/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141208.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, December 8, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 243
Headlines
48 ROCKEFELLER CORP: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ABBVIE INC: Faces "Rubinstein" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: ASAC Moves to Junk Breach of Contract Claim
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Court Consolidates "Pacchia" & "Hayes" Cases
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Del. Court Denies "Benston" Leadership Role
AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Australian Subsidiary Still Faces Suit Over IPO
AK STEEL: Ill. Court Approves Agreement for Steel Consumers' Suit
AR TRINITY: Faces "Smale" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Court Grants Dismissal Bid in Privacy Suit
ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES: No Appeal Filed v. Dismissal of Stock Suit
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Court Stays Bentaous Suit Pending Arbitration
BASF METALS: Sued Over Platinum and Palladium-Price Fixing
BEACHBODY LLC: S.D. Cal. Judge Transfers Suit to C.D. Cal.
BETHEL SPRINGVALE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BRE/LQ TX: Sued for Not Providing ADA-Compliant Disabled Parking
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Player's Grandfather Balks at Class Action
CC-PALO ALTO: Claims That It Funneled $200MM to Parent Dismissed
CHAUFFEURED EXECUTIVE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Dittmar" Suit Remanded to State Court
CYTRX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Complaint
CYTRX CORPORATION: Calif. Court Grants Stay in "Rajasekaran" Suit
DBME INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
DELTA AIR: Gets Final OK of $1.4MM Deal to Settle Workers' Suit
DELTA AIR: Faces $1.8MM Sanctions in Baggage Price-Fixing Suit
DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Inks Agreement to Settle Stockholder Suit
E-WASTE SYSTEMS: Faces "Barnett" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ELAN INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Vega" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ENTERGY CORP: Pleading on Miss. AG's Complaint Remains Pending
ENTERGY CORP: Consumers Suit Stayed Pending Appeals Ruling
EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: "Young" Lawsuit Withdrawn From Arbitration
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Sued for Passing Law That Restricts Feeding
GEICO GENERAL: Sued for Using Unavailable Phone Records Excuse
GLIMCHER REALTY: Faces "Zucker" Shareholder Lawsuit in Maryland
GLIMCHER REALTY: Faces "Motsch" Shareholder's Lawsuit in Maryland
GROUP HEALTH: Accused of Not Covering Mental Health Treatment
HCA HOLDINGS: Seeks Appeal From Tennessee Court's Cert. Ruling
HCSB FINANCIAL: SC Court Denies Shelly's Motion to Reconsider
HCSB FINANCIAL: "Snyder" Suit Counsel Seeks to Amend Complaint
HESS & TURNER: Violates Disabilities Act, Vietnam Veteran Says
INFOBLOX: Top Execs Sold Shares at Inflated Prices, Suit Claims
INTERLINE BRANDS: Court Approval of Accord to Take Several Months
INTERVEST BANCSHARES: Facing "Greentech" & "Sonnenberg" Lawsuits
INVENTURE FOODS: California Court Dismisses "Anderson" Lawsuit
INVENTURE FOODS: Full Settlement Deal in "Lilly" Case Expected
INVENTURE FOODS: Conference for "Vanessa Montantes" Action Set
INVESTORHUB.COM: Global Holdings Files Class Action in California
JANAKI FOODS: Faces "Campos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours
JOSEPH & MJK: Va. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued Over Underpayment of Insureds' Claims
MARRONE BIO: Faces "Spencer" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
MARRONE BIO: Faces 2nd "Spencer" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
MAXIMUS INC: Continues to Face "Norton" Labor Lawsuit in Idaho
MILLHURST ALE: Faces "Cope" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MOL GLOBAL: Faces "Grodko" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
MULTICARE HEALTH: Class Suit Accord Obtains Preliminary Court OK
NATIONAL BEEF: Settles Workers' Class Action for $350,000
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Restraint of Trade
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Responds to Players' Concussion Class Action
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Lawyers Get More From Levee Suit Settlement
NEW YORK, NY: Vertical Patrols Spark Controversy After Shooting
NICOLAS CARRILLO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime Wages
OILTANKING PARTNERS: Faces Class Action Over Enterprise Merger
OPTIMUM OUTCOMES: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
PEAPOD LLC: "Lungan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
POWER HOME: Faces "Ellerbe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SAN JUAN COUNTY, NM: Sheriff Abuses Immigration Holds, Suit Says
SCHERR & MCCLURE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Opposes Attorney Fees Claim in WMS Merger Suit
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Inks MoU to Settle Suit Over Bally Acquisition
SEECO: $100+ Mil. at Stake in Gas Royalties Class Action
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Faces Stockholders' Lawsuits in Delaware
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: $3MM Goes to Understaffing Suit Settlement
SOLYNDRA: Judge Won't Force Trust to Hand Over Documents
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Alexande" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Burch" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Dube" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Johnston" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Leger" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TARGET CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Data Breach Class Action
TENET HEALTHCARE: Receives Court Approval of Deal in "Doe" Suit
TGI FRIDAY'S: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Over Cost of Drinks
TIER REIT: District Court Approves Motion to Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
TESCO PLC: Sued in S.D. N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Statements
TIMBERTECH: Falsely Marketed Decking Products, "Rogers" Suit Says
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit Over Defective Guardrails
UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Junk Refuge-Seekers' Class Action
USG CORP: Inks MoU to Settle Domestic Drywall Antitrust Lawsuit
VELDOS LLC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
VICAL INC: Cal. Court Yet to Issue Decision on Securities Lawsuit
VIVINT SOLAR: Sued by Investor for Hiding Cloudy Forecast
WELLS FARGO: Sued by Cook County for Violating Fair Housing Act
WESTPAC: Int'l Money Transfer Businesses Join Class Action
ZILLOW INC: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
*********
48 ROCKEFELLER CORP: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Camacho, Oscar Caballero, Jaime Serrano, and Andres Garcia,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 48
Rockefeller Corp. d/b/a Deli's 48, Byung W. Cho, and John Does #1-
10, Case No. 1:14-cv-09394 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate a deli-restaurant located at48 West
48th Street, New York, New York 10036.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eugene G. Eisner, Esq.
EISNER & ASSOCIATES, PC
113 University Place
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 473-8700
Facsimile: (212)473-8705
E-mail: gene@eisnerassociates.com
ABBVIE INC: Faces "Rubinstein" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray Rubinstein, Jeffrey F. St. Clair, William McWade, Harjot
Dev and Vikas Shah, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Richard Gonzalez and Abbvie Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-09465 (N.D. Ill., November 25, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.
Abbvie Inc. is biopharmaceutical company with principal executive
offices located at 1 North Waukegan Road, North Chicago, Illinois,
60064.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick H. Moran, Esq.
Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (312) 984-0001
E-mail: moran@whafh.com
tbell@whafh.com
- and -
Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
James S. Notis, Esq.
Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
Meagan Farmer, Esq.
GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
Tower 56
126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 905-0509
Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
- and -
Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 545-4758
E-mail: nespole@whafh.com
kaufman@whafh.com
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: ASAC Moves to Junk Breach of Contract Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASAC II LP filed a motion to dismiss a re-pleaded breach of
contract claim and the other defendants filed answers in response
to a fourth amended complaint by Activision Blizzard, Inc.
shareholders, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.
In addition, on August 14, 2013, the company received a letter
dated August 9, 2013 from a shareholder seeking, pursuant to
Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect
the books and records of the Company to ascertain whether the
Purchase Transaction and Private Sale were in the best interests
of the Company. In response to that request, the company provided
the stockholder with certain materials under a confidentiality
agreement. On September 11, 2013, a complaint was filed under seal
by the same stockholder in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in an action captioned Pacchia v. Kotick et al., C.A. No.
8884-VCL. A public version of that complaint was filed on
September 16, 2013. The allegations in the complaint were
substantially similar to the allegations in the matter filed on
August 1, 2013. On October 25, 2013, Pacchia filed an amended
complaint under seal. The amended complaint added claims on
behalf of an alleged class of Activision stockholders other than
the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Vivendi, ASAC,
investors in ASAC and other stockholders affiliated with the
investors of ASAC. The added class claims are against the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, the Vivendi
affiliated directors, the members of the special committee of the
Board formed in connection with the Company's consideration of the
transactions with Vivendi and ASAC, and Vivendi for breach of
fiduciary duty, as well as aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty against ASAC. The amended complaint removed the
derivative claims for waste of corporate assets and disgorgement
but continued to allege derivative claims for breach of fiduciary
duties. The amended complaint seeks, among other things,
certification of a class, damages, reformation of the Private
Sale, and disgorgement of any alleged profits received by the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and ASAC. On October
29, 2013, Pacchia filed a motion to consolidate the Pacchia case
with the Hayes case. On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery
consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the
plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead
plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013. On
December 3, 2013, the court selected Pacchia as lead plaintiff.
Pacchia filed a second amended complaint on December 11, 2013 and
Activision filed an answer on January 31, 2014. Also on January
31, 2014, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly,
Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to
dismiss certain claims in the second amended complaint. On
February 21, 2014, Pacchia filed a third amended complaint under
seal. In response to Pacchia's filing of a third amended
complaint, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly,
Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to
dismiss certain claims in the third amended complaint. On June 6,
2014, the Court of Chancery denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss such claims, with the exception of a breach of contract
claim. Subsequently, Pacchia filed a fourth amended complaint
containing substantially all of his prior claims, but with the
addition of new allegations gleaned from discovery in the matter.
ASAC filed a motion to dismiss the re-pleaded breach of contract
claim and the other defendants filed answers in response to the
fourth amended complaint.
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Court Consolidates "Pacchia" & "Hayes" Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated the
cases Pacchia v. Kotick et al., C.A. No. 8884-VCL and Hayes v.
Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., No. 8885-VCL and ordered the
plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead
plaintiff and lead counsel, according to Activision's Nov. 4,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.
On September 11, 2013, another stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action and stockholder derivative action in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Hayes v.
Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., No. 8885-VCL. The complaint
names the company Board of Directors, Vivendi, New VH, ASAC, the
General Partner of ASAC, Davis Selected Advisers, L.P. ("Davis")
and Fidelity Management & Research Co. ("FMR") as defendants, and
the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated certain provisions of the company's Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation by failing to submit the
matters contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement for approval
by a majority of the company's stockholders (other than Vivendi
and its controlled affiliates); that the company's Board of
Directors committed breaches of their fiduciary duties in
approving the Stock Purchase Agreement; that Vivendi violated
fiduciary duties owed to other stockholders of the Company in
entering into the Stock Purchase Agreement; that the company's
Chief Executive Officer and the company's Chairman usurped a
corporate opportunity from the Company; that the company's Board
of Directors and Vivendi have engaged in actions to entrench the
company's Board of Directors and officers in their offices; that
the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors and Vivendi; and that
the company's Chief Executive Officer and the company's Chairman,
the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR will be unjustly enriched through
the Private Sale. The complaint seeks, among other things, the
rescission of the Private Sale; an order requiring the transfer to
the Company of all or part of the shares that are the subject of
the Private Sale; an order implementing measures to eliminate or
mitigate the alleged entrenching effects of the Private Sale; an
order requiring the company's Chief Executive Officer and the
company's Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR to disgorge
to the Company the amounts by which they have allegedly been
unjustly enriched; and alleged damages sustained by the class and
the Company. In addition, the stockholder sought a temporary
restraining order preventing the defendants from consummating the
transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement without
stockholder approval. Following a hearing on the motion for a
temporary restraining order, on September 18, 2013, the Court of
Chancery issued a preliminary injunction order, enjoining the
consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Stock
Purchase Agreement pending (a) the issuance of a final decision
after a trial on the merits; (b) receipt of a favorable Activision
Blizzard stockholder vote on the transactions contemplated by the
Stock Purchase Agreement under Section 9.1(b) of the company's
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation or (c)
modification of such preliminary injunction order by the Court of
Chancery or the Delaware Supreme Court. On September 20, 2013, the
Court of Chancery certified its order issuing the preliminary
injunction for interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.
The defendants moved the Delaware Supreme Court to accept and hear
the appeal on an expedited basis. On September 23, 2013, the
Delaware Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the Court of
Chancery's decision and granted the defendant's motion to hear the
appeal on an expedited basis.
Following a hearing on October 10, 2013, the Delaware Supreme
Court reversed the Court of Chancery's order issuing a preliminary
injunction, and determined that the Stock Purchase Agreement was
not a merger, business combination or similar transaction that
would require a vote of Activision's unaffiliated stockholders
under the charter.
On October 29, 2013, an amended complaint was filed. It added
factual allegations but no new claims or relief. Also on October
29, 2013, Hayes filed a motion to consolidate the Hayes case with
the Pacchia case. On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery
consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the
plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead
plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013.
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Del. Court Denies "Benston" Leadership Role
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware denied a motion by
the plaintiff in Benston v. Vivendi S.A. et al., No. 9447-VCL for
a leadership role in the consolidated Pacchia v. Kotick et al.
litigation and so the plaintiff in Pacchia continues to serve as
the lead plaintiff in the consolidated cases, according to
Activision Blizzard, Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.
On March 14, 2014, Benston filed a putative class action and
derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery, captioned Benston
v. Vivendi S.A. et al., No. 9447-VCL. The complaint makes claims
similar to Hayes, Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller, but also adds J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC as defendants
and a so-called Brophy claim for insider trading against certain
of the defendants. Benston and his attorneys petitioned the Court
of Chancery to appoint them as co-lead plaintiff and co-lead
counsel, respectively, for purposes of pursuing the Brophy claim
as part of the consolidated Pacchia litigation. On June 6, 2014,
the Court of Chancery denied Benston's motion for a leadership
role in the consolidated Pacchia litigation. As a result, Pacchia
continues to serve as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
cases.
