v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on June 21, 2014 and pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, 8. Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and 9. In re First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation, consolidated on October 9, 2014 and pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Kirk, are putative class actions for which a class has not been certified. In Kaufman a class was certified but that certification was subsequently vacated. A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded, plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal and the Company filed a cross appeal. The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is immaterial to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole. FORD MOTOR: Explorers Expose Passengers to Lethal CO, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a defect in Ford Explorers exposes passengers to lethal carbon monoxide and other gases, a New York federal class action alleges. Angela Dixon, a resident of Broward County, Fla., says she leased a new 2013 Ford Explorer in October 2012 from a dealership in Lynbrook, N.Y. When she brought the fifth-generation vehicle into the dealership for service, Dixon allegedly complained about an exhaust odor in the passenger compartment while the Explorer was in use. Dixon says the dealership advised her that certain air- conditioning operation would resolve the issue, but that she had to bring the vehicle in to another dealership, this time in Plantation, Fla., for the same exhaust problem. Carbon monoxide, "an odorless, colorless and tasteless gas that is toxic to humans," enters Dixon's vehicle's passenger compartment as well, according to the federal complaint she filed in the Eastern District of New York. Ford has issued two bulletins since 2012 regarding the possibility of an "exhaust odor" in some 2011-14 Explorers, but those notices "do not correct the condition, and they fail to acknowledge that carbon monoxide may enter the passenger compartment of affected vehicles," the complaint states. Since such bulletins are provided to authorized dealerships, non- Ford automotive repair shops are not directly notified of the exhaust problems, Dixon says. Ford purportedly fixed the problem upon receiving numerous complaints about the exhaust issue over the years, but it "provided no notice to plaintiff . . . about the defect and the potential exposure to lethal carbon monoxide in 2011 through 2015 model-year Ford Explorers," the complaint continues. Dixon says the various replacements or repairs that Ford recommended in its bulletins about the exhaust issue reveal that it was "hoping, but not knowing" of a way to remedy the exhaust- odor complaints. The class seeks damages and covered repairs for the defectively designed vehicles, alleging breach of warranty, deceptive acts and other claims. U.S. District Judge Sandra Feuerstein and U.S Magistrate Judge Arlene Lindsay were assigned the case. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Sachs, Esq. 114 Old Country Road, Suite 460 Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 248-7575 E-mail: Steven@StevenSachsLaw.com FRANKLIN FEDERAL: Faces Class Action Over Glen Allen Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Schwartz, writing for Richmond BizSense, reports that another class action lawsuit has its hooks in a big Richmond M&A deal. A shareholder of Franklin Federal Savings Bank's holding company is looking to potentially block the Glen Allen bank's pending $275 million acquisition by Suffolk-based TowneBank and has filed suit in Richmond federal court. Franklin shareholder Andrew Malon is the lead plaintiff in a case filed Oct. 1 that calls the deal a "flawed process" that allegedly undervalues the company and would result in a negative premium for Mr. Malon and his fellow shareholders. The case is seeking class action status with Mr. Malon filing on behalf of potentially thousands of Franklin Financial Corp. shareholders. It claims breach of fiduciary duty against Franklin Federal, Franklin Financial, its CEO Rick Wheeler and the rest of the company's board of directors. TowneBank is also named as a defendant for claims of aiding and abetting the alleged breaches. The case also claims violations of certain federal securities laws. TowneBank and Franklin Federal announced the acquisition on July 15. As proposed, Franklin shareholders would receive 1.4 shares of TowneBank stock for each of their Franklin shares. The deal's value was based on Franklin's closing stock price $23.04 per share the day before the announcement. The Malon lawsuit argues that Franklin's stock has fallen to as low as $18.81 per share since the deal was announcement. It closed at $19.90 per share on Oct. 17. Towne's stock closed at $14.59 per share on Oct. 17. "Despite the company's solid and continually improving performance, the board failed to secure a sufficient price for the Franklin stockholders' stock," the lawsuit claims. The payouts, or so-called "golden parachutes" that will be due to Franklin executives upon closing of the deal, are also pointed out in the suit. Mr. Wheeler, for example, is due a total of $3.4 million in cash, equity, and other compensation, according to court documents. Franklin and TowneBank's deal is at least the third recent merger or acquisition involving local firms to be targeted by a class action case. Richmond-based Union First Market Bank got caught up in a similar suit during its acquisition of StellarOne Bank. That case was eventually settled. Mechanicsville-based Owens & Minor is facing a similar suit for its acquisition of a New York medical supply company. The case is still pending. The cases all make similar claims and use similar language. Washington, D.C. law firm Levi & Korsinsky is representing the shareholder in the Franklin case. It was one of many law firms that took to the internet within days of the deal's announcement using alerts aimed at getting the attention of Franklin shareholders who might not agree with the terms of the acquisition and would be willing to stamp their name as lead plaintiff onto a class action case. The practice has become the norm with big mergers involving publicly traded companies. TowneBank is publicly traded, and Franklin Financial went public with a $138 million IPO in 2011. As is typical of such cases, the Franklin-Towne suit does not ask for specific damages, but requests that a judge to order the deal stopped either temporarily or permanently. These cases are often settled by the companies being sued with a payment going to the plaintiff and a payday for the lawyers. Other such cases are dismissed if the companies agree to make certain changes to the language of deal's proxy documents. Mr. Wheeler said he could not comment on the case. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Internet Outages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Eyre, writing for The Charleston Gazette, reports that Frontier Communications customers have filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in West Virginia, alleging Frontier failed to provide the high-speed Internet services it advertised. Customers also complained about frequent Internet outages, and having to repeatedly turn their modems off and on to restore broadband service, according to the lawsuit filed in Lincoln County Circuit Court. Frontier advertised a service called "High-speed Internet Max," which provides speeds up to 12 megabits per second. But the company "throttled" back Internet speeds, particularly in rural areas, without properly notifying customers, according to the lawsuit. Some customers were receiving speeds below 1 megabit per second, but paying for the faster service, the suit alleges. Frontier's "false advertising" violates the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, according to the complaint. "The Internet service provided by Frontier does not come anywhere close to the speeds advertised . . ." wrote Benjamin Sheridan, a Hurricane lawyer who filed on the lawsuit on behalf of three Frontier customers. Frontier spokesman Dan Page said the customers suing the company got the Internet service they paid for. "Although we cannot guarantee Internet speeds due to numerous factors, such as traffic on the Internet and the capabilities of a customer's computer, Frontier tested each plaintiff's line and found that in all cases the service met or exceeded the 'up to' broadband speeds to which they subscribed," Page said. Frontier shared the information with the customers and their lawyers, Page said. "Nonetheless, the plaintiffs filed their case in Lincoln County, where none of them lives," he said. "If necessary, we are prepared to defend ourselves in court and bring the facts to light." In the lawsuit, the customers say Frontier's alleged dialing back of customers' Internet speeds -- a practice known in the industry as "provisioning" -- saves the company a "fortune" in costs that Frontier must pay Internet wholesalers such as Sprint and AT&T. " . . . Frontier's practice of overcharging and failing to provide the high-speed, broadband-level of service it advertises has created high profits for Frontier but left Internet users in the digital Dark Age," Mr. Sheridan wrote. Frontier, the state's largest Internet provider, has "a monopoly on Internet services in most of West Virginia," according to the lawsuit. In rural communities, Frontier is often the only Internet service option, and customers in those areas get slower Internet speeds, the suit alleges. "As a result, students are prevented from being able to do their homework, and rural consumers are unable to utilize the Internet in a way that gives them equal footing with those in an urban environment," Mr. Sheridan wrote. The lawsuit also criticizes Frontier for taking $42 million in federal stimulus funds to install high-speed fiber-optic cable across the state. The fiber network serves schools, libraries, county courthouses, jails, 911 centers, State Police detachments and other public buildings. State officials overseeing the project promised that Frontier's competitors would be able to use the network to serve homes and businesses. That hasn't happened. "Frontier's deceptive scheme is compounded by the fact it has used enormous sums of public money to promote its own ends without regard to the needs of its customers," Mr. Sheridan wrote. "Frontier's acceptance of public funds to create this monopolistic exploitation of rural West Virginians is a violation of our public trust." The lawsuit alleges only 12 percent of Frontier's customers receive Internet speeds that meet a state and federal download speed standard of 4 megabits per second. By contrast, 80 percent of Suddenlink and Comcast subscribers have Internet speeds that meet the standard. The lawsuit has three plaintiffs so far: April Morgan, a Frontier customer who lives in Marion County; and Greenbrier residents Trisha Cooke and Michael Mr. Sheridan, who is Ben Sheridan's father. The three subscribed to Frontier's "High-speed Internet Max" service for about $40 a month. That product's Internet speeds weren't sufficient to view YouTube videos and streaming video services such as Netflix, according to the lawsuit. The complaint alleges that Frontier didn't have the Internet network capacity to provide its faster speeds to all customers. After Michael Sheridan complained to Frontier General Manager Dana Waldo about poor Internet service, Ms. Waldo wrote back, "If as you suggest, we 'opened up the throttle' for every served customer, it could create congestion problems resulting in degradation of speed for all customers," according to an email exchange cited in the lawsuit. The three customers also complained about "innumerable" Internet service outages. Morgan alleged she had to restart her DSL modem five to 10 times a day to connect to the Internet. Sheridan said Frontier had to replace his modem "many times just to maintain a basic connection to the Internet," according to the suit. ". . . The service provided by [Frontier] is plagued by outages, disconnections and other problems rendering it extremely difficult to use and often unavailable . . ." the lawsuit says. The suit notes that Frontier's "terms of service" agreement includes a clause that forces customers to settle any disputes with the company through binding arbitration or small claims court -- not through individual lawsuits, class-action cases and jury trials. The lawsuit alleges the agreement is only available online, so it's not available to people signing up for Internet service. Frontier gets customers to agree to its terms without securing "informed written consent," according to the lawsuit. The Hurricane law firm of Klein, Sheridan & Glazer is handling the lawsuit. The case has been assigned to Lincoln Circuit Judge Jay Hoke. Although the three plaintiffs don't live in Lincoln County, lawyers can file class-action suits in any West Virginia county where a defendant does business. Frontier has customers in Lincoln County. Mr. Sheridan would not comment last week for this report. Last month, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Inspector General started an investigation into the $42 million fiber-optic cable network that Frontier built with federal stimulus funds in West Virginia. Federal investigators have told state officials to turn over Frontier's invoices and thousands of other documents related to the high-speed Internet project. A letter sent to the state suggests the Inspector General is looking into whether Frontier padded invoices with unnecessary costs -- and whether high-ranking state officials turned a blind eye to any fraudulent billings. FUJI HIBACHI: Class Members are Entitled to OT Premium, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zhong Xian Chen, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Fuji Hibachi Restaurant LLC, d/b/a Mr. Sushi & Grill Japanese Hibachi Steak House, James Yu Lam, John Does and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 7:14-cv-08444-KMK (S.D.N.Y., October 22, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and the proposed class are entitled to (i) unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law, and (ii) liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is a resident of Queens County, New York, and was employed by the Defendants as a sushi chef at Mr. Sushi & Grill from August 30, 2012, to April 24, 2013. Fuji Hibachi Restaurant LLC, doing business as Mr. Sushi & Grill Japanese Hibachi Steak House, is a New York corporation with a principal place of business at in Middletown, New York. James Yu Lam is an owner, officer, shareholder, and manager of Mr. Sushi & Grill. The Doe Defendants are owners, officers, shareholders, and managers of Mr. Sushi & Grill. The Defendants operated a restaurant known as Mr. Sushi & Grill Japanese Hibachi Steak House. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Bergman Files Ignition-Switch Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clifford Atiyeh, writing for CarandDriver, reports that a group of lawyers wants to sue General Motors for more than $10 billion in what will likely become the largest class-action lawsuit against the automaker for ignition-switch defects that have claimed at least 29 lives. Hagens Berman, the law firm that in 2012 won $1.1 billion in economic damages against Toyota for its unintended-acceleration recalls, has essentially scrapped a $350-million class-action suit against GM it filed in March. That filing, released a month after GM issued the first ignition-switch recall in mid-February and later expanded it, sought $250 per owner for approximately 1.4 million cars. The amended lawsuit, filed on Oct. 14 with two other firms, includes every new and used GM car sold between July 11, 2009 -- the day after GM emerged from bankruptcy as a new company -- until July 3 of this year. The all-reaching document lists 68 plaintiffs, including two used-car dealers, from 40 states and Washington, D.C., as examples alleging how GM models have lost more value than they would have had GM not tried to "falsely assure" buyers that their cars were "safe and reliable." A second suit from Hagens Berman filed the same day, which did not specify expected damages, is after many of the older vehicles -- sold before the 2009 bankruptcy -- that GM recalled this year for ignition-switch problems. A total of 151 claims allege that GM violated warranties and committed fraud in all 50 states along with intent to prove the automaker had deliberately "concealed the existence of the defects." Much of the evidence comes from GM marketing materials touting safety and quality, the damning internal audit by Anton Valukas, complaints filed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and GM's stream of 76 recalls this year. Several significant points are up for contention. One is whether the roughly 10 million other cars GM recalled in the U.S. for various ignition-switch problems are directly related to the initial 2.2 million cars that set off this chain of events. GM has only admitted switch failure on those cars; on the rest, it has either cut new keys, plugged keychain holes, or refitted existing key fobs. Hagens Berman, according to their filings, thinks GM is trying to patch a single, more serious problem. "New GM's supposed fix does not address the defect or the safety risks that the defect poses," the suit says. "The real answer must include the replacement of all the switches with ones that have sufficient torque to resist foreseeable rotational forces." The filings also allege that GM's more recent recalls are further evidence that the company knew of older problems and actively tried to hide them from the public. That kind of judgment, however, is rather weak unless NHTSA levies additional civil fines against GM for those particular recalls; so far, GM has already been fined the maximum $35 million and is addressing so many problems at once that it's likely to escape case-by-case scrutiny, if only for the sheer volume of recalls it has put out this year. But Hagens Berman has a larger problem: All used cars depreciate regardless of what a manufacturer does or doesn't do. One of the suits lists examples of GM vehicles that dropped by hundreds of dollars over a six-month period, yet there's no indication that this isn't a normal rate. Beyond that, used-car prices continually fluctuate according to region, available trims, a vehicle's condition, whether it was involved in a crash, how many similar models come off lease -- the list of variables is extremely long and difficult even for industry experts to quantify. A recent study from Black Book [which, like C/D, is owned by Hearst] on popular vehicles affected by large recalls, including some GM models in the present ignition-switch recalls, found little drop in values. Also at issue is the present validity of GM's bankruptcy shield, which the company has invoked to essentially toss out any lawsuit involving cars built under the "old GM." A U.S. bankruptcy judge has been mulling over the argument for months and has yet to reach a conclusion. If GM's victim-compensation fund ends up paying more victims -- so far, settlement negotiator Kenneth Feinberg has approved 29 death claims in connection to ignition-switch-related accidents -- the judge may find GM's defense too thin to stand. GENERAL MOTORS: 107 Putative Class Actions Over Recalled Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that through October 20, 2014, GM is aware of 107 putative class actions that are pending against GM in various U.S. District Courts and state courts alleging that consumers who purchased or leased GM vehicles have been economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced this year and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with those recalls. In the aggregate, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, including alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, punitive damages, and injunctive and other relief. In addition, through October 20, 2014, GM is aware of 63 actions pending against GM alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the subject of recalls announced in the nine months ending September 30, 2014, including faulty ignition switches and/or the failure of air bags to properly deploy due to faulty ignition switches. In the aggregate, these personal injury cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, punitive damages, and other relief. Since June 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has issued orders from time to time directing that certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal lawsuits involving alleged faulty ignition switches or other defects that may be related to the recalls announced this year be transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the Southern District of New York (the multidistrict litigation). Through October 20, 2014, 130 cases have been transferred and consolidated as part of the multidistrict litigation. GM has requested that various other recently filed federal lawsuits also be transferred and consolidated in the multidistrict litigation. The court in the multidistrict litigation has appointed lead counsel to prosecute the claims on behalf of all plaintiffs in the consolidated cases. On October 14, 2014, lead counsel filed two amended consolidated complaints. In addition to the cases pending in the multidistrict litigation, other economic-loss and personal injury cases related to ignition-switch and other alleged defects that may be the subject of recalls in 2014 are pending in various other state and federal courts throughout the country. Additionally, through October 20, 2014, 17 putative class actions have been filed in various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking similar relief as the U.S.