Certain of defendants filed a motion to dismiss the breach of
contract claim set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint. The
Court of Chancery heard arguments on the motion to dismiss, but
has not yet ruled. Pacchia obtained leave to file a Fifth Amended
Complaint, which adds additional color to his allegations of
wrongdoing based on information learned in discovery, including
with respect to the appointment and subsequent election of several
of the directors to the company's Board. For the most part, fact
and expert discovery has been completed in the Pacchia matter,
including the exchange of expert damage and other reports.
Pacchia's expert's reports allege damages to the Company in excess
of $540 million and to the purported class in excess of $640
million, in addition to disgorgement claims, which could, in
theory, exceed $1 billion. Defendants' experts' reports maintain
there are no damages to the Company or to the purported class
because the Purchase Transaction and the Private Sale were the
best transactions available to the parties and the alternate
transactions hypothesized by the plaintiff were inferior. Motion
practice continues with respect to the definition of the purported
class. The trial in the Pacchia matter is scheduled to begin on
December 8 and expected to conclude before the end of the year or
soon thereafter. The parties to the litigation and the Company's
D&O insurers have engaged in and anticipate continuing to engage
in settlement discussions.
AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Australian Subsidiary Still Faces Suit Over IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action against AECOM Australia Pty Ltd. has been
amended to include approximately 770 investors in an initial
public offering (IPO) of equity units that funded a motorway in
Australia, according to the company's November 17, 2014 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2014.
In 2005 and 2006, the Company's main Australian subsidiary, AECOM
Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast
assignment for a client consortium as part of the client's project
to design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in
Australia. To fund the motorway's design and construction, the
client formed certain special purpose vehicles (SPVs) that raised
approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial
public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately an
additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank
loans. The SPVs went into insolvency administrations in February
2011.
KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs (the RCM Applicants),
caused a lawsuit to be filed against AECOM Australia by the RCM
Applicants in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012.
Portigon AG (formerly WestLB AG), one of the lending banks to the
SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against
AECOM Australia on May 18, 2012. Separately, a class action
lawsuit, which has been amended to include approximately 770 of
the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM Australia in the
Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.
All of the lawsuits claim damages that purportedly resulted from
AECOM Australia's role in connection with the above described
traffic forecast. The RCM Applicants have claimed damages of
approximately $1.68 billion Australian dollars (including
interest, as of March 31, 2014). The damages claimed by Portigon
as of June 17, 2014 were also recently quantified at approximately
$76 million Australian dollars (including interest). We believe
this claim is duplicative of damages already included in the RCM
Applicants' claim to the extent Portigon receives a portion of the
RCM Applicants' recovery. The class action applicants claim that
they represent investors who acquired approximately $155 million
Australian dollars of securities.
AECOM Australia disputes the claimed entitlements to damages
asserted by all applicants and is vigorously defending the claims
brought against it. The likely resolution of these matters cannot
be reasonably determined at this time. However, if these matters
are not resolved in AECOM Australia's favor then, depending upon
the outcome, such resolution could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's results of operations.
AK STEEL: Ill. Court Approves Agreement for Steel Consumers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois has approved the settlement agreement between AK Holding
Corp. and the direct plaintiffs in an alleged consumer class
action, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2014.
In September and October 2008, several companies filed purported
class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against nine steel manufacturers, including
AK Holding. The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214,
08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197. An
additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed in the same
federal district court on July 8, 2010. On December 28, 2010,
another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in
the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee. The defendants
removed the Tennessee case to federal court and filed a motion to
transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois. That
motion was granted on March 28, 2012. The plaintiffs in the
various pending actions are companies which claim to have
purchased steel products, directly or indirectly, from one or more
of the defendants and they purport to file the actions on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased steel products for
delivery or pickup in the United States from any of the named
defendants at any time from at least as early as January 2005. The
complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have
conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict output and to
fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices with
respect to steel products in the United States. Discovery has
commenced but only with respect to issues relating to class
certification. On May 24, 2012, the direct purchaser plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification. On February 28, 2013, the
defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for
class certification and motions to exclude the opinions of the
plaintiffs' experts. An evidentiary hearing on the motion for
class certification and the motions to exclude the opinions of the
plaintiffs' experts was held commencing on March 15, 2014. No
trial date has been set. Prior to that hearing, AK Holding reached
an agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs to tentatively
settle the claims asserted against AK Holding, subject to certain
court approvals set forth. Pursuant to that settlement, AK Holding
agreed to pay $5.8 to the plaintiff class of direct purchasers in
exchange for a complete release of all claims from the members of
that class. AK Holding continues to believe that the claims
asserted against it lack any merit, but it elected to enter into
the settlement in order to avoid the ongoing expense of defending
itself in this protracted and expensive antitrust litigation. The
tentative settlement received preliminary approval by the court on
April 11, 2014. Following such preliminary approval, notice of the
proposed settlement was provided to members of the settlement
class. After receipt of such notice, several class members elected
to opt out of the class settlement. In order to become final, the
settlement must receive a second approval by the court following a
fairness hearing which occurred on October 17, 2014. On October
21, 2014, the Court entered an order and judgment approving the
settlement and dismissing all of the direct plaintiffs' claims
against the Company with prejudice as to the settlement class.
AR TRINITY: Faces "Smale" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Smale, and all other similarly situated under 29 USC 216(B)
v. AR Trinity Credit Services LLC, and Angela Reston, Case No.
4:14-cv-00774 (E.D. Tex., November 25, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.
AR Trinity Credit Services LLC is a credit repair organization
that sells credit repair services across the country.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Lewis Siegel, Esq.
JACK L. SIEGEL PLLC
3530 Travis Street, Suite 421
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (512) 585-3663
E-mail: jack.siegel.2009@lawmail.usc.edu
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Court Grants Dismissal Bid in Privacy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the Southern District of
California granted defendant's motion to dismiss but denied its
motion to strike in the case PERRY JOHNSON and LAYNE BUTLER, on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals and themselves
individually, Plaintiffs, v. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., a
Wisconsin Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants., Case No. 13-CV-2445-BTM-DHB (S.D. Cal.)
Perry Johnson and Layne Butler purchased items in Ashley Furniture
Stores -- Johnson in San Marcos, California; and Butler in
Syracuse, New York. Both chose to pay for their selected
merchandise using their credit card or debit card. Upon
presenting their credit or debit card, Defendant's employee asked
each plaintiff for personal identification information. Believing
they were required to provide the requested information to
complete the transaction, Plaintiffs provided the requested
information.
Plaintiffs brought this putative class action on behalf of all
persons in California and New York from whom Defendant requested,
obtained, and recorded personal identification information in
conjunction with credit card and debit card transactions.
Plaintiffs assert claims under the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act or
SBCCA (Civil Code 1747.08, et seq.) and N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW Section
520-a(3).
Defendant moves to dismiss the California claims to the extent
that "debit card" transactions are alleged as part of the cause of
action for violation of the SBCCA, arguing that violations
involving "debit cards" are not actionable under the SBCCA. As to
NY. GEN. BUS. LAW Section 520-a(3), defendant argues that (1)
class actions asserting N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW Section 520 claims are
procedurally barred by N.Y. C.P.L.R. 901(b), and (2) that no
private right of action exists under N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW Section
520-a(3) because enforcement of the statute is exclusively held by
the New York Attorney General. Defendant has also brought a motion
to strike references to "debit card," and references to a
"nationwide" class.
In his order dated November 4, 2014, which is available at
http://is.gd/KNyRFnfrom Leagle.com, Judge Moskowitz granted
defendant's motion to dismiss and since the Court has already
granted the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim under the SBBCA to
the extent that it is based on debit card transactions, it is not
necessary or proper to strike the Complaint.
The Plaintiffs are represented by Lee George Werner, Esq., at
Werner Law Firm.
Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
John C. Dineen, Esq. -- jdineen@sheppardmullin.com -- Phillip
Allen Davis, Esq. -- pdavis@sheppardmulin.com -- Robin Andrea
Achen, Esq. -- rachen@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton LLP.
ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES: No Appeal Filed v. Dismissal of Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assemblies Biosciences Inc. did not file an appeal of the
dismissal of the case by an August deadline, according to the
company's November 17, 2014 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2014.
On May 9 and May 21, 2013, respectively, two purported class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against us, two of our executive
officers and the lead underwriter of our initial public offering:
Ted Davison, William Gould and Ray Lenci, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated , Plaintiffs v. Ventrus
Biosciences, Inc., et al, 13CIV 3119; and Michael Bartley,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated ,
Plaintiffs v. Ventrus Biosciences, Inc., et al, 13CIV 3429.
The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class
actions, and, in general, include allegations that, during the
class period between December 17, 2010 and June 25, 2012, we and
our two executive officers violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and our two executive officers and
the lead underwriter of our initial public offering violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in making various statements
related to our product, iferanserin (VEN 309), a topical treatment
for symptomatic hemorrhoids, including but not limited to, the
market for the product, the potential competitors, and the results
of clinical trials, thereby inflating the price of our common
stock. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs.
On July 8, 2013, three prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions
to consolidate, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint lead counsel
(the "Motions to Consolidate"). The Court took the Motions to
Consolidate under submission on July 17, 2013. On July 23, 2013,
the Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel. On September 16, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. On November 22, 2013, we filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint (the "Motion
to Dismiss").
On May 5, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the class action with prejudice.
On May 19, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing the class action
with prejudice (the "Motion for Reconsideration"). On July 2,
2014, the Court entered an order denying the Motion for
Reconsideration. Lead plaintiffs had until August 2, 2014 to file
notice of an appeal, but no appeal was filed.
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Court Stays Bentaous Suit Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Frederick Motz of District of Maryland granted
defendants' motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss but stayed
the proceeding in the case MERYEM BENTAOUS, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE
LL, ET AL., Civil No. JFM-13-3314 (D. Md.)
On January 10, 2005, Bentaous opened a Dell Preferred Account on
line through Dell Financial Services, L.L.C. (DFS"). This was a
consumer credit account to be used solely for the purchase of
products sold by Dell. According to records maintained by DFS,
Bentaous accepted the terms and conditions of the account by
indicating "Y" on the "Terms_Accept" line. Bentaous purchased Dell
equipment under the credit card account and made payments on the
account until September 1, 2009. She made no payments thereafter.
In April 2010, the account was charged off, with Bentaous still
owing $2,239.57. Asset Acceptance sued Bentaous in the Maryland
District Court for a debt she incurred under a credit card for the
purchase of Dell computer equipment. Fulton Friedman represented
Asset Acceptance in the Maryland District Court case. Asset
Acceptance eventually voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit against
Bentaous.
Plaintiff brought a consumer protection class action suit against
the defendants under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act. She alleged that defendants violated the statutes
upon which she relies by misrepresenting in the Maryland District
Court case that a four-year statute of limitations, rather than a
three-year statute of limitations, applied. Asset Acceptance
alleged that a four-year statute of limitations applied.
Defendants have filed a motion to compel arbitration and to
dismiss.
In his memorandum dated November 3, 2014, which is available at
http://is.gd/9YGREZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Motz expresses that the
motion will be granted except that the action will not be
dismissed but, instead, will be stayed and administratively closed
pending the arbitration proceedings.
Meryem Bentaous, Plaintiff, represented by E David Hoskins, Esq.
and Max F Brauer, Esq. at the Law Offices of E David Hoskins LLC
Asset Acceptance, LLC, Defendant, represented by Terri Steinhaus
Reiskin, Esq. -- treiskin@dykema.com -- Amy R Jonker, Esq. --
ajonker@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett PLLC
Fulton Friedman & Gullace LLP, Defendant, is represented by
Cynthia Lee Fulton, Esq., and Jessica Hoyt Gibson, Esq., at Fulton
Friedman and Gullace LLP.
BASF METALS: Sued Over Platinum and Palladium-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Modern Settings LLC and Modern Settings LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. BASF Metals
Limited, Goldman Sachs International, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and
Standard Bank PLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-09391 (S.D.N.Y., November 25,
2014), arises out of the unlawful conspiracy to manipulate and rig
the global benchmarks for physical platinum and palladium prices,
as well as the prices of platinum- and palladium-based financial
derivative products.
BASF Metals Limited is a subsidiary of BASFSE, has its principal
place of business in London, England.
Goldman Sachs International is a financial services company and a
subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is a subsidiary of HSBC Holdings PIC, and is a
banking and financial services company.
Standard Bank PLC is a South African banking and financial
services company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Jay L. Himes, Esq.
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Michael W. Stocker
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
jhimes@labaton.com
ebelfi@labaton.com
mstocker@labaton.com
mperez@labaton.com
- and -
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Erica Stone, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212)202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
estone@rosenlegal.com
BEACHBODY LLC: S.D. Cal. Judge Transfers Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted defendant's motion and
transferred the class action lawsuit against BeachBody LLC to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The
judge also denied plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative
defenses.
The case is entitled PAMELA CRAWFORD, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEACHBODY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 14CV1583-GPC(KSC) (S.D. Cal.)
Plaintiff Pamela Crawford ordered and paid for the Derm Exclusive
4-Piece kit which contained the Fill & Freeze product through the
internet via Beachbody's website. At the final page of placing an
order, she was required to click an orange box containing the
words "Place Order." Immediately above the "Place Order" box,
there was language that said "By clicking Place Order below, you
are agreeing that you have read and understand the Beachbody
Purchase Terms and Conditions, and Team Beachbody Terms and
Conditions." The Terms and Conditions to which Plaintiff agreed
when she completed her online purchase contained a forum selection
clause which provided in part that "any action at law or in equity
arising out of or relating to the Terms and Conditions or your use
of the Sites shall be filed only in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California, or the United States District Court
for the Central District of California".
Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of the California False Advertising law; California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act; Unfair Competition Law; Breach of
Express Warranty; and Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness as to
Defendant Beach Body's anti-aging skincare product under the name
Derm Exclusive featuring the product Fill & Freeze. Defendant
seeks to enforce the forum selection provision in the Beachbody
and Team Beachbody Terms and Conditions of use where the parties
allegedly agreed to venue in the Central District of California.
Plaintiff filed a motion to strike affirmative defenses from
defendant's answer.
Judge Curiel granted defendant's motion to change venue and
transfered the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. He also expresses that since the case will
be transferred to the Central District of California, the
Plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses is denied
without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file the motion in the
appropriate forum after this case is transferred.
A copy of Judge Curiel's order dated November 5, 2014 is available
at http://is.gd/AcnveNfrom Leagle.com.
Pamela Crawford, Plaintiff, represented by Beatrice Skye Resendes,
Esq. -- skye@consumersadvocates.com -- Kas L. Gallucci, Ronald A.
Marron, Esq. - ron@consumersadvocates.com - at Law Offices of
Ronald A Marron APLC -- Jack Fitzgerald, IV, Esq. --
jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- at The Law Office of Jack
Fitzgerald, PC
Beachbody, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer, Esq. --
aalderfer@cozen.com -- Matthew Stephen Steinberg, Esq. --
msteinberg@cozen.com -- Sara Poster, Esq. -- sposter@cozen.com --
and Brett N. Taylor, Esq. -- btaylor@cozen.com -- at Cozen
O'Connor.
BETHEL SPRINGVALE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. The Bethel Springvale Nursing Home, Inc., Case No.
7:14-cv-09383 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2014), seeks to recover
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Bethel Springvale Nursing Home, Inc. owns and operates a
rehabilitation and nursing home located at 502 Albany Post Road,
Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
Alexander Gastman, Esq.
Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C
655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 679-5000
Facsimile: (212) 679-5005
E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
alg@employmentlawyernewyork.com
mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
BRE/LQ TX: Sued for Not Providing ADA-Compliant Disabled Parking
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Tovar v. BRE/LQ TX Properties L.P., Case No. 1:14-cv-00249
(S.D. Tex., November 30, 2014) alleges that the Defendant refused
to provide the Plaintiff and others similarly situated with
sufficient Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant disabled
accessible parking in the parking lot that serves the Harlingen La
Quinta.
BRE/LQ TX Properties L.P. is a Texas Limited Partnership
headquartered in Irving, Texas. BRE/LQ TX operates a business in
the local area named La Quinta Inn located in Harlingen, Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Omar W. Rosales, Esq.
THE ROSALES LAW FIRM, LLC
PO BOX 532084
Harlingen, TX 78553-2084
Toll-Free: (866) 402-8082
Telephone: (956) 423-1417
Facsimile: (956) 524-5173
E-mail: talon_eye@yahoo.com
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Player's Grandfather Balks at Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Westhead, writing for TSN, reports that Sam Berg's lawsuit
against the Canadian Hockey League has done more than polarize the
country's hockey community. It has split his family.
Mr. Berg said his 71-year-old grandfather William, a retired
General Motors employee, is ashamed of him for filing a landmark
class action lawsuit against the Niagara IceDogs and the Ontario
Hockey League. His grandfather, who now spends his days driving
the Zamboni at the local rink in Beamsville, denies he's ashamed.
He says simply he has a difference of opinion with his 18-year-old
grandson.
"I have a different point of view," William Berg says. "That's
all. I like Sam, I really like Sam."
Sam Berg's case is one of three legal actions that may reshape
major-junior hockey in Canada.William Berg
Mr. Berg has asked an Ontario Superior Court to confirm that the
1,300-odd, mostly teenaged players in the Canadian Hockey League
are employees of their teams. If they are employees, Mr. Berg
argues, then they ought to be paid at least minimum wage.
Some players in the CHL work more than 60 hours per week but make
as little as $40 in compensation, his lawsuit alleges.
Before Mr. Berg filed his lawsuit in a Toronto court, detailing
his falling out with his former team, the IceDogs, Mr. Berg and
his father Bill, who played 10 years in the NHL with the
Islanders, Leafs, Rangers and Seantors, talked about what Sam Berg
would likely be forced to deal with.
There would be attacks on social media and in public.
"I have people giving me the finger all the time and I knew that
would be the case," Sam Berg told TSN in an interview over lunch
this week in a Hamilton diner.
"We knew this was going to be a problem for a lot of people. In
Canada, hockey is more than a game. Everyone seems to know who
Sidney Crosby is and who won the Stanley Cup the past five years.
For someone to want to change the game, that's hard for people to
accept.
"But without change, we'd still have segregation and women
wouldn't be able to vote. And we hoped some people would support
us. When my dad was involved with the NHL players strike in 1994,
it was a 'millionaires versus billionaires' fight. Today, we
figured that this would be seen as players just fighting for
minimum wage. So we hoped we would at least get some support."
Sam Berg insists his lawsuit isn't sour grapes.
"This is about helping all players," he says. "What can you say
about a system that pays some players the same as what they earned
decades ago?"
The Bergs are a close-knit family.
They live on a farm in Beamsville, Ont., with roots in the
community that date back 300 years. The vineyard on their bucolic
farm had a section cut out years ago to make room for a shinny
rink where Sam and his sister Annie spent years learning to skate
alongside their father, uncle Bob, who played in the American
Hockey League, and their grandfather.
"We have spent a lot of time together," Sam Berg said. "Family
dinners, Christmases. We are close."
So Mr. Berg was stunned at what happened when his grandpa found
out about his lawsuit.
William Berg called his son Bill, the former NHLer.
"He started going off to my dad about how our family would be
portrayed in the community," Sam Berg said. "He said people in
the area would know him as the guy whose grandson ruined hockey.
He was going on about how some teams are losing money and this
would put them over the edge. My dad went back at him and asked
when he became an expert in player contracts and the financial
positions of the CHL teams and minimum-wage laws."
Bill Berg, the former Maple Leaf, declined to comment on the rift
within his family, other than to say he supports his son's
efforts.
It wasn't long before grandfather and grandson met at the
Beamsville rink.
"The first thing he did, right away, was to talk about the
finances of CHL teams and how I was going to screw up the league,"
said Sam Berg, whose sister Annie, a grade 11 student, recently
committed to play hockey at St. Lawrence University. "Then he
asked me if I was planning to sue St. Lawrence University, too.
"My grandfather thinks this will destroy some CHL teams in small
markets, but they don't look destitute to me," Sam Berg said.
"They have revenue sharing already. Maybe they need to do more
sharing. I tried to tell my grandpa he was not banker to these
teams, so he really doesn't know, but he just said to me, 'why
would they lie? You are going to ruin them.' My grandpa thinks
because this is hockey, that everyone is respectable."
And then, a parting shot.
"He said, 'What do I say if people ask me if it's my grandson who
is ruining hockey?'" Sam Berg said. "I told him he didn't have to
tell anyone I am his grandson. He didn't say anything. He just
walked away."
William Berg said he is worried, like many hockey fans, that if
his grandson's lawsuit is successful, that some junior hockey
teams will be forced to fold.
"I can't grasp Sam's reasons for doing this," he said. "I had two
boys go through hockey and it was fine for them. There are teams
like London and St. Catharines that could clearly afford to pay
players, but what about the other teams that are borderline in
Belleville or Peterborough. They are on tight budgets and if they
fold, how many chances does that take away from boys."
After playing with the single-A Lincoln Blades and Peak Academy, a
Toronto-area high school that specializes in sports programs, Sam
Berg was drafted by the United States Hockey League's Muskegon
Lumberjacks.
The OHL's IceDogs, who had drafted Berg in the 12th round of the
2012 draft, suggested he be better off in the OHL than playing in
the USHL, which may have been a route to a scholarship at an NCAA
team.
So the IceDogs made a sweet offer, Mr. Berg says. He says they
promised him that if he played a single game, he would be granted
an "irrevocable guaranteed" four-year education scholarship.
After a training camp where he scored twice in five games last
season, Berg said he fell out of favour with the coaching staff
after 16 games and then was demoted to the St. Catharines Falcons,
a Junior 'B' team. After a trade to the Thorold Black Hawks, Berg
said he injured his shoulder in a game so badly that he would need
surgery if he was going to keep playing.
He decided along with his family it was time for full-time school.
"I called the IceDogs and said I'd be needing my scholarship
because I was going back to school," Mr. Berg says. "They didn't
say anything. They just hung up the phone on me."
IceDogs owner Bill Burke declined to comment and referred
questions about the lawsuit to CHL commissioner David Branch, who
did not respond to an email seeking comment. IceDogs coach and
general manager Marty Williamson told The Toronto Star that Berg's
scholarship package was voided because he didn't report this fall
to training camp.
"He quit," Mr. Williamson said. "You can't just quit and not show
up."
The team is paying for one semester of Mr. Berg's courses at
McMaster University this year.
"I guess I have a problem with it, too, because Sam wasn't there
that long with the team," William Berg says. "If it was Gretzky
or someone who had been in the league for four years, fine. Maybe
Sam got a raw deal, but he wasn't there that long. If he had put
in a year or two, then maybe I would agree with it, but after five
or 10 or 15 games, I think he's going out on a limb about it.
"But I'm not ashamed of Sam," William says quietly after a long
pause. "This is a just a difference of opinion."
A difference of opinion not only in the Berg family, but across
the country.
CC-PALO ALTO: Claims That It Funneled $200MM to Parent Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge dismissed all claims in a lawsuit alleging that a Palo Alto
retirement community funneled nearly $200 million of its
residents' money to its corporate parent and put the seniors' cash
in jeopardy.
In an order issued on November 25, U.S. District Judge Edward
Davila ruled that the six seniors who filed a class action earlier
this year did not show that they've suffered any actual injuries.
Lead plaintiff Burton Richter, on behalf of the residents of the
retirement community Vi, claimed in the lawsuit that the home's
operator CC-Palo Alto transferred more than $190 million in
resident entrance fees to its parent company CC-Development Group
without obtaining collateral or a repayment promise.
Richter said CC-Palo Alto has collected more than $450 million in
entrance fees from residents -- which are considered loans to the
company and are partially repayable if a senior dies or moves out
of an apartment -- but now has a deficit of more than $300 million
and will not be able to return the loans when they come due.
Defendants CC-Palo Alto, Classic Residence Management Limited
Partnership and CC-Development Group filed their motions to
dismiss this past March.
Davila ruled that there is no actual or imminent injury to the
seniors. And there's no indication that any of them have left Vi
and have been denied the repayable portion of their entrance fee,
Davila said.
There's also no indication that any senior is in such poor health
that they'll die and soon require their fees to be repaid to their
heirs, he added.
Davila also ruled that the seniors' monthly apartment fees have
not been artificially inflated as they claimed.
"Nothing has occurred to run afoul of the contract terms," he
said.
The seniors have 15 days to file an amended complaint.
The case is Burton Richter v. CC-Palo Alto, Inc., Case No. 5:14-
cv-00750-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division.
A copy of the Court's Nov. 25 Order is available at
http://is.gd/NwOHPpfrom Leagle.com
CHAUFFEURED EXECUTIVE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alija Music, Anashon Kamalov, Mahmoud Al Darabsah, Monsey George,
and Rofay Phillips v. Chauffeured Executive Transportation LLC,
and Benjamin Osiashvili, Case No. 1:14-cv-06966 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 28, 2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid wages from
the Defendants for working more than 40 hours in a week and not
being paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate
for all the hours over 40 in a week.
Chauffeured Executive Transportation LLC is a New York for-profit
limited liability company. Benjamin Osiashvili owned, controlled
or managed the Company. The Defendants are in the business of
providing transportation services to customers in the New York
City and Tri-state area. They mainly provide limousine services
to its clients.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
Telephone: (718) 740-1000
Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Dittmar" Suit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Larry Alan Burns of the Southern District of
California granted plaintiff's motion to remand the case and
denied defendant's motion to dismiss or strike, in the case PAULA
DITTMAR, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
Washington corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants., Case No. 14-CV1156-LAB-JLB (S.D. Cal.)
Plaintiff Paula Dittmar worked as a pharmacist and later as a
pharmacy department manager at a San Diego Costco location. Her
complaint was originally filed in San Diego Superior Court. She
asserts claims on behalf of herself and other current and former
Costco pharmacists and department managers, alleging that Costco
committed numerous violations of California labor law.
Specifically, she claims Costco: (1) failed to pay overtime wages;
(2) failed to pay agreed-upon wages for all hours worked; (3)
failed to provide timely meal breaks; (4) failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; (5) failed to pay unpaid wages
due at termination; (6) failed to pay accrued vacation pay due at
termination; (7) engaged in unlawful business practices; and (8)
engaged in conversion. She seeks compensatory and punitive
damages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees.
Dittmar's complaint sets out two classes of aggrieved employees,
the Pharmacist Class and the Department Manager Class. Her
complaint does not identify the putative class sizes, nor does it
plead the amount in controversy.
Costco removed the case to federal court invoking jurisdiction
under both CAFA and traditional diversity, 28 U.S.C. Sections
1332(d)(2) and 1332(a). Costco argues this case satisfies each of
CAFA's jurisdictional requirements, including the statute's
$5,000,000 amount in controversy. Costco estimated the amount
would exceed $12,000,000. Costco alternatively argues that,
independent of CAFA, removal is proper as the Court has diversity
jurisdiction over Dittmar's individual claims.
Dittmar moved to remand the case arguing that removal was improper
because Costco made many improper assumptions in calculating the
amount in controversy. She further argues that removal under
diversity jurisdiction was improper as it would undermine the
strict requirements for establishing CAFA jurisdiction. She
contends that the Court need not address this issue, however,
because Costco has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that her individual claims exceed $75,000.
In his order dated November 4, 2014, which is available at
http://is.gd/7esK8qfrom Leagle.com, Judge Burns expresses that
Costco has not met its burden of meeting CAFA's $5,000,000
threshold or diversity jurisdiction's $75,000 threshold. The Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and Costco's
motion to dismiss or strike is moot. The Court grants plaintiff's
motion to remand and denies Costco's motion to dismiss or strike.