-based cases. GENERAL MOTORS: Provides Update on GM Korea Wage Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on GM Korea Wage Litigation. Commencing on or about September 29, 2010 current and former hourly employees of GM Korea filed eight separate group actions in the Incheon District Court in Incheon, Korea. The cases, which in aggregate involve more than 10,000 employees, allege that GM Korea failed to include bonuses and certain allowances in its calculation of Ordinary Wages due under the Presidential Decree of the Korean Labor Standards Act. On November 23, 2012 the Seoul High Court (an intermediate level appellate court) issued a decision affirming a decision of the Incheon District Court in a case involving five GM Korea employees which was contrary to GM Korea's position. GM Korea appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Supreme Court) and initiated a constitutional challenge to the adverse interpretation of the relevant statute. The Company said, "In December 2013 the Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case involving another company not affiliated with us which addressed many of the issues presented in the cases pending against GM Korea and resolved many of them in a manner which we believe is favorable to GM Korea. In particular, while the Supreme Court held that fixed bonuses should be included in the calculation of Ordinary Wages, it also held that claims for retroactive application of this rule would be barred under certain circumstances." "On May 29, 2014 the Supreme Court rendered its decision with respect to the case involving the five GM Korea employees and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court consistent with its December 2013 ruling. In July 2014 GM Korea and its labor union agreed to include bonuses and certain allowances in ordinary wages retroactively to March 1, 2014. "We estimate our reasonably possible loss, as defined by ASC 450, "Contingencies," in excess of amounts accrued to be 557 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $528 million) at September 30, 2014, which relates to periods before March 1, 2014. "We are also party to litigation with current and former salaried employees over allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation. At September 30, 2014 we have identified a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount of our accrual of 164 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $155 million). Both the scope of claims asserted and GM Korea's assessment of any or all of the individual claim elements may change if new information becomes available. These cases are currently pending before various district courts in Korea and the Supreme Court." GENERAL MOTORS: Trial in GMCL Dealers' Case Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that trial of the class issues in a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers is currently ongoing. On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL) on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down agreements with GMCL. In May 2009 in the context of the global restructuring of the business and the possibility that GMCL might be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GMCL offered the Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from the GMCL dealer network and to facilitate winding down their operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009 or such other date as GMCL approved but no later than on October 31, 2010. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding" Canadian Dollar $750 million, without explanation of any specific measure of damages. On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of "good faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GMCL interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association; (3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a disclosure statement and/or disclose more specific information regarding its restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down agreements; and (4) assuming liability, whether the Plaintiff Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed to proving individual damages). A number of former dealers have opted out of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. Trial of the class issues is currently ongoing. The current prospects for liability are uncertain, but because liability is not deemed probable we have no accrual relating to this litigation. "We cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in the event of liability as the case presents a variety of different legal theories, none of which GMCL believes are valid," the Company said. GOLDMAN SACHS: Urges Court Not to Certify Gender-Bias Suit Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Goldman Sachs urged a magistrate judge on October 22, 2014, not to certify a class action lawsuit accusing them of running a "boy's club," and requested the green light for an expert who chalked up the bank's gender wage gaps to its "extreme jobs." The start of a two-day hearing marked a turning point in a gender discrimination lawsuit that three former Goldman employees filed against the megabank four years ago in federal court. The lead plaintiff, H. Cristina Chen-Oster, alleges that her manager sexually assaulted her, while plaintiff Shanna Orlich claims her manager hired female escorts "wearing short black skirts, strapless tops, and Santa hats" for a holiday party. Although Goldman Sachs failed to force the women into arbitration three years ago, the bank tried in court on October 22 to fend off the certification of a class action. The bank also hopes to disqualify their adversaries' experts, while leaving its own standing. In a 92-page report, Purdue University Professor Michael Campion -- a Goldman Sachs expert -- floated the idea that Goldman's female staffers might have been paid less because of their alleged distaste for "extreme jobs." Campion wrote that a Harvard Business Review article coined this phrase to describe jobs with "long work hours, responsibility for profit and loss, a fast-paced work environment, events outside of regular work hours, and related features common to Goldman Sachs." He stated in his report that "research shows that women may be slightly less competitive on average in such extreme jobs." But plaintiffs' attorney Rachel Gemen, of the firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, slammed that explanation as having "no scientific credibility." "Given the self-selection of the women who choose to work at Goldman, Dr. Campion's theory is nonsensical on its face," Geman replied in a motion to strike the "extreme jobs" thesis. However, Goldman Sachs also attacked the women's expert, University of Denver professor Wayne Cascio -- putting Gemen on the defensive in proceedings before U.S. Magistrate Judge James Francis. Goldman's lawyer, Barbara Brown, played a videotaped deposition of Cascio from Nov. 14, 2013. And while Cascio's report faulted Goldman's systems for failing to meet "basic standards," he appeared in the footage to stop short of saying that these defects caused the wage gaps. Gemen countered that Cascio avoided such a sweeping conclusion because he is "a sophisticated scientist." "No one expert has to be the soup-to-nuts causation expert," she added. "He is not a statistician, nor does he have to be." Francis did not rule on the motions, and arguments were moved on to different experts on October 23. GT ADVANCED: Faces "Opperman" Class Suit Over 95% Stock Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a more than 95 percent stock drop and bankruptcy befell a company after its supply deal with Apple never materialized, a federal shareholder class action alleges. Vance Opperman filed suit in New Hampshire on October 14 against various officers from the now-bankrupt GT Advanced Technologies Inc., a leading manufacturer of consumer electronics materials. He says GT went bankrupt on Oct. 7 after already obtaining $440 million in prepayments from Apple on a multiyear agreement to supply the tech company with a scratch-resistant material called sapphire crystal. The Wall Street Journal reported that Apple is withholding the final $139 million installment of the $578 million it committed to pay GT for that deal, according to the complaint. GT has just $85 million in cash-on-hand, already below the $125 million "trigger point" at which Apple's deal allows it to demand reimbursement of its prepayments, Opperman says. GT announced its Apple deal on Nov. 4, 2013, and CEO Thomas Gutierrez told shareholders the next day that GT "was in a 'good position' with regard to its capital and financing," the complaint states. Richard Gaynor, the chief financial officer at GT, allegedly expressed confidence that the company's "projected cash levels are adequate to run the business for the foreseeable future." Opperman now calls those statements "materially false and misleading." "In truth, [the] company was facing an impending liquidity crisis and knew that it would not be able to meet the requirements of the Apple agreement without experiencing significant cash-flow problems," according to the complaint. "Further, the ostensible risks that defendants identified in the offering materials for the offerings were false and misleading because those risks had already materialized at the time the statements were made and were negatively impacting the company's business." Though Apple had used sapphire crystal in the camera lenses of older iPhone models, neither of the two latest iPhone models unveiled on Sept. 9, 2014, "contain displays made from GT's sapphire material," the complaint states. GT's stock price then dropped over 25 percent -- from $17.15 to $12.78 per share -- over two trading days, while the price of the debt dropped from $1,613 to $1,279 per note, shareholders say. When GT announced its bankruptcy, it had about $1.5 billion in assets and $1.3 billion in liabilities as of June 28, according to the complaint. News of GT's repayment obligations after the bankruptcy announcement sent shares into a tailspin, according to the complaint, which says "the price of GT stock declined from $11.05 per share to $0.80 per share, or almost 93%, on heavy trading volume." "Similarly, the price of the debt issued pursuant to the debt offering, which had a face value of $1,000 per note, declined from $1,083 per note to $315 per note, or almost 71 percent," the complaint continues. Opperman hopes to represent GT shareholders from roughly the last year. In addition to the 11 officers and directors, GT's underwriters, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Canaccord Genuity, are named as defendants. The class seeks damages for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. It is represented by Jason Crance of Hanover, N.H., and Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen of Minneapolis. GT ADVANCED: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of GT Advanced Technologies, Inc., on Oct. 20 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire on behalf of a class comprising purchasers of GT Advanced securities between November 5, 2013 and 9:40 AM on October 6, 2014, inclusive. The lawsuit is entitled Deerhaven Capital, LLC. v. Gutierrez, et al, and docketed as 14- cv-00463. Please contact Lesley F. Portnoy at (888) 773-9224 or (310) 201- 9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's operations and financial prospects. Specifically, defendants misled investors that there were significant risks that the Company would be unable to fulfill the requirements of an agreement with Apple, Inc. to supply sapphire material; and that, as a result the Company was facing a liquidity crisis. On September 9, 2014, Apple revealed that its new iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus smartphones utilized Corning's Gorilla Glass for the display instead of GT Advanced's sapphire material as investors were expecting. On this news, shares of GT Advanced declined $2.29 per share, nearly 13%, to close on September 9, 2014, at 14.94 per share, on unusually heavy volume. On October 6, 2014, GT Advanced announced that the Company was filing for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. According to the Company, as of September 29, 2014 GT Advanced had approximately $85 million of cash remaining. On this news, shares of GT Advanced declined $10.25 per share, nearly 93%, to close on October 6, 2014, at $0.80 per share, on unusually heavy volume. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than December 8, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley F. Portnoy. If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. HARMONY GOLD: South Africa Class Action Ongoing ----------------------------------------------- A class action in South Africa by former employees of Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited is presently ongoing, the Company said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. On August 23, 2012, Harmony and certain of its subsidiaries were served with court papers entailing an application by three of its former employees requesting that the South Gauteng High Court certify a class for purposes of instituting a class action. In essence, the applicants want the court to declare them as suitable members representing a class of current and former mineworkers for the purposes of instituting an action for relief and to obtain directions as to what procedure to follow in pursuing the relief required against Harmony and certain of its subsidiaries. On January 8, 2013, Harmony and certain of its subsidiaries, alongside other mining companies operating in South Africa (collectively the respondents), were served with another application to certify two classes of persons representing a class of current and former mine workers who work or have worked on gold mines owned and/or controlled by the respondents and who allegedly contracted silicosis and/or other occupational lung diseases, and another class of dependents of mine workers who have died of silicosis and who worked on gold mines owned and/or controlled by the respondents. Harmony filed notices of its intention to oppose both applications and has instructed its attorneys to defend the claims. Following the receipt of the application, Harmony was advised that there was a potential overlap between the application of August 23, 2012 and the application of January 8, 2013. After deliberation between the respondents' attorneys and the applicants' attorneys, it was resolved that the applicants' attorneys will consolidate the two applications, together with three other similar applications and serve an amended application which will be considered by the respondents. On October 17, 2013 the five certification applications were consolidated by Order of Court. It was agreed between the parties that the respondents have until May 30, 2014 to reply on the allegations made in the application, and state reasons why a class should not be certified. On May 30, 2014, Harmony and certain of its subsidiaries served the opposing affidavit on the applicants' attorneys. On September 15, 2014, the applicants' attorneys delivered their replying affidavit to the answering affidavit. The applicants' attorneys are also seeking to amend the relief sought in the consolidated application and to join further applicants to the present proceedings. The matter is presently ongoing. "At this stage, and in the absence of a court decision on this matter it is uncertain as to whether the company will incur any costs (except legal fees) related to silicosis claims in the near future. Due to the limited information available on any claims and potential claims and the uncertainty of the outcome of these claims, no estimation can be made for the possible obligation," the Company said. HARMONY GOLD: U.S. Class Action Has Concluded --------------------------------------------- The U.S. class action against Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited has been concluded and the settlement amount has been paid into escrow by the company's insurers and will be distributed to the plaintiffs once the administrative processes pertaining to the distribution have been completed, Harmony said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. The Company reached a mutually acceptable settlement with the class plaintiffs during fiscal 2012 in a pending class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in which certain ADR and ADR Option holders sought damages against the Company growing out of and relating to a misstatement of earnings for the fiscal third quarter of 2007. This earnings misstatement, which was discovered by the Company and disclosed at the time that fourth-quarter earnings for 2007 were reported, was the result of not including certain costs in the third quarter earnings calculation. This was a consequence of the installation, which was ongoing at the time, of a new Enterprise Resource Planning system, which resulted in the costs, that were not included in the calculation of third-quarter earnings for 2007, to be missed by the Company in its calculation of those earnings. The settlement was approved by the Court in November 2011, but a single class member filed an appeal of the Court's order approving the settlement. That appeal resulted in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming the decision of the District Court on more than one occasion. The objecting plaintiff requested that the United States Supreme Court review the decision of the Second Circuit. That request was denied by the Supreme Court, bringing the case to an end. Following the denial of the request for review of the case by the Supreme Court, in May 2014, the case has been concluded. The settlement amount has been paid into escrow by the company's insurers and will be distributed to the plaintiffs once the administrative processes pertaining to the distribution have been completed. HARVEST MANAGEMENT: Former Executive Chef Files OT Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that one California labor lawsuit claims that an executive chef working in the Golden State was improperly misclassified as management and was therefore denied overtime pay, an affront to California labor law. The lawsuit names Harvest Management Sun LLC (Harvest), an entity that operates a chain of assisted-living and independent-living facilities across the country under the Holiday Retirement banner. The class action was filed by a California man on behalf of any and all employees of Harvest who may have been denied overtime under California and labor law, as well as similar statutes observed by other states and, federally, the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff -- who was not named in the report -- worked as an executive chef at one of Holiday's independent-living homes in Pinole. The complaint alleges that the position of executive chef was classified as a management position by the defendant, but that the plaintiff had very few managerial responsibilities. The plaintiff alleges that he typically worked more than 50 hours in any given week, but was not paid overtime in accordance with good practice under California and employment law. The lawsuit, which also affects the company's Simi Hills facility in the Simi Valley and The Bonaventure located in Ventura, seeks damages for affronts to California labor employment law going back four years in the state; together with similar affronts to federal law under the Fair Labor Standards Act going back two to three years. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, back pay for uncompensated overtime hours, as well as attorney's fees and costs. Many a California labor lawsuit has taken an employer to task for misclassifying an employee as exempt from claiming overtime due to having management responsibilities, while having few if any real management duties to perform. While some employers appear to misclassify in error, there are many others who undertake the misclassification in an attempt to save money by not paying an employee overtime for work performed beyond the standard 40-hour workweek or eight-hour day, as mandated under California labor law. Managers, who are correctly classified as exempt, are normally paid a higher salary that takes into account the expectation for working longer hours. The class-action California labor lawsuit was filed earlier this month in US District Court for the Northern District of California. HERBALIFE LTD: Requests for More Time to Finalize Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Natural Products Insider reports that Herbalife Ltd. has requested another extension of deadlines in a putative class-action lawsuit as the nutrition and weight management company works to possibly finalize a settlement agreement. Since advising a federal judge in August that Herbalife and the plaintiffs "had tentatively agreed on the principal terms of a settlement," an Oct. 17 court filing stated, "the parties have continued to work cooperatively to resolve the remaining material issues." "The Parties, however, need a limited amount of additional time to complete the mediation and settlement process, and, if appropriate, file a joint motion for preliminary approval of a settlement," the filing added. Court filings requested extending to Nov. 10 the deadline for Herbalife to respond to an amended lawsuit and for plaintiffs to request certification of the class. The filing also requested extending to Dec. 22 the deadline for a hearing on a motion for class certification. The parties have spent roughly 90 hours on mediation and settlement talks over the past 10 months, the lawyers told U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Herbalife declined to comment on Oct. 20 beyond the filings. Jason Hardin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, didn't respond to a request for comment. Over the summer, Herbalife stipulated to the filing of an amended complaint that added four former Herbalife distributors as plaintiffs, provided the company could move to dismiss the lawsuit or otherwise respond to it. The former distributors alleged suffering losses after joining the company. Dana Bostick, the original plaintiff and a former Herbalife distributor, accused the company of running an unlawful pyramid scheme, an allegation state and federal authorities including the FTC are investigating. Herbalife has repeatedly denied the pyramid scheme allegations. KAYCAN LTD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ James D. Torres v. Kaycan Ltd. Incorporated, Case No. 1:14-cv- 23924-MGC (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2014) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kaycan Ltd. Incorporated is a Foreign Corporation, authorized to conduct business in Florida having its main place of business in Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant. The Company is a manufacturer and distributor of vinyl, wood and aluminum siding, and other finishing products for the construction industry. The Company operates many distribution warehouses across North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com KODIAK OIL: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 20 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of shareholders of Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. who held shares on July 13, 2014, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Kodiak by Whiting Petroleum Corporation. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from October 20, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Kodiak's Board of Directors with violations of the federal securities laws in connection with defendants' efforts to complete the sale of Kodiak to Whiting pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price. The complaint also includes class and derivative claims against defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting. On July 13, 2014, defendants announced that the Board had agreed to sell Kodiak to Whiting for approximately $6 billion in Whiting common stock. Pursuant to the parties' Arrangement Agreement dated July 13, 2014, Kodiak shareholders will receive 0.177 of a share of Whiting common stock for each share of Kodiak stock they own. Based on the closing price of Kodiak's common shares of $14.23 per share on July 11, 2014, the Proposed Transaction had an implied price of $13.90 per share. If the Proposed Transaction is allowed to close, Whiting shareholders will own approximately 71% and Kodiak shareholders will own 29% of the combined company. The complaint alleges that in an attempt to secure stockholder support for the Proposed Transaction, on August 18, 2014, the Board issued a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A that contained materially false and misleading information in violation of 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Kodiak stockholders vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction, prevents stockholders from being able to cast fully informed votes by failing to disclose, among other things, the following material information: (i) Kodiak's strategic alternatives and long-term strategic plan; (ii) the terms of the transactions proposed by third parties that contacted the Company in early June 2014; (iii) details regarding the Board's selection of financial advisors; and (iv) the inputs and assumptions underlying the valuation analyses performed by the parties' financial advisors. The omitted information is material to Kodiak stockholders' decision on whether to vote to approve the Proposed Transaction and/or whether to seek an appraisal of their shares. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of stockholders who held Kodiak shares on July 13, 2014. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest jury verdict ever in a securities class action. LA MICHOACANA VARIETY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alfonso Sanchez Morales v. Maria L. Alcantar, dba: La Michoacana Variety Store, and La Michoacana Variety Store, Case No. 3:14-cv- 01672-HU (D. Or., October 21, 2014) alleges that the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at 1.5 times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff worked as a butcher for the Defendants from 2008 to December 31, 2013. Maria L. Alcantar and The Michoacana Variety Store are residents of Wasco County, Oregon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Quinn E. Kuranz, Esq. THE OFFICE OF Q.E. KURANZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC 815 SW 2nd Ave., Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 757-4749 Facsimile: (503) 200-1289 E-mail: quinn@kuranzlaw.com LIMOUSINES OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Removes "Novoa" Suit to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Novoa v. Limousines of South Florida, Inc., Case No. 14-23927-CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court 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-23919-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos Alberto Mesa, Esq. MESA & PEREIRA PA 11780 SW 89th Street, Suite 201 Miami, FL 33186 Telephone: (305) 569-3005 Facsimile: (305) 403-2998 E-mail: cmesa@mesafloridalawyer.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael Anthony Pancier, Esq. MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A. 9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93 Pembroke Pines, FL 33024 Telephone: (954) 862-2217 Facsimile: (954) 862-2287 E-mail: mpancier@pancierlaw.com LORILLARD INC: Unit a Defendant in 6,361 Product Liability Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 20, 2014, 7,381 product liability cases are pending against cigarette manufacturers in the United States. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 6,361 of these cases. Lorillard, Inc. is a co- defendant in 643 pending cases, and is a defendant in one case in which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant. A total of 3,734 of these lawsuits are Engle Progeny Cases. In addition to the product liability cases, Lorillard Tobacco and, in some instances, Lorillard, Inc., are defendants in Filter Cases and Tobacco- Related Antitrust Cases. Pending cases against Lorillard are those in which Lorillard Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. have been joined to the litigation by either receipt of service of process, or execution of a waiver thereof, and a dismissal order has not been entered with respect to Lorillard Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. Certain Flight Attendant Cases that were dismissed for administrative reasons, but which may be reinstated pursuant to the settlement agreement in Broin v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al. have been included in the count of pending cases. The table below lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases pending against Lorillard as of the date listed: Total Number of Cases Pending against Lorillard Type of Case as of October 20, 2014 ------------ ---------------------- Conventional Product Liability Cases 25 Engle Progeny Cases 3,734 West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases 38 Flight Attendant Cases 2,563 Class Action Cases 1 Reimbursement Cases 1 Filter Cases 62 Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases 1 Conventional Product Liability Cases. Conventional Product Liability Cases are brought by individuals who allege cancer or other health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, by using smokeless tobacco products, by addiction to tobacco, or by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of the Conventional Product Liability cases listed in the table, and Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in four of the Conventional Product Liability Cases. Engle Progeny Cases. Engle Progeny Cases are brought by individuals who purport to be members of the decertified Engle class. These cases are pending in a number of Florida courts. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 3,733 of the Engle Progeny Cases listed in the table. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in 639 Engle Progeny Cases, and is a defendant in one case in which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant. The time period for filing Engle Progeny Cases expired in January 2008 and no additional cases may be filed. Some of the Engle Progeny Cases were filed on behalf of multiple class members. Some of the courts hearing the cases filed by multiple class members have severed these suits into separate individual cases. It is possible the remaining suits filed by multiple class members may also be severed into separate individual cases. West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases. In a 1999 administrative order, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals transferred to a single West Virginia court a group of cases brought by individuals who allege cancer or other health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, smoking cigars, or using smokeless tobacco products (the "West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases"). The plaintiffs' claims alleging injury from smoking cigarettes have been consolidated for trial. The plaintiffs' claims alleging injury from the use of other tobacco products have been severed from the consolidated cigarette claims and have not been consolidated for trial. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of the West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases listed in the table. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases. The time for filing a case that could be consolidated for trial with the West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases expired in 2000. Flight Attendant Cases. Flight Attendant Cases are brought by non- smoking flight attendants alleging injury from exposure to environmental smoke in the cabins of aircraft. Plaintiffs in these cases may not seek punitive damages for injuries that arose prior to January 15, 1997. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of the Flight Attendant Cases listed in the table. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the Flight Attendant Cases. The time for filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in 2000 and no additional cases in this category may be filed. Class Action Cases. Class Action Cases are purported to be brought on behalf of large numbers of individuals for damages allegedly caused by smoking. Lorillard Tobacco but not Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in the Class Action Case listed in the table. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in additional Class Action Cases that are pending against other cigarette manufacturers, including approximately 16 "lights" Class Action Cases and one Class Action Case seeking a court-supervised medical monitoring program. Reimbursement Cases. Reimbursement Cases are brought by or on behalf of entities seeking equitable relief and reimbursement of expenses incurred in providing health care to individuals who allegedly were injured by smoking. Plaintiffs in these cases have included the U.S. federal government, U.S. state and local governments, foreign governmental entities, hospitals or hospital districts, American Indian tribes, labor unions, private companies and private citizens. Included in this category is the suit filed by the federal government, United States of America v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., ("Philip Morris"), that sought to recover profits earned by the defendants and other equitable relief. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in the case, and Lorillard, Inc. is not a party to this case. In August 2006, the trial court issued its final judgment and remedial order and granted injunctive and other equitable relief. The final judgment did not award monetary damages. In May 2009, the final judgment was largely affirmed by an appellate court. In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of the case. Filter Cases. Filter Cases are brought by individuals, including former employees of a predecessor of Lorillard Tobacco, who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 61 of the 62 Filter Cases listed in the table. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in two of the 61 Filter Cases that are pending against Lorillard Tobacco. Lorillard, Inc. is also a defendant in one additional Filter Case in which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant. Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases. In 2000 and 2001, a number of cases were brought against cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, alleging that defendants conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation of federal and state antitrust and unfair business practices statutes. Plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of persons who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more of the defendant cigarette manufacturers. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in one Tobacco- Related Antitrust Case as set forth in the table. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in this case. All of the other cases have been either successfully defended or voluntarily dismissed. LORILLARD INC: No Ruling Yet on Unit's Motions in "Major" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Lorillard Tobacco filed a motion for a new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in the case, Major v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. As of October 20, 2014, the Court had not ruled on these motions. On July 30, 2014, a verdict was returned in Major v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County), a case in which plaintiff alleged that the smoker's injuries were caused by asbestos fiber and tobacco smoke inhalation. Lorillard Tobacco was the sole defendant at trial. The jury awarded plaintiff $2,736,700 in economic compensatory damages and $15,000,000 in non-economic compensatory damages, for a total compensatory damages award of $17,736,700. Punitive damages were not at issue in this trial. The jury apportioned 50% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 17% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 33% to exposure to cigarettes manufactured by companies other than Lorillard Tobacco. The jury found that exposure to asbestos was not a substantial factor in the smoker's injuries. On August 25, 2014, the Court entered judgment awarding plaintiff $2,550,000 in non-economic damages (which represents Lorillard Tobacco's 17% share as found by the jury) and the amount of $1,368,350 in economic damages (under California law, Lorillard Tobacco is responsible for the amount of non-economic damages that the jury found was the fault of anyone other than plaintiff, not just its 17% share), for a total award against Lorillard Tobacco of $3,918,350. LORILLARD INC: No Cases Scheduled for Trial in Remainder of 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that there were no cases scheduled for trial in the remainder of 2014 and some cases are scheduled for trial in 2015. Since January 1, 2010, verdicts have been returned in eleven Conventional Product Liability Cases against cigarette manufacturers, in addition to the case, Major v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. Lorillard Tobacco was the only defendant in one of these eleven trials, Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (Superior Court, Suffolk County, Massachusetts). Lorillard Tobacco paid $79 million in compensatory damages and interest to fully satisfy the Evans judgment in October 2013. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in the ten other trials since January 1, 2010. Juries found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded compensatory damages in four of these trials and also awarded $4.0 million in punitive damages in one of these trials. Defendants appealed the verdicts in three of these trials. The verdict in the first case was affirmed on appeal in July 2013; judgment has since been satisfied and this case is concluded. As of October 20, 2014 the appeal in the second case remains pending. In September 2013, an agreement was reached between the parties in the third case and no further appellate review will be taken. Satisfaction of judgment has been filed and this case is concluded. An appeal is pending in the fourth case. The plaintiff in another case was awarded $25 million in punitive damages in a retrial ordered by an appellate court in which the jury was permitted to consider only the amount of punitive damages to award. Defendant's appeal of the judgment in this case remains pending. Juries found in favor of the defendants in the five other trials. Three of these five cases have concluded. Plaintiffs in two of the cases did not pursue appeals. Plaintiff in the third case noticed an appeal, which was affirmed in February 2013, and then did not seek any further review. Plaintiff in the fourth case filed a notice of appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court from the order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial and that appeal remains pending. Plaintiff's appeal in the fifth case remains pending. In rulings addressing cases tried in earlier years, some appellate courts have reversed verdicts returned in favor of the plaintiffs in whole or in part, while other judgments that awarded damages to smokers have been affirmed on appeal. Manufacturers have exhausted their appeals and have been required to pay damages to plaintiffs in fifteen individual cases since 2001. Punitive damages were paid to the smokers in six of these cases. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party to any of these matters. As of October 20, 2014, there were no cases scheduled for trial in the remainder of 2014. Some cases are scheduled for trial in 2015. As of October 20, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in three of these cases and Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in one case. Trial dates are subject to change. LORILLARD INC: Judge Wants 200 Cases Trial Ready by January 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Judge William G. Young of the District of Massachusetts has issued an order calling for three groups of Engle Progeny cases to be prepared for trial on the following schedule: approximately 200 cases to be made trial ready by January 2, 2015, approximately 150 cases to be made trial ready by April 1, 2015, and approximately 150 cases to be made trial ready by July 1, 2015. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling in Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., which had been certified as a class action on behalf of Florida residents, and survivors of Florida residents, who were injured or died from medical conditions allegedly caused by addiction to smoking. During a three-phase trial, a Florida jury awarded compensatory damages to three individuals and approximately $145 billion in punitive damages to the certified class. In its 2006 decision, the Florida Supreme Court vacated the punitive damages award, determined that the case could not proceed further as a class action and ordered decertification of the class. The Florida Supreme Court also reinstated the compensatory damages awards to two of the three individuals whose claims were heard during the first phase of the Engle trial. These two awards totaled $7 million, and both verdicts were paid in February 2008. Lorillard Tobacco's payment to these two individuals, including interest, totaled approximately $3 million. The Florida Supreme Court's 2006 ruling also permitted Engle class members to file individual actions, including claims for punitive damages. The court further held that these individuals are entitled to rely on a number of the jury's findings in favor of the plaintiffs in the first phase of the Engle trial. The time period for filing Engle Progeny Cases expired in January 2008 and no additional cases may be filed. In 2009, the Florida Supreme Court rejected a petition that sought to extend the time for purported class members to file an additional lawsuit. Engle Progeny Cases are pending in various Florida state and federal courts. Some of the Engle Progeny Cases were filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs. Various courts have entered orders severing the cases filed by multiple plaintiffs into separate actions. In 2009, one Florida federal court entered orders that severed the claims of approximately 4,400 Engle Progeny plaintiffs, initially asserted in a small number of multi-plaintiff actions, into separate lawsuits. In some cases, spouses or children of alleged former class members have also brought derivative claims. In 2011, approximately 500 cases that were among the 4,400 cases severed into separate lawsuits in 2009, filed by family members of alleged former class members, were combined with the cases filed by the smoker from which the family members' claims purportedly derived. On August 1, 2013, Judge William G. Young of the District of Massachusetts took over responsibility for the Engle cases in the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. Judge Young issued an order that day that called for three groups of cases to be prepared for trial on the following schedule: approximately 50 cases to be made trial ready by January 2, 2014, approximately 107 cases to be made trial ready by May 2014, and approximately 120 cases to be made trial ready by September 2, 2014. On January 17, 2014, Judge Young issued an order calling for an additional three groups of cases to be prepared for trial on the following schedule: approximately 200 cases to be made trial ready by January 2, 2015, approximately 150 cases to be made trial ready by April 1, 2015, and approximately 150 cases to be made trial ready by July 1, 2015. On April 15, 2014, the Court granted a motion to withdraw filed by counsel for plaintiffs in 49 of the cases that are to be made trial ready pursuant to the Court's January 17, 2014 order. The plaintiffs in these 49 cases had six months to come forward in order to avoid dismissal. As of October 20, 2014, 46 of these cases remain pending against Lorillard Tobacco. On June 23, 2014, Judge Young issued an order calling for an additional three groups of cases to be prepared for trial on the following schedule: approximately 146 cases to be made trial ready by January 4, 2016, approximately 144 cases to be made trial ready by May 1, 2016, and approximately 139 cases to be made trial ready by September 1, 2016. Since the issuance of these three orders, 305 of the cases to be prepared for trial have been dismissed in their entirety, and Lorillard Tobacco has been dismissed from an additional 110 cases involving other defendants. These cases have either been voluntarily dismissed or resolved. LORILLARD INC: Florida Court Dismissed 3,567 Engle Progeny Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that since January 2010 and through October 20, 2014, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida has dismissed a total of approximately 3,567 Engle Progeny cases. In some instances, the plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed also were pursuing cases pending in other courts. In other instances, the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs asked the court to enter dismissal orders because they were no longer able to contact their clients. In January 2013, the Court granted a motion by defendants and dismissed approximately 520 cases in which the plaintiffs were deceased at the time their personal injury lawsuits were filed. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of these 520 cases to the United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit. In June 2013, the Court dismissed an additional approximately 440 cases for a variety of reasons. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of approximately 70 of these cases, in which the plaintiffs were deceased at the time their personal injury lawsuits were filed or where the cases were barred by the statute of limitations. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the appeals from the January and June orders dismissing these groups of federal cases. On September 10, 2014, the United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissals in these consolidated appeals. On July 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from an order dismissing 14 cases for failure to produce signed authorizations, and that appeal remained pending, as of October 20, 2014. Other courts, including state courts, have entered orders dismissing additional cases. LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 20 Engle Progeny Cases ---------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 20, 2014, verdicts had been returned in twenty Engle Progeny Cases in which Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant. Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in one of these twenty cases at the time of verdict. Juries awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiffs in fifteen of these cases. In four of the fifteen cases in which juries awarded compensatory damages, plaintiffs were awarded punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco. In another case, the court entered an order following trial that awarded plaintiff compensatory damages. The twenty cases in which Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant are in the order in which the verdicts were returned: In Rohr v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco, in October 2010. Plaintiff in Rohr did not pursue an appeal and the case is concluded. In Mrozek v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $6 million in compensatory damages and $11.3 million in punitive damages in March 2011. The jury apportioned 35% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker and 65% to Lorillard Tobacco. The final judgment entered by the trial court reflected the jury's verdict and awarded plaintiff $3,900,588 in compensatory damages and $11,300,000 in punitive damages plus the applicable statutory rates of annual interest. In December 2012, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages and Lorillard Tobacco's motion for rehearing of the appellate court opinion was denied in February 2013. In March 2013, Lorillard Tobacco filed a notice with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court decision. On February 13, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court declined to grant review of this case. In March 2014, Lorillard Tobacco amended the bond necessary to maintain a stay on payment of the final judgment. On March 28, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the due process issue, and requested that the petition be held and resolved in the same manner as the Duke, Walker, and Brown cases, also pending before the United States Supreme Court. On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the petitions seeking review. The trial court announced on June 25, 2014 that it had granted Lorillard Tobacco's motion to determine the applicable rates of post-judgment interest that were in dispute. On June 27, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of $17,500,197 to satisfy the final judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages and post-judgment interest. On July 25, 2014, the court entered an order confirming satisfaction of judgment. On July 28, 2014, plaintiff appealed the order determining the rate of post-judgment interest payable on the final judgment, and that appeal remained pending as of October 20, 2014. The Florida First District Court of Appeal provisionally granted plaintiff's motion for intermediate appellate court attorneys' fees, ruling that the trial court is authorized to award appellate fees if the trial court determines entitlement to attorneys' fees. In June 2013, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for entitlement to trial court attorneys' costs and fees and also determined that plaintiff was entitled to intermediate appellate court attorneys' fees. As of October 20, 2014, the trial court had not determined the amount of trial court or intermediate appellate court fees to award. On February 13, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court provisionally granted plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees in connection with the appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, in the amount of $2,500, conditioned on the trial court's determination of entitlement. In Tullo v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $4.5 million in compensatory damages, in April 2011. The jury assessed 45% of the fault to the smoker, 5% to Lorillard Tobacco and 50% to other defendants. The jury did not award punitive damages to the plaintiff. The court entered a final judgment that awarded plaintiff $225,000 in compensatory damages from Lorillard Tobacco plus 6% annual interest. On October 16, 2013, defendants noticed an appeal from the final judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. In August 2013, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment. Defendants filed a notice with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court decision. On March 10, 2014, the trial court entered an order confirming that Lorillard Tobacco had satisfied the judgment awarding compensatory damages and post- judgment interest for an amount totaling approximately $263,400. On March 18, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of their petition seeking review of the Florida Supreme Court and the Court entered an order dismissing the petition for review as to Lorillard Tobacco on May 21, 2014. The Florida Supreme Court declined to accept review of the petition as to the other defendants. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal provisionally granted plaintiff's motion for appellate attorneys' fees, ruling that the trial court is authorized to award appellate fees if the trial court determines entitlement to such attorneys' fees. As of October 20, 2014, the trial court had not determined the amount of trial court costs or appellate court fees to award. In Sulcer v. Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, Florida), in April 2011, the jury awarded $225,000 in compensatory damages to the plaintiff and it assessed 95% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker with 5% allocated to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco as to whether plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages. The court entered a final judgment that incorporated the jury's determination of the parties' fault and awarded plaintiff $11,250 in compensatory damages. Lorillard Tobacco paid approximately $246,000 to resolve the verdict, costs and fees, as well as all post-trial motions and any potential appeal by the plaintiff. Following this payment, Sulcer was concluded. In Jewett v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), the jury awarded the estate of the decedent $692,981 in compensatory damages and awarded the plaintiff $400,000 for loss of companionship in May 2011. The jury assessed 70% of the responsibility for the decedent's injuries to the decedent, 20% to R.J. Reynolds and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants regarding whether punitive damages were warranted. The final judgment entered by the trial court reflected the jury's verdict and awarded plaintiff a total of $109,298 from Lorillard Tobacco plus 6% annual interest. In June 2012, an agreement was reached between the parties as to the amount of trial court costs and attorneys' fees incurred, should the judgment be upheld on appeal, and plaintiff's motion for costs and attorneys' fees was withdrawn. In November 2012, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment awarding compensatory damages and ordered the case returned to the trial court for a new trial. In January 2013, the appellate court denied a motion filed by the plaintiff for rehearing of the decision reversing the judgment. Both the plaintiff and defendants filed notices with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court decision. On February 14, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court declined to grant review of this case. In Weingart v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), in July 2011, the jury determined that the decedent did not sustain any compensatory damages from the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco, and it returned a verdict for the defendants that punitive damages were not warranted. The jury assessed 91% of the fault for the decedent's injuries to the decedent, 3% to Lorillard Tobacco and 3% to each of the other two defendants. Following trial, the court granted in part a motion filed by the plaintiff to award damages and it awarded plaintiff $150,000 in compensatory damages. The court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault determinations to the court's award of compensatory damages. The final judgment awarded plaintiff $4,500 from Lorillard Tobacco. Defendants noticed an appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal from the order that awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiff and amended their notice of appeal to address the final judgment. On February 13, 2013, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment awarding compensatory damages. Defendants filed a notice with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of this decision. In March 2012, the trial court entered a judgment against the defendants for costs with Lorillard Tobacco's share amounting to $43,081 plus 4.75% annual interest. Defendants noticed an appeal from this costs judgment. In June 2013, all defendants satisfied both the final judgment awarding compensatory damages and the costs judgment, with Lorillard Tobacco's share amounting to approximately $50,000. Defendants' petition for Florida Supreme Court review and the appeal from the costs judgment have been dismissed. This case is now concluded. In Sury v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), in November 2011, the jury awarded plaintiff $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and assessed 60% of the responsibility for the decedent's injuries to the decedent, 20% to Lorillard Tobacco and 20% to R.J. Reynolds. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants regarding whether punitive damages were warranted. In March 2012, the court entered a final judgment against defendants in the amount of $1,000,000, jointly and severally, plus 4.75% annual interest, declining to apply the jury's comparative fault findings to causes of action alleging intentional conduct. On June 24, 2013, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment. Defendants' motion for rehearing of this decision with the Florida First District Court of Appeal was denied in August 2013. The Florida Supreme Court declined review of the intermediate appellate court decision in January 2014. On March 28, 2014, defendants filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the due process issue, and requested that the petition be held and resolved in the same manner as the Duke, Walker, and Brown cases, also pending before the United States Supreme Court. On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the petitions seeking review. On June 19, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of $1,659,674 to satisfy the final judgment awarding compensatory damages plus post judgment interest, trial level attorneys' fees and costs, and Florida Supreme Court fees. The Court entered an order confirming satisfaction of judgment on July 24, 2014. In June 2013, the First District Court of Appeal determined that plaintiff was entitled to attorneys' fees in connection with the appeal to the First District Court of Appeal and directed the trial court to determine the amount. As of October 20, 2014, the trial court had not determined the amount. In Alexander v. Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff $20,000,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000,000 in punitive damages in February and March 2012. Lorillard Tobacco is the only defendant in this case. The jury apportioned 20% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker and 80% to Lorillard Tobacco. In March 2012, the court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault determination to the court's award of compensatory damages, awarding the plaintiff $16,000,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000,000 in punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco. In May 2012, the court granted a motion by Lorillard Tobacco to lower the amount of compensatory damages and reduced the amount awarded to $10,000,000 from Lorillard Tobacco. Other post-trial motions challenging the verdict were denied. The court entered an amended final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault determination to the court's award of compensatory damages, awarding the plaintiff $8,000,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000,000 in punitive damages. The court also awarded plaintiff post-judgment interest (based on a statutory rate) on the compensatory and punitive damages. Lorillard Tobacco noticed an appeal from the amended final judgment to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal. On September 4, 2013, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the amended final judgment. Lorillard Tobacco's motion for rehearing of this decision with the Florida Third District Court of Appeal was denied in October 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of the intermediate appellate court decision in November 2013, and this petition was denied on September 9, 2014. On September 23, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of $38,960,916 to resolve all damages, costs and fees and post- judgment interest. Plaintiff filed a satisfaction of judgment on September 29, 2014 and the Court confirmed satisfaction of judgment on October 3, 2014. This case is now concluded. In Calloway v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff and a daughter of the decedent a total of $20,500,000 in compensatory damages in May 2012. The jury apportioned 20.5% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 27% to R.J. Reynolds, 25% to Philip Morris, 18% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 9.5% to Liggett. The jury awarded $12,600,000 in punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco and $42,250,000 from the other defendants, for a total punitive damages award of $54,850,000. In August 2012, the court granted a post-trial motion by the defendants and lowered the compensatory damages award to $16,100,000. The court also ruled that the jury's finding on the plaintiff's percentage of comparative fault would not be applied to reduce the compensatory damage award because the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on her claims alleging intentional conduct. In August 2012, the court entered final judgment against defendants in the amount of $16,100,000 in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, and $54,850,000 ($12,600,000 from Lorillard Tobacco) in punitive damages. The court also awarded plaintiff post-judgment interest (based on a statutory rate) on the compensatory and punitive damages, which totaled approximately $1.8 million as of October 20, 2014 based on the jury-apportioned fault for Lorillard Tobacco. The final judgment also granted plaintiff's application for trial court costs and attorneys' fees, but as of October 20, 2014, the trial court had not awarded an amount. Defendants have noticed an appeal from the final judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. On March 31, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion with the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal seeking attorneys' fees in connection with the appeal to the Fourth District. As of October 20, 2014, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal had not ruled on this motion. In Evers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff and the estate of the decedent a total of $3,230,000 in compensatory damages in February 2013. The jury apportioned 31% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 60% to R.J. Reynolds and 9% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury found that punitive damages against Lorillard Tobacco were not warranted and awarded $12,362,042 in punitive damages from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. The Court granted a post-trial motion by R.J. Reynolds for a directed verdict on punitive damages and, as a result, the jury's punitive damages award was set aside. The Court denied a motion filed by the plaintiff to reconsider the directed verdict. At a post-trial hearing, the plaintiff waived entitlement to the jury's loss of services award which amounted to $280,000 of the total compensatory damages award. In May 2013, the court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded plaintiff and the estate of the decedent $2,035,500 in compensatory damages ($265,500 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of interest. Plaintiff and defendants have both appealed the final judgment to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. Plaintiff also filed a motion for entitlement to trial attorneys' fees and costs. As of October 20, 2014, the trial court had not ruled on this motion. On May 23, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion with the Florida Second District Court of Appeal seeking attorneys' fees in connection with the appeal to the Second District. As of October 20, 2014, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal had not ruled on this motion. In Cohen v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff and the estate of the decedent a total of $2,055,050 in compensatory damages in May 2013. The jury apportioned 40% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 30% to R.J. Reynolds, 20% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 10% to Liggett. The jury found that punitive damages were not warranted against any of the defendants. On May 6, 2013, the Court entered final judgment against defendants in the amount of $1,233,030 ($411,010 from Lorillard Tobacco) plus 4.75% annual interest. On July 10, 2013, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion for a new trial based on the plaintiff's improper arguments during closing. This order effectively vacated the final judgment. Plaintiff and defendants have both appealed the order granting the motion for new trial to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. Plaintiff's petition with the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal seeking to disqualify the trial court judge from further consideration of this case was denied in November 2013, and a second petition seeking to disqualify the trial judge, filed in January 2014, was also subsequently denied. In LaMotte v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, Florida), the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants in May 2013. The Court entered final judgment in favor of the defendants in May 2013. Plaintiff has agreed to waive any post-trial or appellate review of the verdict and judgment, and defendants have agreed not to seek to recover costs or fees. This case is concluded. In Ruffo v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff $1,500,000 in compensatory damages in May 2013. The jury apportioned 85% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 12% to Philip Morris, and 3% to Lorillard Tobacco. Defendants' post-trial motions challenging the verdict were denied. On October 4, 2013, the Court entered a final judgment against defendants that applied the jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded plaintiff $225,000 in compensatory damages ($45,000 from Lorillard Tobacco) plus the statutory rate of interest, which is currently 4.75%. Defendants noticed an appeal from the final judgment to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal. On May 12, 2014, the trial court entered an order confirming that Lorillard Tobacco had satisfied the judgment awarding compensatory damages and post-judgment interest for an amount totaling $46,857. On May 9, 2014, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal entered an order recognizing Lorillard Tobacco's voluntary dismissal of their appeal to the final judgment. The appeal remains pending as to Philip Morris. Plaintiff filed a motion with the trial court seeking entitlement to attorneys' costs and fees. In April 2014, the trial court denied this motion. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal from the order denying attorneys' fees and costs. In Gafney v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $5,800,000 in compensatory damages in September 2013. The jury apportioned 34% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 33% to R.J. Reynolds, and 33% to Lorillard Tobacco. Lorillard, Inc. was also a defendant in this trial but damages and comparative fault were not assessed separately for Lorillard, Inc. Because the jury found in favor of the defendants on the claims alleging intentional conduct, the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages. On September 26, 2013, the Court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded the plaintiff a total of $3,828,000 in compensatory damages ($1,914,000 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of interest. Defendants' post- trial motions challenging the verdict were denied in November 2013. Defendants have noticed an appeal from the final judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. Plaintiff has filed a motion with the trial court seeking entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs. As of October 20, 2014, the trial court had not ruled on this motion. In Jacobson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal Court, Southern District, Miami, Florida), the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on October 29, 2013. The Court entered final judgment in favor of the defendants on October 30, 2013. Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial which was denied in January 2014. On February 10, 2014, the Court entered an order granting Lorillard's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Lorillard has agreed not to enforce its right to fees and costs in exchange for plaintiff's agreement not to pursue an appeal of the verdict. This case is concluded. In Chamberlain v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida) the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on November 15, 2013. The Court entered final judgment in favor of the defendants on November 20, 2013. Plaintiff's motion for new trial was denied on April 25, 2014. On June 27, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In Burkhart v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $5,000,000 in compensatory damages on May 15, 2014. The jury apportioned 50% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 25% to R.J. Reynolds, 15% to Philip Morris, and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury awarded $500,000 in punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco and $2,000,000 from the other defendants for a total punitive damages award of $2,500,000. The Court ruled that the jury's finding on the plaintiff's percentage of comparative fault would not be applied to reduce the compensatory damage award because the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on her claims alleging intentional conduct. On June 11, 2014, the Court entered a final judgment against defendants in the amount of $5,000,000 in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, and $2,500,000 ($500,000 from Lorillard Tobacco) in punitive damages, plus the statutory rate of interest. The Court denied defendants' post-trial motions challenging the verdict. On October 10, 2014, defendants filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The final judgment also granted plaintiff entitlement to trial court costs, but as of October 20, 2014, the trial court had not awarded an amount. Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs was denied. As of October 20, 2014, the time period for filing appeals had not expired. In Harris v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida), on July 31, 2014, the jury found that one of the smoker's alleged Engle qualifying diseases did not manifest prior to the cut-off period for membership in the Engle class, and that the smoker's other alleged Engle qualifying disease was not caused by the smoker's addiction to cigarettes containing nicotine. However, the jury awarded compensatory damages on plaintiff's survival and wrongful death claims in the total amount of $1,726,650. The jury apportioned 60% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 15% to Philip Morris, 15% to R.J. Reynolds, and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco, in connection with plaintiff's survival claims. The jury apportioned 70% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 10% to Philip Morris, 10% to R.J. Reynolds, and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco, in connection with plaintiff's wrongful death claims. Because the jury found in favor of the defendants on the claims alleging intentional conduct, the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages. On August 13, 2014, defendants filed a motion for entry of judgment in favor of all defendants, arguing that the jury's findings establish that the smoker was not an Engle class member. As of October 20, 2014, the Court had not ruled on this motion. In Irimi v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $3,123,437 in compensatory damages on August 28, 2014. The jury apportioned 70% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 14.5% to Lorillard Tobacco, 14.5% to R.J. Reynolds, and 1% to Liggett. Because the jury found in favor of the defendants on the claims alleging intentional conduct, the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages. Defendants have filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict and plaintiff has filed a motion for a new trial on the issue of entitlement to punitive damages. As of October 20, 2014, the Court had not ruled on defendants' motions. On September 11, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs and a motion to tax costs. As of October 20, 2014, the Court had not ruled on plaintiff's motions. In Lourie v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff and a son of the decedent a total of $1,371,549 in compensatory damages on October 10, 2014. The jury apportioned 63% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 27% to Philip Morris, 7% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 3% to R.J. Reynolds. The jury found that punitive damages were not warranted against any of the defendants. A deadline to file post- trial motions was pending as of October 20, 2014. LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 121 Engle Progeny Trials ------------------------------------------------------------ Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 20, 2014, verdicts have been returned in 121 Engle Progeny trials since the Florida Supreme Court issued its 2006 ruling that permitted members of the Engle class to bring individual lawsuits in which neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant at trial. Juries awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages in 38 of the trials. In 37 of those 38 trials, the amount of punitive damages awarded have totaled approximately $791.3 million and ranged from $20,000 to $244 million. In July 2014, punitive damages of $23.6 billion were awarded in one of these cases. As of October 20, 2014, this award was subject to challenge through post-trial motions and the appellate process. In 34 of the trials, juries' awards were limited to compensatory damages, and in one trial the jury had not yet decided the amount of punitive damages to award. In the 48 remaining trials, juries found in favor of the defendants. Post-trial motions challenging the verdicts in some cases and appeals from final judgments in some cases are pending before various Florida circuit and intermediate appellate courts. As of October 20, 2014, one verdict in favor of the defendants and four verdicts in favor of the plaintiff have been reversed on appeal and returned to the trial court for a new trial on all issues. In ten cases, the appellate courts have ruled that the issue of damages awarded must be revisited by the trial court. Motions for rehearing of these appellate court rulings are pending in some cases. In June 2009, Florida amended the security requirements for a stay of execution of any judgment during the pendency of appeal in Engle Progeny Cases. The amended statute provides for the amount of security for individual Engle Progeny Cases to vary within prescribed limits based on the number of adverse judgments that are pending on appeal at a given time. The required security decreases as the number of appeals increases to ensure that the total security posted or deposited does not exceed $200 million in the aggregate. This amended statute applies to all judgments entered on or after June 16, 2009. The plaintiffs in some cases challenged the constitutionality of the amended statute. These motions were denied, withdrawn or declared moot. In January 2012, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review one of the orders denying a challenge to the amended statute. In August 2012, the Florida Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the defendant had satisfied the judgment. LORILLARD INC: Unit a Defendant in 31 Personal Injury Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 20, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 31 of the pending West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the IPIC Cases. The West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases (the "IPIC Cases") are brought in a single West Virginia court by individuals who allege cancer or other health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, smoking cigars, or using smokeless tobacco products. Approximately 600 IPIC Cases are pending. Most of the pending cases have been consolidated for trial. The order that consolidated the cases for trial, among other things, also limited the consolidation to those cases that were filed by September 2000. No additional IPIC Cases may be consolidated for trial with this group. The court has entered a trial plan for the IPIC Cases that calls for a multi-phase trial. In September 2000, there were approximately 1,250 IPIC Cases, and Lorillard Tobacco was named in all but a few of them. Plaintiffs in most of the cases alleged injuries from smoking cigarettes, and the claims alleging injury from smoking cigarettes were consolidated for a multi-phase trial. Approximately 645 IPIC Cases were dismissed in their entirety. Lorillard Tobacco has been dismissed from approximately 565 additional IPIC Cases because those plaintiffs did not submit evidence that they used a Lorillard Tobacco product. These additional IPIC Cases remain pending against other cigarette manufacturers. As of October 20, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 31 of the pending IPIC Cases. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the IPIC Cases. The first phase of the consolidated trial began April 15, 2013, and ended with a Phase I verdict returned by the jury on May 15, 2013. In its verdict, the jury found against plaintiffs on their claims for design defect, negligent design, failure to warn, intentional concealment and breach of express warranty. The jury found for plaintiffs on their claim that all ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold by the defendants between 1964 and July 1, 1969 were defective because of a failure to instruct, but found that defendants' conduct was not willful or wanton. In pleadings filed before trial, no plaintiff in a pending IPIC Case claims to have smoked a ventilated filtered cigarette manufactured and sold by Lorillard Tobacco between 1964 and July 1, 1969. On September 16, 2013, the court entered a judgment on the jury's Phase I verdict and entered a separate order denying the parties' post-trial motions. Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment on September 24, 2013. In a telephone conference on October 7, 2013 (memorialized in an order entered October 28, 2013), the court informed the parties that, on its own authority, it was vacating the September 16, 2013 judgment and order. On October 28, 2013, the court entered a new judgment and order. The judgment recited that: 1) ventilated filter cigarettes the defendants manufactured and sold between 1964 and July 1, 1969, were found to be defective due to a failure to instruct consumers as to their use; 2) all other cigarettes manufactured and sold by defendants were not found to be defective; 3) defendants' conduct did not justify an award of punitive damages; 4) the claims of the individual plaintiffs remain to be decided consistent with the Phase I verdict, and 5) there is no just reason for delay in permitting any appellate rights of the parties to be perfected as to the verdict rendered and this order. The order: 1) denied the parties' post-trial motions; 2) entered final judgments against the plaintiffs in the approximately 645 IPIC cases that were dismissed before trial; and 3) stated that those dismissal orders are now final and available for the proper application of the appellate process. On November 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the October 28 judgment and order in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The defendants did not file a separate notice of appeal. On April 2, 2014, plaintiffs perfected their appeal by filing their brief and appendix. Defendants filed their brief on June 16, 2014. Plaintiffs served their reply brief on July 2, 2014. As of October 20, 2014, the appeal had not been set for oral argument. The court has severed from the IPIC Cases those claims alleging injury from the use of tobacco products other than cigarettes, including smokeless tobacco and cigars (the "Severed IPIC Claims"). The Severed IPIC Claims involve 30 plaintiffs. Twenty- eight of these plaintiffs have asserted both claims alleging that their injuries were caused by smoking cigarettes as well as claims alleging that their injuries were caused by using other tobacco products. The former claims were included in the consolidated trial of the IPIC Cases, while the latter claims are among the Severed IPIC Claims. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in seven of the Severed IPIC Claims. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the Severed IPIC Claims. Two plaintiffs have asserted only claims alleging that injuries were caused by using tobacco products other than cigarettes, and no part of their cases was included in the consolidated trial of the IPIC Cases (the "Severed IPIC Cases"). Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in either of the Severed IPIC Cases. As of October 20, 2014, the Severed IPIC Claims and the Severed IPIC Cases were not subject to a trial plan. None of the Severed IPIC Claims or the Severed IPIC Cases was scheduled for trial as of October 20, 2014. LORILLARD INC: No Trial in Flight Attendant Cases as of Oct. 20 --------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 20, 2014, none of the Flight Attendant Cases were scheduled for trial. Lorillard Tobacco and three other cigarette manufacturers are the defendants in each of the pending Flight Attendant Cases. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of these cases. These suits were filed as a result of a settlement agreement by the parties, including Lorillard Tobacco, in Broin v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, filed October 31, 1991), a class action brought on behalf of flight attendants claiming injury as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The settlement agreement, among other things, permitted the plaintiff class members to file these individual suits. These individuals may not seek punitive damages for injuries that arose prior to January 15, 1997. The period for filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in 2000 and no additional cases in this category may be filed. The judges who have presided over the cases that have been tried have relied upon an order entered in October 2000 by the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The October 2000 order has been construed by these judges as holding that the flight attendants are not required to prove the substantive liability elements of their claims for negligence, strict liability and breach of implied warranty in order to recover damages. The court further ruled that the trials of these suits are to address whether the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were caused by their exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and, if so, the amount of damages to be awarded. Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in each of the eight Flight Attendant Cases in which verdicts have been returned. Defendants have prevailed in seven of the eight trials. In one of the seven cases in which a defense verdict was returned, the court granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial and, following appeal, the case has been returned to the trial court for a second trial. The six remaining cases in which defense verdicts were returned are concluded. In the single trial decided for the plaintiff, French v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., the jury awarded $5.5 million in damages. The court, however, reduced this award to $500,000. This verdict, as reduced by the trial court, was affirmed on appeal and the defendants have paid the award. Lorillard Tobacco's share of the judgment in this matter, including interest, was approximately $60,000. As of October 20, 2014, none of the Flight Attendant Cases were scheduled for trial. LORILLARD INC: Lorillard Tobacco A defendant in 61 Filter Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 20, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 61 Filter Cases. Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc. by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. As of October 20, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 61 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that also name Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately $35.6 million in settlements to finally resolve 140 claims. Since January 1, 2012, verdicts have been returned in the following three Filter Cases: McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky; Couscouris v. Hatch Grinding Wheels, et al., tried in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles; and DeLisle v. A.W. Chesterton Company, et al., tried in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter material. The jury in the McGuire case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the Court entered final judgment in May 2012. On February 14, 2014, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in favor of Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose and on April 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing. On May 2, 2014, plaintiff moved for discretionary review in the Kentucky Supreme Court. Lorillard Tobacco filed its responsive brief on May 30, 2014. On October 4, 2012, the jury in the Couscouris case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the court entered final judgment on November 1, 2012. On June 17, 2013, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District entered an order dismissing the appeal of the final judgment pursuant to plaintiffs' request, but plaintiffs' appeal of the cost judgment remained pending. However, plaintiffs abandoned their appeal on June 2, 2014, and on June 4, 2014, the appeal was dismissed. On September 13, 2013, the jury in the DeLisle case found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims for negligence and strict liability, and awarded $8 million. Lorillard Tobacco Company is responsible for 44%, or $3.52 million. Judgment was entered on November 6, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco Company filed its notice of appeal on November 18, 2013. As of October 20, 2014, 24 Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or have been placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial dates are subject to change. LORILLARD INC: Plaintiffs File Reply Brief in Kansas Case --------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiffs in Indirect Purchaser Suits in Kansas filed a petition for review by the Kansas Supreme Court on August 18, 2014, and the Defendants filed a response on August 29, 2014. The plaintiffs filed their reply brief on September 11, 2014. Approximately 30 antitrust suits were filed in 2000 and 2001 on behalf of putative classes of consumers in various state and federal courts against cigarette manufacturers. The suits all alleged that the defendants entered into agreements to fix the wholesale prices of cigarettes in violation of state antitrust laws which permit indirect purchasers, such as retailers and consumers, to sue under price fixing or consumer fraud statutes. More than 20 states permit such suits. Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in all but one of these indirect purchaser cases. Lorillard, Inc. was not named as a defendant in any of these cases. Four indirect purchaser suits, in New York, Florida, New Mexico and Michigan, thereafter were dismissed by courts in those states. All other actions, except for a state court action in Kansas, were either voluntarily dismissed or dismissed by the courts. In the Kansas case, the District Court of Seward County certified a class of Kansas indirect purchasers in 2002. In November 2010, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs filed a cross motion for summary judgment in July 2011. In March 2012, the District Court of Seward County granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the Kansas suit. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied. On July 18, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the State of Kansas. Briefing on plaintiff's appeal was completed and argument in the Court of Appeals was held on December 11, 2013. On July 18, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The plaintiffs filed a petition for review by the Kansas Supreme Court on August 18, 2014. Defendants filed a response on August 29, 2014, and plaintiffs filed their reply brief on September 11, 2014. LORILLARD INC: No Substantive Activity in Class Action Since 2001 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Lorillard Tobacco but not Lorillard Inc. is a defendant in the one pending Class Action Case, in which plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of groups of cigarette smokers, or the estates of deceased cigarette smokers, who reside in West Virginia. There has been no substantive activity in this case since February 2001. Cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, have defeated motions for class certification in a number of cases. Motions for class certification have also been ruled upon in some of the "lights" cases or in other class actions to which neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party. In some of these cases, courts have denied class certification to the plaintiffs, while classes have been certified in other matters. On December 17, 2013, in Caronia, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, the New York Court of Appeals, answering a question certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held that current or former smokers that have not been diagnosed with a smoking-related disease could not pursue an independent cause of action for medical monitoring under New York law. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Enters Settlement in FACTA Violation Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement in a customer lawsuit alleging violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On August 30, 2012, Jaroslaw Prusak, a purported customer ("Prusak"), filed a putative class action lawsuit, which was subsequently amended, against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Prusak Lawsuit"). Prusak alleges that the Company willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with electronically printed credit card receipts provided to certain of its customers. In the operative complaint, Prusak, for himself and the putative class, seeks statutory damages of no less than one hundred dollars and no more than one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief. Prusak filed a motion seeking certification of the putative class and the parties each filed motions seeking summary judgment with regard to matters at issue in the case. Although the Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims asserted, the Company has agreed to a proposed settlement of the claims in the lawsuit, which the court has preliminarily approved. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Company would pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, a sum to Prusak and either a cash sum or voucher to members of the putative class. Based upon the actual response rate received from the putative class members, the Company has accrued $755, including $255 in the third quarter of 2014, as the best estimate of the probable loss that may result from this action. In the event the court does not grant final approval of the proposed settlement, the Company intends to continue to defend the Prusak Lawsuit vigorously and will assess the possibility of any loss at that time. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Securities Suit in Virginia Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. is facing a securities lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken ("Kiken") filed a securities class action lawsuit, which was subsequently amended, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, its founder, Chief Executive Officer and President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Merchandising Officer (collectively, the "Kiken Defendants"). In the amended complaint, Kiken and an additional plaintiff, Keith Foster (together with Kiken, the "Plaintiffs"), allege that the Kiken Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. In particular, the Plaintiffs allege that the Kiken Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to the Company's compliance with the federal Lacey Act and the chemical content of certain of its wood products. In addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Lawsuit by RWA Over "Unsolicited" Ad -------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. is facing a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois filed by Richard Wade Architects, P.C. over an alleged unsolicited facsimile advertisement, according to Lumber's Oct. 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On or about March 4, 2014, Richard Wade Architects, P.C. ("RWA") filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "RWA Lawsuit"), which was subsequently amended, alleging that Lumber Liquidators violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law by sending an unsolicited facsimile advertisement to RWA. RWA seeks recourse on its own behalf as well as other similarly situated parties that received unsolicited facsimile advertisements from the Company. The TCPA provides for recovery of actual damages or five hundred dollars for each violation, whichever is greater. If it is determined that a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA, the amount of the award may be increased by up to three times the amount. Although the Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims asserted, based upon the proceedings to date, the Company has recorded an accrual of approximately $275 in the third quarter of 2014 as its best estimate of the probable loss that may result from this action. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the RWA Lawsuit and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification, the Company cannot estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued that may result from the RWA Lawsuit. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Stock Suit by Retirement Trust in Va. --------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. is facing a securities lawsuit filed by the City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On or about September 17, 2014, the City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust ("Hallandale") filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and President and its Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Hallandale Defendants"). In the complaint, Hallandale alleges that the Hallandale Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to investors. In particular, Hallandale alleges that the Hallandale Defendants made material misstatements or omissions regarding the Company's supply chain and inventory position. In addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Hallandale seeks to recover damages on behalf of itself and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Company disputes Hallandale's claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, insurance coverage issues and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Accrued $3.3 Million Liability in Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Maxwell Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that from March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. These actions were entitled Foster v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-0580 (S.D. Cal. filed March 13, 2013), Weinstein v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0686 (S.D. Cal. filed March 21, 2013), Abanades v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13- cv-0867 (S.D. Cal. filed April 11, 2013), and Mebarak v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0942 (S.D. Cal. filed April 19, 2013). The complaints alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding its financial performance and business prospects and overstated the Company's reported revenue. The complaints purported to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April 28, 2011 and March 7, 2013, inclusive. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 13, 2013, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the four actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff and, on October 24, 2013, the court issued a written order consolidating the case under the heading In re Maxwell Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigation. On January 16, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended complaint which slightly adjusted the class period to April 29, 2011 to March 19, 2013. In response, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the lead plaintiff opposed. On May 5, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss but granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2014, and the Company and individual defendants filed motions to dismiss on July 10, 2014. On October 6, 2014, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, which included an all-in settlement value of $3.3 million. On October 16, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. As a result of the preliminary settlement, for the quarter ended September 30, 2014, the Company accrued a liability of $3.3 million, which is included in "accounts payable and accrued liabilities," and a corresponding receivable of $3.3 million, which is included in "trade and other accounts receivable," as this amount is payable by the Company's insurance carrier. MIAMI-DADE CTY, FL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Lopez v. Miami-Dade County, Miami-Dade Public Housing and Community Development, Miami-Dade Public Housing, and Alpha1 Staffing/Search Firm LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-23895-JAL (S.D. Fla., October 21, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid wages, compensation and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd W. Shulby, Esq. TODD W. SHULBY, P.A. 2800 Weston Road, Suite 101 Weston, FL 33331 Telephone: (954) 530-2236 Facsimile: (954) 530-6628 E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com MICROSOFT CORP: 3 Antitrust Cases Pending in Canada --------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that three antitrust and unfair competition cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada have not been settled. In March 2010, the court in the British Columbia case certified it as a class action. After the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the case, in October 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated part of the British Columbia case, which is now scheduled for trial in September 2015. The other two cases were inactive pending action by the Supreme Court on the British Columbia case. MICROSOFT CORP: Says Remaining Cost of Settlements at $300 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------ Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company estimates the total remaining cost of the settlements in antitrust and unfair competition cases is approximately $300 million, all of which had been accrued as of September 30, 2014. The Company said, "A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in various state, federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and certain other software products between 1999 and 2005. "We obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims made in the United States. Under the settlements, generally class members can obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and software. The total value of vouchers that we may issue varies by state. We will make available to certain schools a percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two- thirds depending on the state). The total value of vouchers we ultimately issue will depend on the number of class members who make claims and are issued vouchers. We estimate the total remaining cost of the settlements is approximately $300 million, all of which had been accrued as of September 30, 2014." MICROSOFT CORP: Interlocutory Appeal Okayed in US Cell Phone Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse health effects. Microsoft has assumed responsibility for these claims as part of the acquisition of Nokia Corporation's ("Nokia") Devices and Services business ("NDS") and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed. In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines ("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines. In September 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the basis of flawed scientific methodologies. The motion was heard in December 2013 and January 2014. In March 2014, defendants filed a separate motion to preclude plaintiffs' general causation testimony on the ground that it is pre-empted by federal law because the experts challenge the safety of all cellular handsets, including those that comply with the FCC Guidelines. In August 2014, the court granted in part defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation experts. The court granted an order permitting an interlocutory appeal of its decision in October 2014. Trial court proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the appeal. MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Litigation Not Yet Active ------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. The litigation is not yet active as several defendants remain to be served. MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Multimedia Games Holding Co. too cheaply through an unfair process to Global Cash Access Holdings, and Movie Merger Sub, for $36.50 a share or $1.2 billion, shareholders claim in Travis County Court. MUSCLEPHARM CORP: "Bey" Suit Transferred From Nevada to Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Bey v. Musclepharm Corporation, Case No. 14-cv-00655, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver). The Colorado District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-02881-MJW to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks relief pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Refuses to Junk Football Players Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to dismiss another class action from former college basketball and football players who claim the NCAA should allow athletes to be compensated for their names, images and likenesses. In March, three football players and a basketball player sued the NCAA in a class action in New Jersey, alleging federal antitrust violations. Lead plaintiff Martin Jenkins played football for Clemson. As in similar cases against the NCAA, the athletes sought an injunction that would allow them to enter into their own licensing agreements. The case was transferred to California's Northern District Court, where U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken has heard related cases against the NCAA. The NCAA said in September that the action should be dismissed , based on how Judge Wilken ruled in the case from former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon. Wilken in August issued an injunction against the NCAA, finding its rules prohibiting athletes from being compensated "unreasonably restrain trade in the market for educational athletic opportunities for Division I colleges and universities." The NCAA argued in a Sept. 25 motion in opposition that that the plaintiffs in the case transferred from New Jersey "are entitled to no relief whatsoever" because they misinterpreted Wilken's ruling in O'Bannon. "Although O'Bannon held that restraint to be unduly restrictive to a certain, limited extent, this court, consistent with prior federal court decisions endorsing NCAA limitations on payments to student-athletes, clearly rejected the premise on which the current complaints are founded -- that any NCAA limit on payments to student-athletes constitutes an antitrust violation," Jeffrey A. Mishkin wrote for the NCAA in its Sept. 25 motion. Attorneys have argued their sides last week before Wilken, who rejected the NCAA's motion to dismiss without publishing the reasons for it. Wilken set a case management conference for 2 p.m. on Jan. 7, 2015. The other named plaintiffs in the New Jersey case are football players Kevin Perry from the University of Texas at El Paso, William Tyndall of UC-Berkeley, and hoopster J.J. Moore of Rutgers. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued by Student Athlete Over Improper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Taking a different tack from the student athletes seeking compensation for use of their image rights, a University of Houston soccer player hopes to represent a class against Division I schools that deny student athletes a minimum wage, reports David Wells, writing for Courthouse News Service. The latest federal class action comes as the National Collegiate Athletic Association' appeals an injunction it faces in the class action brought by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon who wanted a share of the revenues schools earn from use of student- athletes' names, images and likenesses. Samantha Sackos filed her complaint on October 20 in Indiana where the NCAA is based, seeking damages she claims student-athletes are owed by Division I schools under the minimum-wage provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sackos said that, every soccer season for four years at the University of Houston, she "worked as an unpaid student athlete," at least 20 hours over six days every week. Every Division I school from Abilene Christian University to Youngstown State University "conspired to . . . misclassify[] plaintiff and members of the student athlete collective as unpaid labor rather than temporary employees, prohibiting payment of lawfully earned, modest wages to them," the complaint states. About a third of the 26-page complaint is dedicated to listing the dozens of Division I schools that Sackos named as defendants alongside the NCAA. "Work study participants who sell programs or usher at athletic events are paid, on average, $9.03 an hour, but student athletes whose performance creates such work study jobs in the athletic department are paid nothing," the complaint states. In rebuffing an attempt by Sackos' attorneys attempts to resolve the matter outside of court, the NCAA likened participation in student athletics to an extracurricular activity like glee club, according to the complaint. Sackos says her attorneys countered that such groups are student-organized and dissimilar to regulated sports, which are supervised by full-time, paid coaching staffs. In a statement on the complaint, the NCAA's chief legal officer Donald Remy disagreed "that student-athletes are participating in sports as employees." "Student-athletes have a passion for their sport and a commitment to their teammates that can't be equated to punching a time clock," Remy added. But Sackos says her attorneys already directed the NCAA to a provision in the Department of Labor Field Operations Handbook that says "an employment relationship will generally exist with regard to students whose duties are not part of an overall educational program . . . for example, students who work at food service counters or sell programs or usher at athletic events, or who wait on tables or wash dishes in dormitories." Though some student athletes receive scholarships, such awards do not constitute compensation because they are treated as nontaxable income that can be spent only on academic costs, according to the complaint. Sackos says the NCAA did not to respond to her attorneys' "critique" of its basis for misclassifying student athletes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul L. McDonald, Esq. P L MCDONALD LAW LLC 1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 238-3835 Facsimile: (267) 238-3801 E-mail: paul@plmcdonaldlaw.com The case is Samantha Sackos, on her own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (a/k/a the "NCAA"), et al., Case No. 1:14-CV-1710 WTL- MJD, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. NATURE'S BOUNTY: Sued for Falsely Advertising Ginkgo Biloba Pills ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nature's Bounty, Inc, a New York Corporation, NBTY INC., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1-100, Inclusive, Case No. BC561527 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., October 22, 2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged false representations and false advertising of their Ginkgo Biloba products. The Defendants specifically target the elderly by claiming: "Ginkgo helps support memory, especially occasional mild memory problems associated with aging," the Plaintiff alleges. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff contends, the promise of enhanced mental acuity and prevention of memory loss is nothing but a sham. Nature's Bounty, Inc. is a corporation headquartered in Ronkonkoma, New York. Nature's Bounty is the manufacturer of the Products. NBTY, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Ronkonkoma, New York. NBTY is a large manufacturer of vitamins and dietary supplements, including the Products, and markets its products under various name brands. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Allison R. Willett, Esq. MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (888) 835-8055 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com awillett@milsteinadelman.com - and - Clayton Halunen, Esq. Susan M. Coler, Esq. Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES 1650 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com coler@halunenlaw.com wolchansky@halunenlaw.com NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 260,000 Cars Over Defective Air Bags ---------------------------------------------------------- Eric Pfanner, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Nissan Motor Co. on Oct. 23 expanded its recall of cars equipped with potentially defective air bags from Takata Corp., saying it was calling back an additional 260,000 vehicles world-wide. Air bags from Takata, a Japanese parts supplier, have been linked to at least two deaths in the U.S., prompting an escalating series of recalls that has grown to include more than 12 million cars globally. On Oct. 22, a person familiar with the situation said federal prosecutors were investigating Takata over the incidents. Japan is the most heavily affected market in the latest round of recalls by Nissan, with 104,905 vehicles involved, according to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. The air bag inflater could rupture owing to a foreign object in one of the air bag parts, according to the notice. This could cause fragments to fly out and injure occupants. Chris Keeffe, a Nissan spokesman, said there were no reports of injuries connected with the latest recall. In Japan, the recall affects Nissan Cubes from the 2008-12 model years and Nissan March cars from the 2010-12 model years. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Faces Suit Over Fuel Surcharges in Col. --------------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to face a lawsuit regarding fuel surcharges in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against the company and other Class I railroads in various Federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a class action. The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration. The company believes the allegations in the complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the cases. The company does not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect on the company's financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. A lawsuit containing similar allegations against the company and four other major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling agreement entered into in August 2008, and most recently extended in August 2013. ORACLE CORP: Accused of Entering Into Restricted Hiring Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that antitrust class action suits filed against Oracle and Microsoft joined a growing list of lawsuits accusing major tech companies of creating no-poaching agreements in order to keep salaries down. On Oct. 14, Greg Garrison sued Oracle for allegedly creating a "restricted hiring agreement" with companies like Google, Microsoft and others, who agreed not to poach each others' managerial employees. The companies also agreed not to cold-call each others managers and to inform each other before hiring one anothers' employees, the complaint says. On Oct. 17, Deserae Ryan and Trent Rau sued Microsoft with similar allegations, also on behalf of a class of managers. The lawsuits mirror a 2010 Department of Justice suit against Adobe Systems, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit and Pixar on behalf of a class of up to 64,000 software engineers. A September lawsuit against major animation studios like Pixar and DreamWorks also contains similar allegations regarding animators. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq. Tyler J. Belong, Esq. Bryce A. Dodds, Esq. HOGUE & BELONG 430 Nutmeg Street, Second Floor San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone No: (619) 238-4720 Facsimile No: (619) 270-9856 E-mail: tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com bdodds@hoguebelonglaw.com The case is Greg Garrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oracle Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-04592-NC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. PERDUE FARMS: False Advertising Class Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that three years of class litigation challenging Perdue Farms Inc.'s assertion that it humanely raises chickens sold under one of its brands has ended with terse statements that the poultry company will no longer make that claim. Perdue and the Humane Society of the United States issued identical four-paragraph press releases in which each party expressed that it "pleased" with the dismissal, with prejudice, on Oct. 13 of two proposed class actions filed in 2011 and 2013 in U.S. District Courts in New Jersey and the Middle District of Florida. Neither side elaborated on terms of the deal, which was described simply as requiring Perdue to remove the words "humanely raised" from packages of its Harvestland chicken brand. The dismissal of Hemy v. Perdue in New Jersey and Roy v. Perdue in Florida came after a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed on Oct. 10 a similar suit alleging Kroger Co. also mislabeled its Simple Truth chickens as having been raised in a "humane environment." In the Perdue cases, the Humane Society alleged the poultry producer falsely advertised its Harvestland chickens as having been raised according to U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines for humane treatment, implying a government imprimatur that does not exist, according to the complaints. Instead, Perdue allegedly followed voluntary, self-defined guidelines to achieve "process verification" by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, a branch of the department dedicated to boosting the poultry industry. In fact, the complaints alleged, Perdue's practices adhered to those of the National Chicken Council, a trade group that emphasizes mass-production efficiency and profit over humane methods of raising and slaughtering chickens. The practices it endorses, the Humane Society said, include painful handling and shackling of live birds; transport and holding of birds on cramped trucks for long periods in extreme temperatures with no food or water, and unnecessarily painful slaughter practices. Perdue denied all allegations and said its labels were not misleading, as did Kroger. Perdue said the company "is committed to treating animals with respect and to ensuring their health and safety." Perdue's counsel are with Venable; Russomanno & Borrello; and Connell Foley. Plaintiffs in the Perdue cases are represented by attorneys with Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Keechl; Tycko & Zavareei; The Humane Society of the United States; and Law Offices of David M. Wacksman. PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT: Removes "Zeto" Class Suit to D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Zeto, et al. v. Property Adjustment Corporation, Inc., et al., Case No. L-1867-14, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-06529- PGS-LHG to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of compensatory damages, statutory damages, fees and costs, and equitable relief, for alleged violations of state and federal law, including violations of the federal "FTC Door-to-Door Sales Cooling-Off Regulation." The Plaintiffs have also alleged state law claims pursuant to the New Jersey Public Adjusters' Licensing Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Henry Paul Wolfe, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC 1520 US Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 Facsimile: (732) 545-1030 E-mail: hwolfe@wolflawfirm.net The Defendants are represented by: Sean Robins, Esq. Sean X. Kelly, Esq. MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C. Cooper River West 6981 North Park Drive, Suite 300 Pennsauken, NJ 08109 Telephone: (856) 663-4300 Facsimile: (856) 663-4439 E-mail: srobins@moodklaw.com skelly@moodklaw.com REDBOX AUTOMATED: Ruling in Video Privacy Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------- Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal appellate court ruled on Oct. 23 that self-service movie kiosk company Redbox did not violate the Video Privacy Protection Act by giving an outside customer-service vendor access to its customer database. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed Northern District of Illinois Judge Matthew Kennelly's August 2013 summary judgment for the company. In Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail LLC, Judge Kennelly wrote that the information sharing fell within an exception to the law that allows such disclosures in the ordinary course of business. The Seventh Circuit agreed in a ruling by Judge Joel Flaum. "If it is permissible to disclose [personally identifiable information] to Stream in order to respond to a customer's call, there is nothing objectionable about Redbox's wholesale disclosure of information pertaining to all customers, for use in the event of such a call," he wrote. Judges Michael Kanne and Daniel Manion joined the opinion. The ruling also approved disclosure of customer information in Stream's training programs. Redbox user Kevin Sterk's original complaint, filed in March 2011, alleged that Redbox violated the act by unlawfully retaining customer information. His amended lawsuit, joined by Jiah Chung, added the unlawful-disclosure claim. The Seventh Circuit ruled in 2012 that the law does not provide for monetary damages for an unlawful retention claim. Neither Redbox nor Dentons Chicago partner Natalie Spears, who argued for the company on appeal, responded to requests for comment. Roger Perlstadt, a Chicago associate at Edelson who argued the plaintiffs' Seventh Circuit case, did not respond. The Oct. 23 ruling echoed recent district court decisions. U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. of Georgia this month dismissed a similar purported class action, Ellis v. The Cartoon Network Inc. In June, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler declined to certify a class allegedly harmed by video privacy act violations in In re: Hulu Privacy Litigation. In an April summary judgment, Beeler said Hulu was not liable for sharing user information with data analytics firm comScore Inc., but was liable for sharing it with Facebook Inc. RETROPHIN INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 20 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against c and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-8376, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Retrophin securities between March 27, 2014 and September 30, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Retrophin securities during the Class Period, you have until December 19, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Retrophin, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development, acquisition, and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of serious, catastrophic, or rare diseases. It sells Chenodal, a synthetic oral form of chenodeoxycholic acid for the treatment of radiolucent stones in well-opacifying gallbladders, and Vecamyl, for the treatment of hypertension. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Retrophin's founder and Chief Executive Officer was committing stock-trading irregularities and other violations of the Company's Incentive Compensation Plan and other securities rules; (ii) said irregularities included grants of shares in violation of the Company's Incentive Compensation Plan and the failure to disclose stock grants to employees; and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 16, 2014, after the close of trading, the Company issued a press release and filed a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing that on September 15, 2014, it had reached an agreement with its Chief Financial Officer, Marc Panoff, pursuant to which Mr. Panoff's employment with the Company will terminate, effective as of February 28, 2015. Also, the Company announced that on September 10, 2014, Jeffrey Paley, MD abruptly stepped down as a member of the Board of Directors. As a result of this news, shares of Retrophin fell $1.03 or over 8%, on unusually heavy trading, to close at $11.46 on September 17, 2014. On September 30, 2014, after the close of trading, the Company issued a press release announcing that its Board of Directors terminated its Chief Executive Officer, Martin Shkreli, effective immediately, and appointed Stephen Aselage as interim Chief Executive Officer. As a result of this news, shares of Retrophin fell $0.40 or almost 4.5%, on unusually heavy trading, to close at $8.62 on October 1, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. RICHARD ADJMI: Family Chauffer Wants to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Herrera v. Richard Adjmi, Case No. 1:14-cv-08392 (S.D.N.Y., October 21, 2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendant: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) liquidated damages and (3) attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as a family chauffer at the Defendant's residence located in Brooklyn, New York. The Defendant's office is located in Manhattan, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 576-1857 Facsimile: (212) 576-1888 E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com RJM ACQUISITIONS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Arleen Fackina, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RJM Acquisitions LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-06532-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., October 21, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com SEI INVESTMENTS: Plaintiffs to Appeal Denial of Motion to Remand ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the East Baton Rouge class action against SEI Investments Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with respect to the denial by the District Court of the Plaintiffs' motion to remand, SEI said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. One of the five actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a defendant and was certified as a class in December 2012. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant. All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and, in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of action against SEI and SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act. The class action originally included a claim against SEI and SPTC for an alleged violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. Two of the other five actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy. In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana, against SEI and SPTC and other defendants asserting claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and conspiracy. The underlying allegations in all the actions are purportedly related to the role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank. Two of the five actions filed in East Baton Rouge were removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On August 31, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order and judgment that the causes of action alleged against SEI in the two removed actions were preempted by federal law and the court dismissed these cases with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling, and on March 19, 2012, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District Court and remanded the actions for further proceedings. On July 18, 2012, SEI filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit to permit the claims against SEI to proceed. SEI believes that the trial court correctly concluded that the claims against SEI were barred by the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and requested that the Supreme Court reinstate that dismissal. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari. On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the appeal and on February 26, 2014 the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The case filed in Ascension was also removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern District of Texas. The schedule for responding to that complaint has not yet been established. The plaintiffs in the remaining two cases in East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC an extension to respond to the filings. SEI and SPTC filed exceptions in the class action pending in East Baton Rouge, which the Court granted in part and dismissed the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and denied in part as to the other exceptions. SEI and SPTC filed an answer to the East Baton Rouge class action, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification; and SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment against certain named plaintiffs which the Court stated would not be set for hearing until after the hearing on the class certification motion. The Court in the East Baton Rouge action held a hearing on class certification on September 20, 2012. By oral decision on December 5, 2012 and later entered in a judgment signed on December 17, 2012 that was subsequently amended, the Court in East Baton Rouge certified a class to be composed of persons who purchased or renewed any Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit (SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009 or any person for whom the Stanford Trust Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009. On January 30, 2013, SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the judgments that stated SEI's and SPTC's intention to move to stay the litigation. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for Leave to File First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition in which they ask the Court to allow them to amend the petition in this case to add additional facts that were developed during discovery and adding claims against certain of SEI's insurance carriers. On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of the motions for appeal and the motion for leave to amend. On February 15, 2013, SEI filed a motion for new trial, or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of the Court's order allowing amendment. On February 22, 2013, SEI filed a motion to stay proceedings in view of the pending Supreme Court case. On February 28, 2013, SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition by filing an exception. On March 11, 2013, the insurance carrier defendants filed a notice of removal removing the case to the Middle District of Louisiana and on March 18, 2013, the insurance carrier defendants filed answers. On March 13, 2013, SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case as a potential tag- along action. On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, a motion for expedited briefing schedule, expedited status conference and expedited consideration of their motion to remand, a motion for leave to file under seal and a motion for order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(b) requiring removing defendants to supplement federal court record with certified copy of state court record. These motions are now fully briefed. On March 25, 2013, SEI filed a motion that the court decline to adopt the state court's order regarding class certification, which the court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of removal jurisdiction in an April 12, 2013 order that also dismissed without prejudice a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue filed on April 9, 2013 by one of the insurers. On April 1, 2013, the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions (OFI) filed a motion to remand and sever claims, and a response to that motion by the insurers and opposition to that motion by the plaintiffs were filed on April 22, 2013. Along with the briefing in the Middle District of Louisiana, on March 13, 2013, SEI notified the MDL of this case as a potential tag-along action. On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs notified the MDL that they had filed a motion to remand and asked the panel to decline to issue a conditional transfer order. On March 29, 2013, the MDL issued a conditional transfer order (CTO). On April 18, 2013, OFI filed a motion to vacate the CTO or, in the alternative, stay any ruling to transfer the matter until after the Middle District of Louisiana ruled on OFI's motion to remand and sever. Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the CTO on April 19, 2013. SEI's responses to those motions were filed on May 9, 2013. On June 12, 2013, the MDL Panel issued an order notifying the parties that on July 25, 2013, it would consider, without oral argument, Plaintiffs' and OFI's motions to vacate the CTO. On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel affirmed the CTO and transferred the matter against SEI to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; the MDL Panel also severed the claims against OFI and remanded those claims to the Middle District of Louisiana. On September 11, 2013, defendants filed a motion requesting a status conference with the Court to address the status of all pending motions. On October 4, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review the MDL Panel's transfer Order and on February 14, 2014, the Court denied the petition. On October 1, 2014, SEI filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the Northern District of Texas, and on October 6, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the motion to remand. This case is now pending in the Northern District of Texas. On October 16, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with respect to the denial by the District Court of the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the foregoing lawsuits. SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Excessive Use of Oil --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that certain 2011-14 Subaru models consume excessive amounts of oil, damaging the engine, a class action claims in New Jersey Federal Court. SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Sanders" Product Liability Suit in Alabama ----------------------------------------------------------------- William O. Sanders, on behalf himself and all others similarly situated v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Syngenta Corporation and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01076-TFM (M.D. Ala., October 21, 2014) asserts product liability claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brannon Jeffrey Buck, Esq. BADHAM & BUCK LLC 2001 Park Place North, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 521-0036 Facsimile: (205) 521-0037 E-mail: bbuck@badhambuck.com - and - Walker Percy Badham, III, Esq. BADHAM & BUCK, LLC 2585 Wachovia Tower 420 20th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 521-0036 Facsimile: (205) 521-0037 E-mail: pbadham@badhambuck.com - and - Christina Diane Crow, Esq. Lynn Wilson Jinks, III, Esq. Nathan Andrew Dickson, II, Esq. JINKS CROW & DICKSON, PC P O Box 350 Union Springs, AL 36089 Telephone: (334) 738-4225 Facsimile: (334) 738-4229 E-mail: ccrow@jinkslaw.com ljinks@jinkslaw.com ndickson@jinkslaw.com - and - Mahaley P. McInnes, Esq. WEBB & ELEY, P.C. P. O. Box 240909 Montgomery, AL 36124 Telephone: (334) 262-1850 Facsimile: (334) 262-1772 E-mail: mmcinnes@webbeley.com - and - Stuart Halkett McCluer, Esq. MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC PO Box 2294 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 236-1401 Facsimile: (662) 234-3060 SYNGENTA AG: Class Actions Over Viptera Corn Seeds Pile Up ---------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Bunge, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Syngenta AG faces escalating legal battles over its sale of genetically engineered corn seeds that some farmers and agricultural companies say have roiled international grain markets this year. U.S. farmers in 11 states have sued Syngenta in federal courts during the past few weeks, alleging losses they say arose from the Swiss seed-and-chemical company's move to sell biotech seeds before the corn was approved by Chinese authorities for import there. China's rejections of U.S. corn shipments found to contain the Syngenta strain starting last November allegedly depressed overall market prices for the grain, driving more than $1 billion in losses for U.S. farmers, according to documents filed in the lawsuits. The farmers' suits, filed in U.S. district courts and seeking class-action status, follow separate cases filed last month by grain exporters Cargill Inc. and Trans Coastal Supply Co., arguing that they lost tens of millions of dollars after Chinese grain inspectors detected the Syngenta corn in cargoes and turned away shipments. On Oct. 17, farmers filed complaints against Syngenta in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana after earlier lawsuits spanning