Paula Dittmar, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.,
at Caskey and Holzman; Rebecca G. Gundzik Gartenberg, Esq. --
rgundzik@gghslaw.com -- at Gelfand Hayton & Selden LLP.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by David D
Kadue, Esq. -- dkadue@seyfarth.com -- Emily Elizabeth Schroeder,
Esq. -- eschroeder@seyfarth.com -- Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
trusche@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw, LLP.
CYTRX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in an action captioned In re CytRx Corporation
Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx) filed a
consolidated amended complaint on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
CytRx Corporation, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.
As previously reported in the Company's Quarterly Report filed
with the SEC on August 6, 2014, on June 13, 2014, three purported
securities class action lawsuits pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, were
consolidated in the matter of In re CytRx Corporation Securities
Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx), and lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were appointed. On October 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
CytRx between November 20, 2013 and March 13, 2014, against CytRx,
certain Company officers and directors, a freelance writer, and
certain underwriters. The complaint alleges that certain of the
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading statements in press releases,
promotional articles, SEC filings and other public statements. The
complaint further alleges that certain of the defendants violated
the Securities Act of 1933 by making materially misleading
statements and omitting material information in the shelf
Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on December
6, 2012 and Prospectus Supplement on Form 424(b)(2) filed with the
SEC on January 31, 2014. These allegations arise out of the
Company's alleged retention of The DreamTeam Group and MissionIR,
external investor and public relations firms unaffiliated with the
Company, as well as the Company's December 9, 2013 grant of stock
options to certain board members and officers. The consolidated
amended complaint seeks damages, including interest, in an
unspecified amount, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and any
equitable, injunctive, or other relief that the court may deem
just and proper.
CYTRX CORPORATION: Calif. Court Grants Stay in "Rajasekaran" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles granted
the motion to stay the suit captioned Rajasekaran v. CytRx
Corporation, et al., BC541426 pending a resolution to dismiss a
related federal action, according to the CytRX Corp.'s Nov. 4,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.
On April 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain officers and each director, as
well as certain underwriters, in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, captioned Rajasekaran v. CytRx Corporation,
et al., BC541426. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
secondary common stock offering, which closed on February 5, 2014.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements in filings with the SEC. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, rescission, and
attorney's fees and costs. On October 14, 2014, the court granted
the parties' joint ex parte motion to stay this proceeding pending
resolution of motions to dismiss in the related federal action, In
re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK
(PJWx).
DBME INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Schwartz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. D.B.M.E., Inc. d/b/a Dutchess Bureau/Medical
Econ. and Dutchess Adjustment Bureau, as assignee of Dutchess
Adjustment Bureau as assignee of Dutchess Bureau/Medical Econ.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-06965 (E.D.N.Y., November 28, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791-4400
Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
DELTA AIR: Gets Final OK of $1.4MM Deal to Settle Workers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge granted final approval of a $1.4 million
settlement between Delta Airlines and workers who claim they were
shorted on wages, reports Philip A. Janquart, writing for
Courthouse News Service.
Lead plaintiff Andrew Bell sued in April 2013, claiming Delta's
Ready Reserve employees were refused meal and rest breaks, forced
to work off the clock, never paid overtime or provided accurate
wage statements.
Bell sued under the California Labor Code, the 2004 Private
Attorney General Act (PAGA) and the California Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted preliminary
approval of the settlement July 22 this year and final approval on
Nov. 20.
"The court finds that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable
and adequate, is the product of good faith, arm's-length
negotiations between the parties, and fully complies with all
applicable provisions of the law," the judge wrote.
The settlement provides a fund of $1,415,444 for Ready Reserve
employees who worked for Delta during the class period, between
March and August 2012. The award includes $353,861 in attorneys'
fees, along with $15,576.04 in litigation expenses and $13,367 in
costs.
In addition, $10,000 was awarded to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency under the PAGA. Under the act,
$3,500 of the LWDA's award is reserved for lead plaintiff Bell,
who also received a litigation service award of $7,500.
Under PAGA, an aggrieved employee is deputized to act as a private
attorney general if notice of alleged violations is given to the
LWDA, and if the LWDA does not pursue them or does not issue a
citation.
The case is Andrew Bell v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.; and Does 1 to
10, inclusive, Case No. 13-cv-01199-YGR, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.
DELTA AIR: Faces $1.8MM Sanctions in Baggage Price-Fixing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that a Georgia special
master on Nov. 21 recommended that Delta Air Lines Inc. pay $1.8
million to plaintiffs for failing to send over all relevant
evidence during discovery in a putative class action accusing the
airline and AirTran Airways Inc. of colluding to fix baggage fees.
Plaintiffs in the putative class action had sought evidentiary
sanctions against Delta for losing or misplacing a variety of
digital data, including hard drives and server backups, in
addition to alleging Delta intentionally delayed its production of
evidence.
In report topping 100 pages filed on Nov. 21, special master Bruce
P. Brown recommends that U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten not
impose evidentiary sanctions for spoliation, saying Delta likely
did not act in bad faith but that as Delta unequivocally failed to
comply with the court's discovery orders, it should be required to
pay $1.8 million to plaintiffs for the fees and costs they
incurred during the discovery dispute.
"A common thread through this entire litigation has been Delta's
inability to answer -- correctly, at least -- legitimate questions
about what evidence was available and what it had done to preserve
it," Mr. Brown wrote. "There is no dispute that Delta should have
produced all responsive documents by the end of the discovery
period, that it did not do so, that the discovery period had to be
extended, and that Delta continued to produce (or plaintiffs'
expert continued to find) documents that should have been produced
years before."
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the airlines
in February 2010, accusing the two companies of discussing their
intentions to increase prices in a series of earnings calls,
industry conferences and joint negotiations with the Hartsfield-
Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
After suffering steep revenue declines in 2008, when oil prices
jumped to more than $130 per barrel, AirTran initiated
communications with Delta about reducing its daily flight routes
and charging $15 baggage fees to offset the losses, according to
the complaint.
The plaintiffs say their claims are supported by the fact that
Delta and AirTran both implemented $15 baggage fees on the same
date -- Dec. 5, 2008 -- and decided to reduce flight capacity
within weeks of each other.
The suit alleges each airline would not have instituted baggage
fees and capacity changes without knowing the other was going to
do so.
In 2013, the plaintiffs moved for class certification, and Delta
pushed back, arguing the class of travelers has failed to meet the
so-called ascertainability requirement for class action plaintiffs
seeking certification. Delta said it deserves to defend itself
from individual member claims before the case proceeds as a
certified class action, according to its opposition brief filed in
October 2013.
Many of the materials pertaining to the still-pending motion for
class certification, and Delta's motion for summary judgment, were
filed under seal, and only unsealed this month.
In December 2013, the plaintiffs moved for evidentiary sanctions,
asking the court to issue an order precluding Delta from disputing
the existence of a conspiracy with AirTran.
On Nov. 21, the special master disagreed, recommending that
although sanctions for disobeying court orders are justified,
sanctions for spoliation, or destruction of evidence, should not
be imposed because even if Delta did destroy crucial evidence, it
did not act in bad faith.
"The evidence shows that the destruction of evidence had nothing
to do with the content of the evidence destroyed or the identity
of the custodian. Not all mistakes are innocent, of course, but
there simply is no evidence that Delta intended these mistakes to
be made so that it could gain unfair advantage in the lawsuit,"
Mr. Brown wrote.
The plaintiffs are represented by Conley Griggs LLP, Kotchen & Low
LLP, McCulley McCluer PLLC, Richardson Patrick Westbrook &
Brickman LLC and Schreeder Wheeler & Flint LLP.
Delta is represented by Alston & Bird LLP and Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP.
AirTran is represented by Vinson & Elkins LLP, Wiley Rein LLP,
Morrison & Foerster LLP and Smith Gambrell & Russell LLP.
The case is In re: Airline Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation, case
number 1:09-md-02089, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.
DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Inks Agreement to Settle Stockholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the shareholder lawsuit captioned Soffer v. Volpe et
al., C.A. No. 10165-CB (Del. Ch.) and Construction Industry &
Laborers Union Local 872 Pension A Trust v. Dresser-Rand Group,
Inc., et al, C.A. No. 10285-CB (Del. Ch.) relating to the proposed
merger with Siemens Energy, Inc., has reached an agreement to
enter into a definitive stipulation of settlement, according to
Dresser-Rand Group Inc.'s November 17, 2014 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2014.
As disclosed on pages 12 and 60 of the Definitive Proxy Statement
under the heading "Litigation Relating to the Merger" and in the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit challenging
the proposed merger with Siemens Energy, Inc. ("Siemens") was
filed on September 24, 2014, on behalf of the Company's
stockholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The action is
captioned Soffer v. Volpe et al., C.A. No. 10165-CB (Del. Ch.)
(the "Soffer Litigation"). The complaint in the Soffer action
alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties to stockholders by engaging in a flawed sale process,
agreeing to sell the Company for inadequate consideration and
agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the Merger
Agreement. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the Company,
Siemens and Dynamo Acquisition Corporation, the Delaware
xsubsidiary formed by Siemens in connection with the transaction,
aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction barring the
merger. On October 21, 2014, plaintiffs amended the complaint to
allege as additional basis for relief that the directors of the
Company engaged in self-dealing because they will benefit from
their compensation arrangements and/or the sale of their personal
stakes in the Company and that the preliminary proxy statement
filed by the Company on October 9, 2014, fails to provide
stockholders with material information about the transaction
and/or is materially misleading. On October 24, 2014, Construction
Industry & Laborers Union Local 872 Pension A Trust v. Dresser-
Rand Group, Inc., et al, C.A. No. 10285-CB (Del. Ch.) (the "Union
Litigation," and together with the Soffer Action, the
"Litigation") was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. This
complaint contains claims and allegations similar to those in the
pre-amendment Soffer complaint and seeks similar relief on behalf
of the same putative class.
On November 14, 2014, the parties to the Litigation reached an
agreement in principle that contemplates that the parties will
enter into a definitive stipulation of settlement.
E-WASTE SYSTEMS: Faces "Barnett" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric B. Barnett and Keith D. Heard, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. E-Waste Systems, Inc. and E-Waste
Systems Cincinnati, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00908 (S.D. Ohio,
November 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Defendants are in the business of providing customized end-to-
end solutions in IT Asset Recovery, E-Waste Management, and
Electronics Reverse Logistics.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly C. Young, Esq.
ELK & ELK, CO.
6105 Parkland Blvd.
Mayfield Heights, OH 44124
Telephone: (440) 442-6677
Facsimile: (440) 442-7944
E-mail: kyoung@elkandelk.com
- and -
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
Trent R. Taylor
Robert E DeRose II, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com
ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com
bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
ELAN INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Vega" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorenzo Vega, and others similarly-situated v. Elan International
Inc., a Florida profit corporation, Elan Savir, Thierry Brunshwig,
and Galit Savir, Case No. 1:14-cv-24496 (S.D. Fla., November 25,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Elan International Inc. is a clothing manufacturer located and
doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 448-9292
Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com
ENTERGY CORP: Pleading on Miss. AG's Complaint Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation's pleading on the Mississippi Attorney
General's complaint continues to remain pending in the U.S.
District Court in Jackson, Mississippi, according to the company's
November 18, 2014 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2014.
The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court
in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi,
Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things,
violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good
faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and
restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs
and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not
generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy
believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the
defendant Entergy companies removed the attorney general's lawsuit
to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi
attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In
August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the
Attorney General's motion for remand, finding that the District
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act.
The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a
counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public
Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the
defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive
jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the attorney
general's complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard
oral argument on Entergy's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The District Court's ruling on the motion for judgment on the
pleadings is pending.
In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which
it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole
plaintiff to enforce state laws were not subject to the federal
law that allowed federal courts to hear those cases as "mass
action" lawsuits. One day later the Attorney General renewed its
motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision. The defendant Entergy companies
have responded to that motion and the District Court held oral
argument on the motion to remand in February 2014. Entergy also
has asserted federal question jurisdiction as a basis for the
district court having jurisdiction and also has pending the motion
for judgment on the pleadings.
ENTERGY CORP: Consumers Suit Stayed Pending Appeals Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings for the consumers' lawsuit filed against Entergy
Corporation at the District Court of Chambers County, Texas
remains stayed pending a ruling on the Company's appeal of the
certification of the case, according to the company's November 17,
2014 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2014.
In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of
Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported
class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994
to the present. The named defendants include Entergy Corporation,
Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy Power Marketing Corp.,
and Entergy Arkansas. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. was not a named
defendant, but was alleged to be a co-conspirator. The court
granted the request of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. to intervene in
the lawsuit to protect its interests.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price gouging
accounting scheme" to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated
utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants
while rejecting less expensive power offered from off-system
suppliers. In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants
manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation
so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources
instead of buying cheaper off-system power.
Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were
charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for
power. Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits.
The plaintiffs' experts have tendered a report calculating damages
in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present
value, under various scenarios as of the date of the report. The
Entergy defendants have tendered expert reports challenging the
assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs'
expert reports.
The case is pending in state district court, and in March 2012 the
court found that the case met the requirements to be maintained as
a class action under Texas law. On April 30, 2012, the court
entered an order certifying the class. The defendants have
appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals - First District
and oral argument was held in May 2013. The appeal is pending and
proceedings in district court are stayed until the appeal is
resolved.
EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: "Young" Lawsuit Withdrawn From Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities lawsuit captioned Young v. CommonWealth REIT, Civ.
No. 1:12-cv-12405-DJC, was withdrawn from arbitration from the
American Arbitration Association when David Young voluntarily
dismissed the action, according to Equity CommonWealth's Nov. 4,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.
On December 27, 2012, David Young filed a putative federal
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, or the Massachusetts District
Court, titled Young v. CommonWealth REIT, Civ. No. 1:12-cv-12405-
DJC, or the Young Action. The Young Action was brought on behalf
of purchasers of the company's common shares between January 10,
2012 and August 8, 2012, and alleged securities fraud claims
against EQC and certain of the company's former officers under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged generally that EQC
violated the federal securities laws by making false and
misleading representations about the company's business,
operations and management. The plaintiff sought compensatory
damages plus counsel fees and expenses. On January 22, 2013, the
company filed a demand for arbitration with the American
Arbitration Association, or AAA. On February 25, 2013, Mr. Young
filed a motion to appoint him as lead plaintiff and his counsel as
lead counsel, which the Massachusetts District Court granted on
May 20, 2013, all in accordance with customary procedures for
purported class action litigation. On July 22, 2013, Mr. Young
filed an amended complaint. On September 20, 2013, EQC moved to
dismiss the Young Action on the grounds that the claims asserted
(1) were subject to binding arbitration under the company's
bylaws, and (2) failed to state a claim for relief under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. On June 9,
2014, Mr. Young voluntarily dismissed this action with prejudice,
and the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal. Shortly
thereafter, the parties notified the AAA of the dismissal, and the
matter was withdrawn from arbitration.
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Neuman, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Examsoft Worldwide, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Case
No. 9:14-cv-81473 (S.D. Fla., November 25, 2014), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Examsoft Worldwide, Inc. provides computer-based testing solutions
for exam takers and exam administrators internationally.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Ann Radosevich, Esq.
THE TICKTIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
600 W. Hillsboro Boulevard, Suite 220
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441
Telephone: (954) 570-6760
Facsimile: (954) 570-6760
E-mail: Serv529@LegalBrains.com
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Sued for Passing Law That Restricts Feeding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Fort Lauderdale passed a law
that unconstitutionally restricts feeding of the homeless, an
Episcopal priest claims in a class action in Broward County Court.
GEICO GENERAL: Sued for Using Unavailable Phone Records Excuse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Arvin Temkar reports that a
federal class action accuses GEICO of systematically denying auto
theft claims by using unavailable cell phone records as an excuse.
Lead plaintiff Christopher Monroe sued GEICO General Insurance Co.
on Nov. 21.
Monroe claims that after his Lexus was stolen last year, GEICO
denied his claim because it said it could not obtain his cell
phone records, so it couldn't complete its investigation.
"Despite its investigation, GEICO had no valid belief that the
vehicle was not stolen," Monroe says in the complaint. "It had
not uncovered any evidence to suggest that Monroe was guilty of
any fraud or misrepresentation."
Monroe claims that GEICO "cannot deny a claim when it has not
concluded an investigation to its own satisfaction."
He seeks class certification, restitution and damages for breach
of contract and fraud.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David I. Lipsky, Esq.
Law Office of David I. Lipsky
409 Central Ave.
Upland, CA 91786
Telephone: (909) 985-0557
Facsimile: (909) 985-4779
GLIMCHER REALTY: Faces "Zucker" Shareholder Lawsuit in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glimcher Realty Trust is currently facing a shareholders' lawsuit
captioned Zucker v. Glimcher Realty Trust et al., 24-C-14-005675
(Circ. Ct. Baltimore City) filed in a Maryland state Court,
according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.
A putative class action lawsuit challenging the proposed
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement has been filed
in Maryland state court. The action was filed on October 2, 2014
and is captioned Zucker v. Glimcher Realty Trust et al., 24-C-14-
005675 (Circ. Ct. Baltimore City). The Zucker complaint alleges
that the trustees of GRT breached their fiduciary duties to
Glimcher shareholders by agreeing to sell Glimcher for inadequate
consideration and agreeing to improper deal protection terms in
the Merger Agreement. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that
Glimcher, WPG and certain of their affiliates aided and abetted
these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The Zucker complaint
further alleges that the trustees of GRT were incentivized to
enter into the Merger Agreement due to their ownership of large
amounts of restricted stock and/or stock options and that Mr.
Glimcher would be employed by the surviving entity and that he, in
addition to another trustee of GRT, would join the board of the
surviving entity. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an
injunction barring the Merger.
GLIMCHER REALTY: Faces "Motsch" Shareholder's Lawsuit in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glimcher Realty Trust is currently facing a shareholders' lawsuit
captioned Motsch v. Glimcher Realty Trust et al., 24-C-14-006011
(Circ. Ct. Baltimore City) filed in a Maryland state Court,
according to the Company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.
On October 23, 2014, a second putative class action lawsuit
challenging the Merger was filed in Maryland state court. The
action is captioned Motsch v. Glimcher Realty Trust et al., 24-C-
14-006011 (Circ. Ct. Baltimore City). The Motsch complaint alleges
breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Glimcher trustees and
aiding and abetting claims against Glimcher, WPG and certain of
their affiliates substantially similar to those asserted in the
Zucker complaint. The Motsch complaint also asserts a derivative
claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Glimcher trustees.
The defendants intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits.
GROUP HEALTH: Accused of Not Covering Mental Health Treatment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Group Health Cooperative
refuses to cover mental health treatment mandated under the Mental
Health Parity Act, a class action claims in King County Court.
HCA HOLDINGS: Seeks Appeal From Tennessee Court's Cert. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
HCA Holdings, Inc. has requested an appeal of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee's ruling on a
consolidated securities lawsuit, granting the plaintiffs' motion
for a class certification, according to the company's Nov. 4,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. The Company has
requested an appeal for the said ruling.
On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The case
sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering. The lawsuit asserted a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering. It further asserted a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors. The action alleged various deficiencies
in the Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement.
Subsequently, two additional class action complaints, Kishtah v.
HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et
al., setting forth substantially similar claims against
substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal
court on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011, respectively.
All three of the cases were consolidated. On May 3, 2012, the
court appointed New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension
Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated action. On July 13,
2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of
directors, and certain underwriters in the offering. It further
asserts a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against the same members of the board of directors and Hercules
Holdings II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company at the
time of the initial public offering. The consolidated complaint
alleges deficiencies in the Company's disclosures in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus relating to: (1) the
accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization and 2010
reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain effective
internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenue
growth rates. The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss
the amended complaint on September 11, 2012. The Court granted the
motion in part on May 28, 2013. The action proceeded to discovery
on the remaining claims. The plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was granted on September 22, 2014. The court
certified a class consisting of all persons that acquired HCA
stock on or before October 28, 2011 (the date of the lawsuit)
pursuant to the Registration Statement issued in connection with
the March 9, 2011 initial public offering. The company requested
permission from the trial court of appeals to immediately appeal
this ruling.
HCSB FINANCIAL: SC Court Denies Shelly's Motion to Reconsider
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit,
State of South Carolina, County of Horry, has denied Robert
Shelley's Motion to reconsider a grant of summary judgment in his
securities complaint against HCSB Financial Corp., according to
the company's November 17, 2014 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2014.
On July 19, 2012, Robert Shelley, in his individual capacity and
on behalf of a proposed class of other similarly situated persons,
filed a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Horry, Case
No. 2012-CP-26-5546. The Complaint named the Company and the Bank
as Defendants. However, the Complaint was never served on the
Company or Bank. On September 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and other
similarly situated persons were contacted by employees of the
Bank, who then solicited a sale of Bank stock. The Amended
Complaint further alleges that Bank employees did not disclose
material information about the Bank's financial condition to the
Plaintiff and others prior to their respective purchases of stock.
The Amended Complaint seeks the certification of a class action to
include all those purchasers of Bank stock who were solicited to
purchase such stock between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011.
Plaintiff has asserted causes of action for violation of the South
Carolina Uniform Securities Act, negligence and civil conspiracy,
and seeks actual, punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees
and costs. The Company and the Bank made a motion for summary
judgment in March 2014, and the court granted the motion for
summary judgment on April 8, 2014. Mr. Shelley's attorney
subsequently filed a Motion to Reconsider. By Order dated October
27, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider.
Plaintiff has 30 days from the Order in which to file a notice of
appeal. No such notice has been filed yet, but the deadline has
not yet run.
HCSB FINANCIAL: "Snyder" Suit Counsel Seeks to Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for the plaintiff in a shareholder complaint filed in the
Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial District, State
of South Carolina, County of Horry recently advised HCSB Financial
Corp. that he has been retained by other subordinated debt
purchasers and has sought to amend a complaint filed, according to
the company's November 17, 2014 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2014.
Plaintiff Jan W. Snyder purchased $25,000 in subordinated debt
notes in or around March 2010. After making three semi-annual
interest payments, the Company was precluded from making further
payments by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. On January 14,
2014 Mr. Snyder sued the Company, the Bank, and several current
and former officers, directors and employees in the Court of
Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial District, State of South
Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2014-CP-26-0204. He is
alleging that he and a similarly situated class of subordinated
debt purchasers have suffered an unspecified amount of damages
resulting from the Defendants' wrongful conduct leading up to
their respective purchases of subordinated debt notes. There are
several causes of action alleged, including fraud, violation of
state securities statutes, negligence and others. Mr. Snyder has
brought this case on his behalf and as a representative of a class
of similarly situated purchasers of subordinated debt notes. The
Company and the Bank have engaged legal counsel and intend to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Complaint has been
filed and the Company has filed its Answer, in which it denies any
and all liability. Counsel for the Plaintiff recently advised us
that he has been retained by other subordinated debt purchasers
and has sought to amend the Complaint to reflect these new
parties. Once the amended pleading is filed and served, the named
Defendants will timely file their responsive pleading.
HESS & TURNER: Violates Disabilities Act, Vietnam Veteran Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Tovar v. Hess & Turner, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00248 (S.D.
Tex., November 30, 2014) alleges that the Defendant's retail store
at the Harlingen location is not accessible to individuals with
mobility disabilities, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mr. Tovar is a person with a physical disability and mobility
impairments. He is a Vietnam Veteran with a 100% Disability
Rating, established by the Veterans Administration and the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Hess & Turner, Inc. operates a business in the local area named
Johnny's True Value Hardware located in Harlingen, Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Omar W. Rosales, Esq.
THE ROSALES LAW FIRM, LLC
PO BOX 532084
Harlingen, TX 78553-2084
Toll-Free: (866) 402-8082
Telephone: (956) 423-1417
Facsimile: (956) 524-5173
E-mail: talon_eye@yahoo.com
INFOBLOX: Top Execs Sold Shares at Inflated Prices, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top managers and board members of computer networking company
Infoblox sold $39.4 million of their shares at prices inflated
through false and misleading statements, a shareholder claims in a
federal derivative lawsuit, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse
News Service.
Lead plaintiff Korey Burnam claims that the company used extreme
discounting to temporarily increase revenue, while denying it was
doing so.
In the class period, from Sept. 5, 2013, to Feb. 14, 2014,
Infoblox faced aggressive competition and a downturn in its
business with the federal government, the complaint states.
During that time, Burnam claims, Infoblox issued false statements
about earnings and said it did not engage in discounting.
Meanwhile, "six of the seven members of senior management and five
of seven company board members collectively sold over $1 million
shares of their personally held shares of company stock generating
proceeds of more than $39.4 million," the complaint states.
In February this year, when the company announced that demand was
weakening and its revenue was decreasing, the share price dropped
by nearly 50 percent, from $33.14 to $17.19, "wiping out nearly
$850 million of the company's market capitalization in one day,"
Burnam says.
In the following months, three class action lawsuits were filed
against Infoblox, the complaint states.
Named as defendants are president and CEO Robert Thomas, CFO Remo
Canessa, and directors Richard Belluzzo, Daniel Phelps, Frank
Marshall, Michael Goguen, Fred Gerson and Laura Conigliaro.
Burnam seeks restitution and damages for gross mismanagement,
waste of corporate assets, breach of fiduciary duty, and --
against Thomas, Goguen, Gerson and Phelps -- for inside trading.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Bower, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com
INTERLINE BRANDS: Court Approval of Accord to Take Several Months
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Court approval for the settlement between Interline Brands, Inc.
and Craftwood Lumber Company of a consumer lawsuit is expected to
take several months to complete, according to the company's
November 17, 2014 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2014.
Interline Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
announced today that it has filed a joint notice of settlement
with the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (the "Court") advising the Court of the settlement of
Craftwood Lumber Company v. Interline Brands, Inc. (the "Craftwood
Litigation"). The Craftwood Litigation is a proposed class action
asserting claims against the Company for alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005, and as previously described in the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the third quarter
ended September 26, 2014.
The Company has denied any fault, wrongdoing, or liability of any
kind in connection with the Craftwood Litigation, but has agreed
to settle to avoid the expense, inconvenience and inherent risk of
litigation. The settlement resolves all current and future
liability relating to the Craftwood Litigation.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement entered into with the
plaintiffs (the "Settlement Agreement"), the Company agreed to pay
$40.0 million in consideration for the settlement of the
litigation and release of the Company from liability. All notice
and administration costs, fees to the settlement class counsel and
the incentive payment to the class representative will be paid
from this settlement payment. As of September 26, 2014, a
litigation-related pre-tax accrual of $20.5 million was included
in accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the Company's
consolidated balance sheet, based on the Company's previous
assessment of legal risks associated with the matter. Accordingly,
an additional pre-tax accrual of $19.5 million will be recorded
for this litigation matter during the quarter ending December 26,
2014. The settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval
by the Court, which is expected to take several months to
complete. The Company anticipates making payment of the settlement
funds to the class members sometime in the second or third quarter
of 2015.
INTERVEST BANCSHARES: Facing "Greentech" & "Sonnenberg" Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intervest Bancshares Corp. is currently facing two shareholder
lawsuits captioned "GreenTech Research LLC v. Callen, et al." and
"Sonnenberg v. Intervest Bancshares Corp., et al." filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County,
according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.