other farm states. Syngenta officials said the cases have no merit, and that it has been transparent about the approval process for the GMO corn in question, known as Viptera. "We continue to believe that [we have] complied with all the laws, rules and regulations of the countries in which we're selling the product," John Ramsay, Syngenta's chief financial officer, said on Oct. 16 during a conference call with analysts to discuss earnings. Attorneys for the farmers seek damages to compensate for an alleged hit to corn prices. Corn futures prices have dropped about 18% this year, as favorable weather nurtured what is expected to be the largest U.S. corn crop in history. Prices fell 40% last year thanks to a similar bumper crop. China's rejection of U.S. corn imports effectively added supply to the broader corn market, lowering the price of corn by about 11 cents a bushel, farmers' attorneys charged in the lawsuits. James Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- a partner at Hausfeld LLP, a Washington-based law firm coordinating some of the farmers' legal effort against Syngenta, alleges the company misled farmers. "Syngenta should not have marketed and aggressively promoted Viptera while misrepresenting that Chinese approval was imminent and also downplaying the importance of the Chinese export market," Mr. Pizzirusso said. Syngenta since 2011 has sold Viptera to farmers in the U.S., Argentina and Brazil, with those governments' approval. Syngenta says the product provides tougher defenses against pests such as black cutworms and corn earworms, and that U.S. farmers shouldn't have to rely on the Chinese government to decide what products they can use on their farms. Farmers suing Syngenta face a challenge identifying any hit to corn prices arising directly from China's rejections of corn shipments over Viptera, said Christopher Hurt, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University. "I also don't know how they will counter the argument that says 'you planted it voluntarily, and it has this restriction on it,'" he said. Analysts said the lawsuits and the prospect of more to come could diminish farmers' interest in Viptera, which represents 30% of Syngenta's North American corn-seed sales. Despite the seeds' effectiveness against crop-destroying pests, farmers might worry that grain companies might not buy corn grown with the seeds, said Andrew Benson, an analyst with Citigroup Inc. "They may think, I don't need any hassle," Mr. Benson said. The lawsuits come as the agricultural sector faces growing questions over its management of genetically modified seeds. The U.S. Department of Agriculture last month said it discovered unauthorized, genetically modified wheat growing near a research station in Montana, which had been a site for Monsanto Co. field trials 11 years ago. Last year the USDA discovered a separate strain of GMO wheat, also developed by Monsanto, growing in a farmer's field in Oregon. A USDA investigation failed to determine how that wheat came to be on the Oregon field, though Monsanto officials have said they suspected sabotage. While the Oregon wheat discovery temporarily halted imports of U.S. wheat by several Asian nations, some agriculture experts said the flap over Syngenta's Viptera corn represents the farthest- reaching upheaval because of a genetically modified crop in more than a decade. Hundreds of food products were recalled in 2000 after StarLink, a type of corn then approved for use in animal feed, erroneously was added to human food products such as taco shells and corn chips, costing the industry hundreds of millions of dollars. TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: "Cook" Suit Consolidated in Securities MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Cook v. Telexelectric, LLLP, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00134, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Worcester). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-40154-TSH to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In Re: TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL No. 2566, currently pending in Massachusetts. The actions in the litigation share factual questions relating to the allegation that the TelexFree companies operated a Ponzi pyramid scheme involving the recruitment of investors in marketing TelexFree's telephone service plan and that the Defendants directly participated in or aided and abetted the alleged scheme. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Tate, Esq. TATE LAW GROUP, LLC 2 East Bryan Street, Suite 600 P. O. Box 9060 Savannah, GA 31412 Telephone: (912) 234-3030 Facsimile: (912) 234-9700 E-mail: tlgservice@tatelawgroup.com TV PRODUCTS: Chauffer Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Gomez v. Jennifer Kurani, Jay "Jeff" Kurani, TV Products USA Inc., and Kishore Samtani, Case No. 1:14-cv-08393 (S.D.N.Y., October 21, 2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants (1) unpaid overtime, (2) liquidated damages and (3) attorneys' fees and costs. TV Products USA Inc. is a New York corporation headquartered in New York City. Kishore Samtani is the Chairman or Chief Executive Officer of TV Products. Jennifer Kurani and Jay "Jeff" Kurani are residents of New York City. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a family chauffer at their residence in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 576-1857 Facsimile: (212) 576-1888 E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com - and - William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com UNITED NATIONS: Haitians Seek Court OK to Send Cholera Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blaming the United Nations for the "worst cholera epidemic in modern times," a lawyer for the Haitian victims told a federal judge on October 23, 2014, that diplomatic immunity has prevented her clients from delivering a lawsuit some 4 miles uptown to the organization's headquarters overlooking the East River, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service. While Secretary General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged the UN's "moral responsibility" earlier this year for the outbreak that killed 8,000 and infected 700,000 Haitians, he has insisted that the institution should not face legal liability. The United Nations has dodged a class action lawsuit from the victims for more than a year. Lawyers for Delama Georges, whose father died during the outbreak, and other Haitians have been unable to serve the federal complaint because UN premises is considered "inviolable." They asked a federal judge to acknowledge service, or allow for the unprecedented step of mailing, faxing, or emailing their lawsuit to the United Nations. Hoping to avoid a diplomatic headache, the United States dispatched attorneys from the Justice Department and State Department to prevent that fate. This first hearing in the high-profile case October 23 drew dozens of spectators to the grand courtroom of New York's Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, but arguments largely focused on arcane details of international law. Beatrice Lindstrom, representing the plaintiffs for the Institute of Justice & Democracy in Haiti, said the fundamental facts of the case are "not disputed." Her clients' lawsuit alleges that the UN responded to a Haiti's earthquake four years ago by sending personnel from Nepal, "a country in which cholera is endemic and where a surge in infections had just been reported." The UN troops disposed of human waste in open-air pits outside their base on the banks of the Meille Tributary that flows into the Artibonite River, Haiti's longest river and primary water source, the Haitians say. Lindstrom reminded the court that former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who served as the UN Special Envoy for Haiti, acknowledged two years ago that the virus traced back to a U.N. peacekeeper. For U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken, however, 2nd Circuit precedent on immunity gives the Haitians "a steep hill to climb" with their lawsuit. Lindstrom countered that the Haitians brought "a case of first impression that has never been in from of the court of the United States." She contends that the UN trampled upon its obligation under the Convention on Privileges and Immunities to settle claims against its officials. The UN never established a claims commission for Haiti's cholera crisis, she noted. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ellen Blain meanwhile said the case turns on whether the "UN Charter means what it unambiguously says." The United States took no position on whether the UN breached its obligations to settle claims, Blain added. International law experts and NGOs joined the Haitians in seeking to overcome the UN's immunity. Kertch Conze, of the Haitian Lawyers Association, became particularly passionate and indignant as he emphasized the thousands of innocent victims claimed by the UN's alleged negligence. "These people who have been infected, they did nothing wrong," he said. Conze echoed the plaintiffs' arguments that the UN's alleged violation of one section of the treaty waived whatever immunity the other portion provided. "If you breach the contract and you come to court and tell the judge, 'I have immunity,' then you come to court with unclean hands," Conze said. Such a position also would be "patently unfair," he added. UNITIL CORP: Decision of Mass. Supreme Judicial Court Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is pending on an appeal by the plaintiffs in a class action against Unitil Corporation's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company (Fitchburg), Unitil said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil Corporation's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company (Fitchburg), in Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December, 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 ice storm. On September 4, 2009, the Court issued its order on the Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part. Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case as a class action. On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. As a result of this decision, the lawsuit would now proceed with only the twelve named plaintiffs seeking damages; however, the plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the "SJC"). The SJC accepted the matter for review, briefs have been submitted and oral arguments have been held. The decision of the SJC is pending. The Town of Lunenburg has also filed a separate action in the Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The parties to this action have agreed to put this matter on hold pending the decision of the SJC in Bellermann. The Company continues to believe these suits are without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously. Unitil is a public utility holding company headquartered in Hampton, New Hampshire. Unitil is subject to regulation as a holding company system by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. USG CORP: Reached Agreement in Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- USG Corporation reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims made in the direct and indirect purchaser class actions consolidated in the lawsuit, In re: Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pursuant to the agreement in principle to settle, which is subject to finalization of a settlement agreement and court approval, USG will make a payment of $48 million. USG strongly denies any wrong-doing for the claims made in the lawsuits, but settled to avoid the expense, distraction and risk of further litigation. USG expects to make this cash payment within the next twelve months, while recording the $48 million charge in the third quarter of 2014. "It is very disappointing to settle this lawsuit when we strongly believe we have done nothing wrong," said James S. Metcalf, Chairman, President, and CEO. "However, we have to be realistic about the cost and risk a lawsuit like this creates for USG. Settling allows us to put this issue behind us and continue to focus on serving our customers. USG has always established its prices and pricing policies independently and in full compliance with the law. In addition, we still expect to achieve our de- levering targets over the planning horizon." USG said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in late 2012, USG Corporation and United States Gypsum Company were named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits alleging that since at least September 2011, U.S. wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix and raise the price of gypsum wallboard sold in the United States and to effectuate the alleged conspiracy by ending the practice of providing job quotes on wallboard. These lawsuits are consolidated for pretrial proceedings in multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under the title In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437. One group of plaintiffs purports to represent a class of entities that purchased gypsum wallboard in the United States directly from any of the defendants or their affiliates from January 1, 2012 to the present. The second group of plaintiffs purports to bring their claims and seek damages on behalf of indirect purchasers of gypsum wallboard. These indirect purchaser plaintiffs seek to certify a separate class of persons or entities who from January 1, 2012 through the present indirectly purchased wallboard in the United States from the defendants or their affiliates for end use and not for resale. In the fall of 2013, similar lawsuits were filed in Quebec and Ontario courts on behalf of purchasers of wallboard in Canada. These Canadian lawsuits also name as defendants CGC,as well as other Canadian and U.S. wallboard manufacturers. USG has denied the allegations made in these wallboard pricing lawsuits, believes these cases are without merit, and that USG's actions were at all times lawful. U.S. antitrust litigation, however, is expensive and protracted, with inherent risks and uncertainties, including the potential of triple damages and joint and several liability. "To avoid these expenses, risks and further distraction of management, in October 2014, we entered into a settlement agreement in principle with the attorneys representing the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the U.S. wallboard pricing lawsuits. Pursuant to the settlement in principle, which is subject to finalization of a settlement agreement and court approval, USG will pay a total of $48 million to resolve the U.S. direct and indirect purchaser cases. Accordingly we have recorded a $48 million charge in the third quarter of 2014 related to this settlement. If we are unable to settle the U.S. litigation under the terms currently contemplated, or at all, there can be no assurance that the outcome of these lawsuits will not have a material effect on our business, financial condition, operating results or cash flows," the Company said. The settlement does not include the Canadian lawsuits. "At this stage of the Canadian lawsuits, we are not able to estimate the amount, if any, of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses. We believe, however, that these Canadian lawsuits will not have a material effect on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows," the Company said. USG is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials. WELLS FARGO: Gets Final OK of $14.7MM Settlement in "Dyer" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge on October 22, 2014, awarded $3.6 million in attorneys' fees from a settled $14.7 million class action accusing Wells Fargo Home Mortgage of shorting employees on commissions, reports Courthouse News Service. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar granted final approval of the settlement, awarded fees and awarded two key plaintiffs $10,000 in incentives apiece for their key roles in the litigation. Of the class of 8,695 branch sales managers or home mortgage consultants, only 3 opted out of the settlement, Tigar found. The total value of the settlement fund will be $14,743,101 - 32.7 percent of the amount the class claimed they would have received had they won at trial. The lead class counsel is: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N Franklin St., Floor 7 Tampa, FL 33602-5157 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 275-9295 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com The case is Bobbie Pacheco Dyer, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 13-cv-02858-JST, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. WEST BROM: Class Action Over Mortgage Rate Hike Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------- Emma Lunn, writing for Mortgage Solutions, reports that a group of landlords has been given permission to take West Brom Building Society to court after the lender hiked rates on buy-to-let tracker mortgages. The class action was told on Oct. 17 that it could have a trial after Nov 17 and is now waiting for a court date to be set. The campaign, headed by Property 118 founder Mark Alexander (pictured), has been gathering pace ever since West Brom announced the rate hike in September 2013. The building society announced it would be upping rates on 6,700 tracker mortgages by two percentage points in December 2013, despite no change in the Bank of England base rate which tracker deals are supposed to follow. The change affected landlords with multiple properties who took out a mortgage through West Brom's now defunct specialist lending arm West Bromwich Mortgage Company. West Brom pointed to contract small print stating that "the rate may be varied to reflect market conditions and ensure the business is carried out prudently, efficiently and competitively". However, landlords didn't take the news lying down and joined together to fight the move. The class action consists of more than 400 mortgage cases with almost GBP500,000 raised to help fight the case. Some landlords have 10 or more mortgages with West Brom, meaning the rate rise caused their monthly mortgage payments to go up by thousands of pounds. If the class action succeeds, West Brom could be forced to refund all overpayments as well as meeting court costs. Borrowers with the Bank of Ireland face a similar fate. In February 2013 it announced it was upping tracker rates for both buy-to-let and residential borrowers. Landlords fared worse and saw their pay rate jump from bank rate plus 1.75% to bank rate plus 4.49%. Lawyers for both groups of affected borrowers have stressed that the clause allowing lenders to change rates due to market conditions is buried deeply in the small print and therefore unenforceable. ZOOM MEDIA: Sued for Not Properly Paying Earned Commission Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Wawryk, an individual, for himself and those similarly situated; Roes 1 through 50,000 inclusive; and the putative class v. Zoom Media Corp., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC561047 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., October 17, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs earned commission wages for which they were not paid correctly. Zoom Media Corp. is a Delaware corporation doing business in the state of California. Zoom sells advertising throughout California. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel J. Palay, Esq. Michael A. Strauss, Esq. Brian D. Hefelfinger, Esq. PALAY LAW FIRM 121 North Fir Street, Suite F Ventura, CA 93001 Telephone: (805) 641-6600 Facsimile: (805) 641-6607 E-mail: djp@palaylaw.com mike@palaylaw.com brian@palaylaw.com * Experts Address Issue on Electronic Health Records Cybersecurity ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a cybersecurity framework for medical devices and health-care technology needs to be developed in a partnership between the government, manufacturers and health-care providers, officials from across the public and private sectors during a workshop convened by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Right now, for cybersecurity, we're all in a reactive mode," said Deborah Kobza, executive director of the National Healthcare Information Sharing and Analysis Center. "We need to change that to be in a preventive mode." The concern is that hackers could cause medical devices to malfunction, disrupt health-care services or steal patient information and electronic health records. The FDA, along with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security, sponsored the two-day workshop last week. The Advanced Medical Technology Association's Jeffrey Secunda said that, "for devices that are facing the Internet, you do have the risk of advanced persistent threats." How the FDA is going to approach cybersecurity, including evidence that devices have led to patient harm, "is exactly why we're convening this meeting," said Suzanne Schwartz, director of the FDA's emergency preparedness/operations and medical countermeasures in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Workshop participants said they were unsure how much tolerance there is for the risk that patients information could be breached in the effort to make electronic health records and health information technology "interoperable" and more accessible to patients. Dr. William Maisel, the FDA's chief scientist and deputy center director for science at CDRH, said there are 100,000 medical devices on the market and the technology changes rapidly. The FDA doesn't view it as a solution to take in all the information about digital security vulnerabilities in medical devices and pass it on to the community, he said. Instead, federal regulators want an "ecosystem where that information is being shared," such safe harbors for medical device manufacturers and health-care providers to make reports about cybersecurity breaches without incurring liability, he said. Participants said that providers don't report digital security breaches for fear or exposure during litigation. The National Healthcare Information Sharing and Analysis Center's Ms. Kobza noted that her group has entered a memorandum of understanding with the FDA to develop a protocol about sharing information about medical devices. ********* 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 * * *