On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint, captioned
GreenTech Research LLC v. Callen, et al. (the "Greentech Action"),
was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New
York County, by an entity purporting to be a stockholder of
Intervest. On August 19, 2014, a putative class action complaint,
captioned Sonnenberg v. Intervest Bancshares Corp., et al., was
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York
County, by an entity purporting to be a stockholder of IBC (also
referred to as Intervest). Each of the complaints alleges that the
directors of Intervest breached their fiduciary duties to
Intervest's stockholders in connection with the merger by
approving a transaction pursuant to an allegedly inadequate
process that undervalues Intervest and includes preclusive deal
protection provisions; and that Intervest and Ozarks allegedly
aided and abetted the Intervest directors in breaching their
duties to Intervest's stockholders. The complaints seek court
certification of the respective plaintiffs as class
representatives and that such proceedings may proceed as
stockholder class actions, and various remedies, including
enjoining the merger from being consummated in accordance with its
agreed-upon terms, rescission or an award of rescissory damages in
the event that the merger is consummated, an accounting by the
defendants to the plaintiff class for all damages caused by the
defendants, recovery of plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' and
experts' fees relating to the lawsuit, and such further relief as
the court deems just and proper. The individual plaintiffs and the
defendants have stipulated to the court that the two actions, as
well as any further actions brought in the same court, should be
consolidated for further proceedings in the same court in order to
minimize expense and promote a more efficient proceeding. On
October 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Greentech Action filed an
amended complaint alleging, among other things, inadequacy of the
disclosures contained in the proxy statement/prospectus included
in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by Ozarks on
September 29, 2014. The defendants named in these lawsuits,
including Intervest, deny the allegations in the complaints and
intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
INVENTURE FOODS: California Court Dismisses "Anderson" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court for the North District of California has
dismissed the consumers' lawsuit captioned Anderson v. Jamba Juice
Company in accordance to the parties' agreement, according to
Inventure Foods, Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.
In March 2012, the company learned that *Jamba Juice was named as
a defendant in a putative class action filed in the Federal Court
for the North District of California and captioned Anderson v.
Jamba Juice Company (the "Anderson Matter"). The plaintiff
purports to represent a class of individuals who purchased make-
at-home smoothie kits from Jamba Juice, and alleges that such
smoothie kits contain unnaturally processed, synthetic and/or non-
natural ingredients and that use of the words "All Natural" on the
labels of these smoothie kits is unfair and fraudulent and
violates various false advertising and unfair competition laws.
The Anderson Matter is one of several "all natural" lawsuits
recently brought against various food manufacturers and
distributors in California. In an amended complaint, the
plaintiff also alleged violations of the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, which were dismissed by the court in August 2012.
In a second amended complaint filed in September 2012, the company
was added as a defendant. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation,
on September 3, 2013 the court dismissed the Anderson Matter.
INVENTURE FOODS: Full Settlement Deal in "Lilly" Case Expected
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. anticipates a full settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs in a lawsuit captioned Lilly v. Jamba Juice Company
et al. by the end of November, according to the company's Nov. 4,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.
On June 28, 2013, a class action complaint against Jamba Juice and
the Company, captioned Lilly v. Jamba Juice Company et al (the
"Lilly Matter"), was filed in the Federal Court for the Northern
District of California, with nearly identical allegations as those
made in the Anderson Matter, except that the complaint also
alleges that the smoothie kits contain two additional allegedly
non-natural ingredients. The plaintiffs in this new action are
represented by the same counsel that represented the plaintiff in
the Anderson Matter. While the company currently believes the
"all natural" statement on the smoothie kits are not misleading
and in full compliance with FDA guidelines, the company is
investigating the claims asserted in the Lilly Matter, and intend
to vigorously defend against them. On September 17, 2013, the
company filed a motion to dismiss, seeking to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims as to gelatin and the Orange Dream Machine smoothie kit.
The company's motion was denied in November 2013. On February 3,
2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of all
persons in California who bought certain Jamba Juice smoothie
kits. On September 18, 2014, the court issued an order granting
class certification solely for purposes of determining liability
and denying certification for purposes of damages. The court
requested further briefing on the question of whether it has
jurisdiction to certify a class for purposes of granting
injunctive relief. Following mediation, the basic terms of a
proposed class settlement were reached and a term sheet was
signed, which remains subject to court approval. The company
anticipates that a full settlement agreement will be completed by
the end of November 2014 and a motion to approve will be filed
with the court.
INVENTURE FOODS: Conference for "Vanessa Montantes" Action Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California has set a conference schedule for Inventure Foods, Inc.
and the plaintiffs in a consumer lawsuit captioned Vanessa
Montantes v. Inventure Foods d/b/a Boulder Canyon Natural Foods,
according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.
On February 13, 2014, the Company was sued in two putative class
actions filed by Vanessa Montantes alleging that it recorded
telephone calls made to its consumer affairs telephone number
without obtaining consent to recording as allegedly required by
California law. One of the actions was filed in California State
Court and captioned Vanessa Montantes v. Inventure Foods, Inc.
doing business as Boulder Canyon Natural Foods, Superior Court for
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles Case No.
BC536218. This state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff
within a few days of its original filing date. The other action
was filed in Federal Court and captioned Vanessa Montantes v.
Inventure Foods d/b/a Boulder Canyon Natural Foods, United States
District Court for the Central District of California Case No.
CV14-1128 MWF (RZx). The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on April 21, 2014, which was denied on June 9, 2014.
The Company also demanded indemnity from EMS, Inc., the
independent contractor that answered the consumer affairs calls,
but EMS, Inc. has not agreed to indemnify the Company. On July
15, 2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding EMS,
Inc. as a defendant. The Company answered the First Amended
Complaint on August 1, 2014. The Court set a scheduling
conference for November 17, 2014.
INVESTORHUB.COM: Global Holdings Files Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Holdings, Inc. on November 20 filed in U.S. Federal
District Court -- Southern California District its suit against
InvestorHub. Com, Inc. (IHUB).
The following was entered on 11/21/2014 at 12:27 PM PST and filed
on 11/20/2014:
CASE NAME: v. INVESTORSHUB.COM et al
CASE NUMBER: 3:14-cv-02780-BTM-JMA
FILER: GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.
Merle Ferguson, CEO, GBHD, states, "Any shareholder of any Public
Company who believes they have been damaged from alleged
activities on IHUB are welcome to participate in a class-action
suit. I will personally pay for the legal documents, and send
them to the shareholder to file in their Federal Court district.
The only monetary outlay to the shareholder will be a minimal
filing fee."
Further, a number of public companies, lawyers, transfer agents,
and shareholders have already contacted the Company with their
interest in being involved in a class-action suit against IHUB.
Again, GBHD welcomes other interested public companies and their
shareholders to join a class-action suit against Investorhub.com,
Inc.-Tallahassee, FL., and its parent company, ADVFN.COM-London,
England.
For further inquires and to receive legal paperwork, contact
Rich Kaiser, Investor relations, GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., 757-306-
6091, info@gbhd.net, and/or www.gbhd.net
JANAKI FOODS: Faces "Campos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------
Feliciano Campos, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Janaki Foods, Inc., and Krishna Iyer, Case
No. 1:14-cv-09466 (N.D. Ill., November 25, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Defendants own and operate an Indian restaurant in Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raisa Alicea, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW GROUP
6232 N. Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (312) 878-1263
E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com
JOSEPH & MJK: Va. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Melissa Campos and Ana Julia Campos, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Joseph & MJ.K. Inc., Joseph &
MJK II, Inc. and Jo-Sop Kang, Case No. 1:14-cv-01603 (E.D. Va.,
November 25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and statutory
damages under the Federal Fair Labor Standards.
The Defendants own and operate a dry cleaning and laundry business
with more than one location in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg Cohen Greenberg
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC.
836 Bonifant St
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued Over Underpayment of Insureds' Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
John and Susan Fearing, individually and on behalf of persons
similarly situated v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., Liberty Mutual
Insurance Co., and Safeco Insurance Co., Case No. 1:14-cv-14241
(D. Mass., November 25, 2014), alleges that the Defendants pay
their insureds less than the amount due them under Liberty
Mutual's insurance contracts, specifically by improperly
subtracting deductibles from payments made to their insureds by
subtracting the deductible from a coverage limit when the
deductible has already been absorbed because a loss amount
exceeded a coverage limit.
The Defendants are engaged in the business of insurance through
its various trade names, subsidiaries and member companies.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shennan Alexandra Kavanagh, Esq.
Gary Klein, Esq.
KLEIN KAVANAGH COSTELLO, LLP
85 Merrimac Street, 4th Flr.
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617) 357-5500
Facsimile: (617) 357-5030
E-mail: kavanagh@kkcllp.com
klein@kkcllp.com
- and -
Cory S. Fein, Esq.
CORY S. FEIN, PC
712 Main St., Suite 800
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 730-5001
Facsimile: (530) 748-0601
E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com
- and -
Joseph W. Watkins, Esq.
JOSEPH W. WATKINS, P.C.
1661 N. Swan Rd., #250
Tucson, AZ 85712
Telephone: (520) 882-9115
Facsimile: (520) 882-7708
E-mail: joewlaw2@gmail.com
MARRONE BIO: Faces "Spencer" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Spencer, derivatively and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pamela G. Marrone, Elin Miller, Dr. Pamela Contag, Tim
Fogarty, Shaugn Stanley, George H. Kerckhove, Les Lyman, Rich
Rominger, and Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Case No. 1:14-at-
00880 (E.D. Cal., November 25, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as omit to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business operations and
prospects.
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. provides bio-based pest management
and plant health products for the crop protection, water
treatment, and other target markets in the United States and
internationally.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avraham Noam Wagner, Esq.
THE WAGNER FIRM
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 491-7949
Facsimile: (310) 694-3967
E-mail: avi@thewagnerfirm.com
MARRONE BIO: Faces 2nd "Spencer" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Spencer, derivatively and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pamela G. Marrone, Elin Miller, Dr. Pamela Contag, Tim
Fogarty, Shaugn Stanley, George H. Kerckhove, Les Lyman, Rich
Rominger, and Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
02779 (E.D. Cal., November 25, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as omit to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business operations and
prospects.
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. provides bio-based pest management
and plant health products for the crop protection, water
treatment, and other target markets in the United States and
internationally.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avraham Noam Wagner, Esq.
THE WAGNER FIRM
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 491-7949
Facsimile: (310) 694-3967
E-mail: avi@thewagnerfirm.com
MAXIMUS INC: Continues to Face "Norton" Labor Lawsuit in Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maximus Inc. continues to face a labor lawsuit captioned Norton et
al. v. MAXIMUS in the U.S. District Court for Idaho, according to
the company's November 17, 2014 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2014.
The Company said, "In January 2014, we were named a defendant in
Norton et al. v. MAXIMUS in the U.S. District Court for Idaho. The
plaintiffs in this purported class action are current and former
trainers and supervisors at the MAXIMUS federal health care
projects in Boise, Idaho and Brownsville, Texas. They allege we
willfully misclassified them as exempt employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and failed to pay them overtime, and they seek
to establish a nationwide class covering the company's federal
health care operations. The plaintiffs allege compensatory and
punitive damages of at least $5.0 million. We have since
reclassified the trainers as non-exempt employees and are seeking
an expedited resolution of their wage claims."
MILLHURST ALE: Faces "Cope" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Cope and Jennifer Olson, on behalf of themselves and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated and for their Complaint v.
Millhurst Ale House of Yorkville, Inc. and Tony Malamis, Case No.
1:14-cv-09498 (N.D. Ill., November 26, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate a bar and restaurant located at
2071 Marketview Drive, Yorkville, IL 60560.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Fish, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 E. Fifith Ave., Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (630) 355-7590
Facsimile: (630) 929-7590
E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
MOL GLOBAL: Faces "Grodko" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Grodko, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. MOL Global, Inc., et al., Case No. :14-cv-
09397 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
had grossly overstated its financial results in the Registration
Statement in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.
MOL Global, Inc. operates a payments platform, which connects
consumers with digital content providers, telecommunications
service providers, and online merchants through a network of
distribution channels that accept cash and online payment methods.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc I. Gross, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212)661-1100
Facsimile: (212)661-8665
E-mail: mgross@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
fmcconville@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312)377-1181
Facsimile: (312)377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
David Jaroslawicz, Esq.
JAROSLAWICZ & JAROS, LLC
225 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212)227-2780
E-mail: dj@lawjaros.com
MULTICARE HEALTH: Class Suit Accord Obtains Preliminary Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sky Valley Chronicle reports that on Nov. 21 a Pierce County judge
gave preliminary approval to a $7.5 million class-action
settlement that would allow one of Pierce County's largest
employers and health care providers to end a dispute with six
accident victims.
The six plaintiffs alleged in a lawsuit that MultiCare Health
System "misused the state's medical lien law to squeeze more money
out of them than it could have gotten from billing their insurance
plans," according to a report by the Morning News Tribune which
noted the judge's decision paves the way for the plaintiffs'
attorneys, as well as those representing MultiCare to start
notifying more than 4,000 people who might benefit from the class
action aggreement.
MultiCare owns Tacoma General Hospital, Mary Bridge Children's
Hospital in Tacoma and three other area hospitals and medical care
centers.
Six patients sued MultiCare last year contending it and one of its
contractors improperly filed medical liens against monetary
settlements those patients reached with third parties responsible
for their injuries -- liens that are allowed by law so that health
care providers can recoup the costs of care they provide to
patients.
However the lawsuit plaintiffs who sustained injuries as a result
of someone else's negligence, claimed MultiCare ignored their
insurance plans and tried to get money from their court
settlements because there was more money to get from those
settlements.
MultiCare denied doing anything wrong according to the Morning
News Tribune report which also noted the litigation "exposed some
of MultiCare's hardball billing practices, which brought negative
attention to one of Pierce County's largest employers and health
care providers."
Unlike other modern nations, America has a for-profit health care
system. Bankruptcies due to unpaid medical bills will affect
nearly 2 million people this year which makes health care bills
the No. 1 cause of such filings -- more so than credit-card bills
or unpaid mortgages, according to data from 2013 published by
NerdWallet Health, a division of the price-comparison website.
The study analyzed data from the U.S. Census, Centers for Disease
Control, the federal court system and the Commonwealth Fund, a
private foundation that promotes access, quality and efficiency in
the health-care system.
What it found was that, "A lot of Americans are struggling with
medical bills," according to NerdWallet Health Vice President
Christina LaMontagne.
The study estimates:
-- Households containing 1.7 million people would file for
bankruptcy protection in 2013.
-- Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults -- more
than 20 percent of this country's population between the ages of
19 and 64 -- will still struggle with health-care-related bills.
-- Having health insurance may not protect you. NerdWallet
estimates nearly 10 million adults with year-round health-
insurance coverage will still accumulate medical bills that they
can't pay off.
-- High-deductible insurance plans requiring consumers to pay
more out-of-pocket costs are a big challenge for many households.
NATIONAL BEEF: Settles Workers' Class Action for $350,000
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a deal has been reached in the
lawsuit against National Beef by workers at its Liberal, Kansas,
slaughterhouse.
A joint filing on Nov. 21 seeks court approval of the settlement
affecting some 480 production employees who joined the class
action litigation.
National Beef has agreed to pay up to $350,000 to settle all
claims without admitting any wrongdoing.
Workers at the southwest Kansas plant are seeking unpaid wages and
overtime. At issue is paying meat-processing workers based on
what is known as gang time, which counts only the time the
production line runs.
Each worker's settlement payment is based on a formula that
factors in the number of weeks worked, among other things. The
two named plaintiffs would receive $3,500 each. Their attorneys
would get $100,320 in fees plus $46,000 in cost.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Restraint of Trade
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
several former college athletes have leveled restraint-of-trade
allegations against the National Collegiate Athletics Association,
in a class action filed in California Northern District Court.
In Johnson et al v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et
al, two former football players and one former basketball player
accuse the NCAA and its five "Power Conferences" of colluding to
keep their compensation artificially low.
The 144-page complaint cites numerous articles, public statements
and NCAA policies to argue that it knowingly created a system in
which student athletes were making significantly less than they
would have in a competitive market.
Specifically, it alleges the NCAA's cap on college athlete
compensation to the "grants-in-aid program" scholarship fell short
of covering all their college costs. Athletes had to "scrimp to
pay for regular student expenses like gas and food," according to
the complaint.
Plaintiffs are suing for damages worth the difference between the
amount of these scholarships and the cost of attending school, a
gap which they say reached thousands of dollars. They also argued
that the system was unfavorable to the audience, because the
financial constraints pushed students to leave college earlier and
"deprived consumers of the potential opportunity of seeing
numerous players" play longer.
The three named plaintiffs are Barry Brunetti, a former
quarterback at West Virginia University and with the University of
Mississippi Rebels; Kenyata Johnson, a former starting linebacker
for the University of Memphis Tigers; and Dalenta Jameral "D.J."
Stephens, a former forward/guard for the University of Memphis
Tigers.
Proposed class members are Division 1 Football Bowl Subdivision
football players and Division 1 basketball players who received
grants-in-aid scholarships between March 2010 and November 2014.
The complaint echoes a similar suit filed in the same court in
March by Shawne Alston, a former running back for the West
Virginia Mountaineers.
Plaintiffs' counsels are with the firms Bursor & Fisher and
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel.
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Responds to Players' Concussion Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Strang, writing for ESPN.com, reports that the National
Hockey League has responded to a class action concussion lawsuit
alleging that the league did not provide the proper protection and
information to its players regarding traumatic head injuries.
The league filed a motion to dismiss the suit with the Minnesota
district court, one brief for dismissal arguing labor preemption
grounds and another brief for dismissal on statute of limitations
and pleading failure grounds, according to documents obtained by
ESPN.com.
The suit, which was originally filed in 2013, claims that the
league downplayed the risks of head injuries, promoted the sport's
brutality and violence, and fraudulently concealed information
that could have protected players from long-term damage.
Among the former NHL players featured as plaintiffs in the class
action suit are Dan LaCouture, Michael Peluso, Gary Leeman, Bernie
Nicholls, David Christian and Reed Larson.
According to the lawsuit, these players are suffering from a
variety of ailments such as headaches, nausea, memory loss,
depression and anxiety, and are at an increased risk of
"developing serious latent neurodegenerative disorders and
diseases including, but not limited to, CTE, dementia, Alzheimer's
disease or similar cognitive-impairing conditions."
Messrs. LaCouture, Peluso, Leeman and Nicholls are part of the
"impairment subclass" of the suit, players who "experienced or are
experiencing symptoms associated with Alzheimer's disease,
Parkinson's disease, ALS, post-concussion syndrome, neurological
deficit, cognitive impairment, dementia or CTE."
According to the plaintiffs' most recent complaint, the league
"either took no steps to protect and educate its players or took
insufficient steps to make players aware of the real risks of
playing in the NHL, which would have protected players from
unnecessary long-term effects of head trauma."
The pending litigation comes on the heels of a proposed settlement
between the NFL and former NFL players over concussion claims that
was originally reported to be valued at $765 million.
The two cases, however, have completely different sets of facts.
And according to the documents filed by the NHL, the league feels
it has firm legal ground to stand upon in facing such allegations.
In one brief for dismissal, the NHL claims that collectively-
bargained agreements between the league and NHLPA already
comprehensively govern such issues as "Player health and safety,
including the 'helmet requirement,' rules concerning removal from
and return to work following an injury, neuropsychological testing
of Players, Playing Rules on body checking, fighting and hits to
the head, and disciplinary procedures."
In the other brief, the league cites certain statutes of
limitations that preclude the plaintiffs from seeking compensation
and considers the claims "untimely."
The league also takes issue with allegations of fraudulent
concealment with respect to medical information that was "readily
available in the public domain."
"These claims should be dismissed because plaintiffs have not
alleged a duty to disclose or the circumstances surrounding the
NHL's alleged omissions with sufficient particularity. Nor do
their pleadings adequately support their assertion that the NHL
somehow concealed publicly available information," the league
asserts in court documents. "At minimum, plaintiffs should be
required to provide a more definite statement in support of their
fraud-based claims."
According to Stuart A. Davidson -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- an
attorney with the firm Robbins Gellar Rudman and Dowd,
representing the plaintiffs, there will be legal memoranda filed
next month that will show the NHL's motions to be "entirely
without merit."
Mr. Davidson called the league's attempts to invoke federal labor
laws designed to promote labor peace and their "blame the victim"
defense "both legally wrong and quite shameful."
"As a direct result of the NHL's failure to warn and protect its
players of the long-term consequences of repeated head and brain
trauma, many players are now suffering from serious cognitive
problems and brain diseases. How many more Wade Belaks,
Rick Rypiens and Derek Boogaards should there be?" Mr. Davidson
wrote in an email to ESPN.com, mentioning three players who died
in the summer of 2011. "It's time for the NHL to stand up and take
care of the players on whose backs -- and brains -- the League
made hundreds of millions of dollars off of. No more hiding
behind legal technicalities which, in any event, are erroneous. "
The NHL declined comment on the pending litigation.
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Lawyers Get More From Levee Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hayride reports that class actions are in a class by
themselves when it comes to generating multimillion dollar fees
for lawyers. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. But the $20
million settlement recently announced by plaintiffs' lawyers
behind the New Orleans levee breach lawsuit brings new light to
this troubling trend.
Nearly 10 years after the class action litigation was filed, the
lawyers and administrators will divvy up $7 million, while victims
who lost their homes and businesses to flooding in the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina will get less than $500 each.
In spite of trial lawyers' claims that they "took a beating" on
this case, it is obvious who is really benefiting here -- and by
and large it isn't the people who got water in their homes. This
case is a stunning example of class action lawyers doing what they
do best: using lawsuits to create the illusion of relief that will
ultimately do nothing more than increase their own bottom lines.
NEW YORK, NY: Vertical Patrols Spark Controversy After Shooting
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Leid, writing for WABC, reports that in the wake of an
innocent man being shot and killed by a police officer conduction
a vertical patrol, the tactic is coming under fire.
"You have sexual assaults, you have drug dealing, burglaries and
robberies, the vertical patrols are designed to get officers
within the buildings get up to the roof and go through the entire
building," said Sal Lifrieri, a security expert.
They're called vertical patrols; an NYPD tactic of sweeping the
city's most violent buildings, often rookie officers combing
poorly lit stairwells.
Security expert Sal Lifrieri is a first grade detective who served
20 years with the NYPD and says it's a necessary tool.
"When you're doing a vertical patrol and you're walking into a
dark alley and you're there, you understand that reason you're
there is because there have been violent crimes committed. You may
want to anticipate having your gun out," Mr. Lifrieri said.
The tactic is coming under scrutiny yet again, after the shooting
death of an unarmed man by a rookie NYPD officer on Nov. 20.
Donna Lieberman, the director of the New York Civil Liberties
Union, says her office filed a class action lawsuit in 2012.
"The vertical patrol program during the Bloomberg administration
was the source of numerous complaints by Housing Authority
tenants. There was excessive Stop and Frisk, improper trespass
arrests, and that has been the source of a lawsuit in federal
court," Ms. Lieberman said.
The PBA said in a statement regarding this latest incident, "Dimly
lit stairways and dilapidated conditions create fertile ground for
violent crime while the constant presence of illegal firearms
creates a dangerous and highly volatile environment. Only time
and a thorough investigation will tell us what transpired in this
case."
When asked about building maintenance, the New York City Housing
Authority said in its statement, "Regarding the tragic shooting at
Pink Houses, NYCHA is cooperating with the NYPD as the
investigation proceeds."
"Nobody is saying that vertical patrols shouldn't exist. What we
are saying is that vertical patrols need to serve the community
and not present a danger to them," Ms. Lieberman said.
NICOLAS CARRILLO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hermilo Candelas, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Nicolas Carrillo, Inc. d/b/a La Tapatia
Bakery and Nicolas Carrillo, Case No. 1:14-cv-09483 (N.D. Ill.,
November 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.
The Defendants own and operate La Tapatia Bakery.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Erik Stevens, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (312) 624-8958
E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com
OILTANKING PARTNERS: Faces Class Action Over Enterprise Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that Oiltanking Partners
LP and its board of directors were hit with a putative class
action in Texas federal court on Nov. 20 accusing them of pushing
through a $6 billion two-step merger with pipeline company
Enterprise Products Partners LP that stiffs unitholders.
Plaintiff Matthew Ellis, an Oiltanking unitholder, lobbed the
putative class action aiming to block the deal and accusing the
Houston-based oil and gas master limited partnership and its
directors of breaching their fiduciary duties by signing off on a
series of deals that will give Enterprise full ownership of
Oiltanking, while cheating Oiltanking unitholders and leaving them
with a meager payoff.
"The merger is the culmination of a series of transactions meant
to transfer Oiltanking's assets to Enterprise without paying
Oiltanking's public unitholders a fair price," the complaint says.
Mr. Ellis balked at the total $6 billion price that Enterprise is
paying for Oiltanking in a series of unit-for-unit exchanges,
claiming that the amount doesn't take into account the publicly
traded Oiltanking's rapidly expanding business and future earnings
potential, according to the suit.
"The board has breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the
merger for grossly inadequate consideration," the complaint says.
"Given Oiltanking's recent strong performance as well as its
future growth prospects, the proposed consideration unitholders
will receive is inadequate and undervalues the partnership."
Enterprise and Oiltanking announced Nov. 12 that they hammered out
a deal that will culminate in Enterprise acquiring all of the
outstanding units of Oiltanking in a unit-for-unit transaction
worth about $1.4 billion that works out to Oiltanking unitholders
receiving about $49.05 per unit, based on both MLPs' closing price
the day before the deal was announced.
"The proposed consideration represents a meager 3.6 percent
premium to the average closing price of Oiltanking units over the
six months leading up to the announcement of the merger of
$47.33," the suit says. "Following the merger, Oiltanking's
public unitholders will own only 1.87 percent of the combined
entity."
That came on the heels of an earlier Oct. 1 transaction worth more
than $4.4 billion in which Enterprise acquired Oiltanking Holding
Americas Inc.'s 64.7 percent limited partner interest in the
Oiltanking MLP, which composed of about 15.9 million common units
and 38.9 million subordinated units, as well as its 2 percent
general partner interest in the Oiltanking MLP.
In that transaction, Enterprise paid a total consideration of
about $4.41 billion to Oiltanking Holding made up of $2.21 billion
in cash and 54.8 million Enterprise common units to snatch up a
total 66.7 percent of the limited partnership interest in
Oiltanking, the suit says.
The combination of the two transactions brings to $6 billion the
total consideration that Enterprise is paying for the Oiltanking
Partners general partner and related incentive distribution rights
and the limited partner units.
Mr. Ellis maintains in the suit that after that Oct. 1
transaction, Enterprise was able to appoint four of its
representatives to Oiltanking's board and install one of its vice
presidents, Laurie H. Argo, as president and CEO of the Oiltanking
MLP, effectively tainting the discussions over how much should be
paid for Oiltanking in the tie-up and giving rise to numerous
conflicts of interest.
"Given Enterprise's complete control over the partnership, the
inadequate consideration offered in connection with the merger is
unsurprising," the suit says.
On top of that, the defendants have exacerbated their breaches of
fiduciary duty by agreeing to lock up the merger with deal
protection devices that block other bidders from making a
successful competing offer for the partnership, the suit alleges.
The merger, which Oiltanking unitholders still have to approve, is
expected to close early next year.
Mr. Ellis also names Enterprise and its general partner,
Enterprise Products Holdings LLC, as defendants in the suit.
Mr. Ellis is represented by Shane T. Rowley of Levi & Korsinsky
LLP, Vincent Wong of The Law Offices of Vincent Wong and Thomas
Bilek of The Bilek Law Firm LLP.
The case is Matthew Ellis v. Bulawa et al., case number 4:14-cv-
03343, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.
OPTIMUM OUTCOMES: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antwone Lindsay, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Optimum Outcomes, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03817-ODE-ECS
(N.D. Ga., November 28, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Simanovsky, Esq.
ALEX SIMANOVSKY & ASSOCIATES, LLC
2300 Henderson Mill Road, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30345
Telephone: (678) 781-1012
E-mail: alex@a-s-law.com
- and -
Craig J. Ehrlich, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG J. EHRLICH, LLC
230 Henderson Mill Road, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: (404) 365-4460
Facsimile: (855) 415-2480
E-mail: craig@ehrlichlawoffice.com
PEAPOD LLC: "Lungan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costel Lungan, individually and, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Peapod, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-09473 (N.D. Ill.,
November 25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Peapod, LLC specializes in providing online shoppers with a large
variety of groceries that are hand-delivered to its customers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq.
Peter Lawrence Currie, Esq.
FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL LLC
10 West State Street, Suite 200
Geneva, IL 60134
Telephone: (630) 232-4480
Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com
plc@fmcolaw.com
POWER HOME: Faces "Ellerbe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Ellerbe, individually & on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Power Home Technologies, Inc. and Power Home
Technologies, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-02950 (M.D. Fla., November 25,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants are dealers of Monitronics Home Security.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave, PO Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
SAN JUAN COUNTY, NM: Sheriff Abuses Immigration Holds, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Prieskop at Courthouse News Service reports that a
sheriff in northern New Mexico abuses federal "immigration holds"
to hold Mexicans in jail for far longer than the legal limit of 48
hours, a federal class action claims.
Lead plaintiff Moncerrath Gutierrez sued the San Juan County Board
of Commissioners and Sheriff Ken Christesen on Nov. 19 in Federal
Court. Also named as plaintiffs are Somos un Pueblo Unido, an
immigrant rights group, and another man and a woman.
San Juan County is in north central New Mexico. The county seat
is Aztec and its largest town is Farmington.
The "immigration hold" is intended to give Immigration and Customs
Enforcement time to determine whether to take of custody of people
about to be released from detention. The detainer, known as an I-
247, is headed: "Maintain Custody of Alien for a Period not to
Exceed 48 Hours," according to the complaint.
But plaintiff Susana Palacios-Valencia claims the sheriff jailed
her for 10 days on an immigration detainer, after an officer ran
her information during a routine traffic stop where she was a
passenger and found that she had an unpaid ticket for driving
without insurance. She claims she was kept in jail even after she
paid the ticket.
Such treatment is commonplace in San Juan County, the plaintiffs
say.
They seek an injunction and damages for civil rights violations.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Bienvenu, Esq.
ROTHSTEIN, DONATELLI, HUGHES, DALSTROM,
SHOENBURG & BIENVENU
1215 Paseo De Peralta
P.O. Box 8180
Santa Fe, NM 87504
Telephone: (505) 988-8004
E-mail: jbienvenu@rothsteinlaw.com
SCHERR & MCCLURE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deena Lefkovits, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Scherr & McClure, P.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-
06961 (E.D.N.Y., November 27, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791-4400
Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Opposes Attorney Fees Claim in WMS Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the Illinois action over the WMS Industries Inc.
Merger have filed a claim for attorney fees of $0.9 million, which
Scientific Games Corporation opposed, according to Scientific
Games' Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.
Complaints challenging the WMS merger were filed in early 2013 in
the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois and the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
Lake County, Illinois. The actions are putative class actions
filed on behalf of WMS stockholders. The complaints generally
allege that the WMS directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with their consideration and approval of the merger and
in connection with their public disclosures concerning the merger.
The complaints allege that other defendants, including WMS,
Scientific Games Corporation and certain affiliates of Scientific
Games Corporation, aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The
plaintiffs sought equitable relief, including to enjoin the
acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs.
The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In
re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). The plaintiffs
in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the Delaware
Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had conferred with
the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed to stay the
consolidated Delaware action.
The Lake County, Illinois actions were transferred to Cook County.
All of the Illinois actions were consolidated in Cook County with
Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013 CH 3540).
In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion
for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on
the merger. Following that, in April 2013, lead counsel in the
Gardner action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all actions
in Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion for
preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS
stockholder vote in return for WMS' agreement to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the merger. WMS made those
supplemental disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on April 29, 2013.
In January 2014, the plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed an
amended complaint seeking damages for the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and the alleged
aiding and abetting of those breaches by WMS and Scientific Games
Corporation. In February 2014, WMS and Scientific Games
Corporation filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In
September 2014, the plaintiffs' claims in the Illinois action were
dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs in the Illinois action
have filed a claim for attorney fees of $0.9 million, which the
company have opposed.
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Inks MoU to Settle Suit Over Bally Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in In re Bally Technologies, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation (C.A. No. A-14-705012-B) entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding under which they agreed in principle to settle all
of the claims asserted in the Nevada Action on a class-wide basis,
according to Scientific Games Corporation's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.
The following complaints challenging the pending Bally merger were
filed in August 2014 in the state District Court of Clark County,
Nevada: Shaev v. Bally Technologies, Inc., Richard Haddrill, et
al. (C.A. No. A-14-705012-B); Lawandoski v. Bally Technologies,
Inc., Robert Guido, et al. (C.A. No. A-14-705153-C); Rosenfeld v.
Bally Technologies, Inc., Robert Guido, et al. (C.A. No. A-14-
705162-B); Crescente v. Bally Technologies, Inc., Robert Guido, et
al. (C.A. No. A-14-705144-C); Stein v. Bally Technologies, Inc.,
Robert L. Guido, et al. (C.A. No. A-14-705338-B); and Hahm v.
Bally Technologies, Inc., Robert Guido, et al. (C.A. No. A-14-
706234-C). The actions are putative class actions filed on behalf
of the public stockholders of Bally and name as defendants Bally,
its directors, Scientific Games Corporation and certain of its
affiliates. The complaints generally allege that the Bally
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their
consideration and approval of the merger and that the company
aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The plaintiffs seek
equitable relief, including to enjoin the merger, to rescind the
merger if not enjoined, damages, attorneys' fees and other costs.
All of the actions have been consolidated under the caption In re
Bally Technologies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. A-14-
705012-B) (the "Nevada Action"). In October 2014, plaintiffs filed
a motion for limited expedited discovery in connection with an
anticipated motion to enjoin the proposed transaction. Following
that, in October 2014, Bally and its directors filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint and Scientific Games and its
affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the count of the consolidated
complaint alleging wrongdoing by Scientific Games Corporation and
its affiliates. Following that, the plaintiffs withdrew their
motion for expedited discovery and the parties entered into
preliminary settlement discussions.
On October 17, 2014, following arm's-length negotiations, the
parties to the Nevada Action entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") under which they agreed in principle to
settle all of the claims asserted in the Nevada Action on a class-
wide basis, subject to certain conditions, including confirmatory
discovery by the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action and preliminary
and final approval of the Nevada court, which will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. Bally,
Scientific Games and the other named defendants entered into the
MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and
vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, the claims
alleged in the Nevada Action.
SEECO: $100+ Mil. at Stake in Gas Royalties Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
John Lyon, writing for Arkansas News, reports that more than $100
million generated by natural gas production in the Fayetteville
Shale could be at stake in a class-action lawsuit that alleges an
oil and gas company has been skimming money from royalty owners'
payments for the past eight years.
Conway County residents Eldridge Snow and M.L. Fester filed the
lawsuit in Conway County Circuit Court in 2010 and received class-
action certification in October. The defendant is SEECO, a
subsidiary of Houston-based Southwestern Energy Company.
The plaintiffs allege SEECO has taken gas from wells without
paying royalties on it, intentionally reported false and
misleading information on royalty check stubs and deducted fees
and costs that are not allowed under its leases. They are seeking
monetary damages for themselves and all others who are similarly
situated -- a class that includes thousands of royalty owners
throughout the Fayetteville Shale.
SEECO has denied the allegations and has said that all of the fees
and costs it has deducted are expressly authorized by the leases
that the royalty owners and SEECO agreed to. The company also
notified the court on Oct. 28 that it will appeal the granting of
class-action status.
The plaintiffs believe SEECO has skimmed money in a variety of
ways.
"There are several issues," said Dennis Caruso, of the attorneys
representing the plaintiffs. "One is that they're not actually
treating any gas, yet they're charging a treatment fee. Under our
leases, the cost has to be incurred, and obviously if you're not
treating gas, you're not incurring cost."
Mr. Caruso said SEECO has not disclosed how it calculates its
deductions, but the plaintiffs believe the company is not
following the terms of its leases. He said that so far the case
has focused on class-action certification, but SEECO's deductions
will be scrutinized as the case proceeds.
"For example, if SEECO's charging a profit, (if) they have a
profit margin and they're including that on the royalty owners'
deduction, that's not a cost incurred, therefore that wouldn't be
allowed," he said.
Also an issue in the case, Mr. Caruso said, is the question of
whether SEECO can take gas from the royalty owners' wells to run
its compressors.
"Our position would be if a well produces 100 Mcf (Mcf = 1,000
cubic feet) and they sell 80 Mcf, and 20 Mcf is consumed as fuel
in their process, post production cost, then they have to pay
royalty on that 20 Mcf, not on the 80 Mcf," Mr. Caruso said.
Southwestern Energy Company said in an emailed statement on
Nov. 21 that the circuit judge's ruling granting class-action
status addressed only procedural issues and did not address the
merits of the plaintiffs' claim.
"The merits relate principally to the deduction of costs of
transporting gas, and the facts will show that SEECO properly
deducted costs or, if the lease did not permit deductions, did not
do so," the company said in the statement. "The facts will also
show that SEECO's costs are among the lowest in the area, if not
the lowest. SEECO is committed to abiding by its obligations to
royalty owners and plans to defend the accuracy and
appropriateness of its royalty calculations."
The lawsuit is not the first to be filed against SEECO by royalty
owners. In 2000, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a Sebastian
County jury's verdict that royalty owners had proven claims
against SEECO of breach of leases, deceit, constructive fraud,
fraudulent concealment, interference with a contractual
relationship and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found in special verdicts that Southwest Energy
Company and Arkansas Western Gas Company were alter egos of SEECO.
The trial judge entered a judgment against the defendants of $93.2
million.
Asked how much money is at stake in the present lawsuit, Caruso
said that is yet to be determined.
"SEECO since 2006 has been producing 1 to 3 Bcf (billion cubic
feet) of gas per day," he said. "It's going to be a lot of
money."
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Faces Stockholders' Lawsuits in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group Inc., its board of directors, Onex
Corporation Genesis and Genesis HealthCare LLC are currently
facing two purported stockholders lawsuits filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, according to Skilled
Healthcare's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28,
2014.
On August 18 2014, Skilled entered into the Purchase Agreement
with FC-GEN Operations Investment, LLC ("Genesis") pursuant to
which the businesses and operations of Skilled and Genesis will be
combined (the "Combination"). Skilled, the Skilled board of
directors, Onex Corporation ("Onex"), Genesis and Genesis
HealthCare LLC ("Genesis HealthCare") are named as defendants in
two purported class action lawsuits files in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware on September 5, 2014 and September 15,
2014, respectively, brought by individuals who claim to be
stockholders of Skilled. The stockholder actions allege, among
other things, that the board of directors and Onex breached
fiduciary duties purportedly owed to Skilled's stockholders and
that the remaining defendants aided and abetted in that breach.
The complaint sees to enjoin the defendants from completing the
Combination on the agreed-upon terms or, in the event that the
Combination is consummated, to recover damages resulting from
defendants' alleged wrongful conduct.
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: $3MM Goes to Understaffing Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
An additional $1.0 million was distributed to the Humboldt County
District Attorney's Office and $3.0 million was distributed to the
settlement fund of a lawsuit alleging understaffing at certain
California skilled nursing facilities operated by Skilled
Healthcare Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries, according to Skilled
Healthcare's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28,
2014.
In connection with the September 2010 settlement of class action
litigation against Skilled and certain of its subsidiaries related
to, among other matters, alleged understaffing at certain
California skilled nursing facilities operated by Skilled's
subsidiaries (the "Humboldt County Action"), Skilled and its
defendant subsidiaries (collectively, the "Defendants") entered
into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs and intervenor and
agreed to an injunction. The settlement was approved by the
Superior Court of California, Humboldt County on November 30,
2010. Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the defendant
entities deposited a total of $50.0 million into escrow accounts
to cover settlement payments to class members, notice and claims
administration costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
certain other payments, including $5.0 million to settle certain
government agency claims and potential government claims that may
arise. Of the $5.0 million provided for such government claims,
$1.0 million was initially released by the court to the Humboldt
County Treasurer-Tax Collector on behalf of the People of the
State of California for their release of the Defendants. The
remaining $4.0 million was available for the settlement and
releases by the California Attorney General and certain other
District Attorneys. However, in the event that any of these
government authorities were to instead file certain actions
against the Defendants by February 2013, the entire $4.0 million
would have reverted to the Defendants upon their request to the
Settlement Administrator. No such actions were filed, however,
resulting in an additional $1.0 million distribution to the
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office and the remaining $3.0
million was distributed to the class settlement fund, as required
by the settlement agreement.
In addition to the payments to the Humboldt County Treasurer-Tax
Collector on behalf of the People of the State of California, the
court also approved payments from the escrow of up to
approximately $24.8 million for plaintiff attorneys' fees and
costs and $10,000 to each of the three named plaintiffs. Pursuant
to the injunction, the twenty-two Defendants that operated
California nursing facilities were required to provide specified
nurse staffing levels, comply with specified state and federal
regulations governing staffing levels and posting requirements,
and provide reports and information to a court-appointed auditor.
The injunction was to remain in effect for a period of twenty-four
months unless extended for additional three-month periods as to
any Defendants who violated the injunction. Defendants
demonstrating compliance for an eighteen-month period that ended
September 30, 2012 were permitted to petition for early
termination of the injunction. The Defendants were required to
demonstrate over the term of the injunction that the costs of the
injunction met a minimum threshold level pursuant to the
settlement agreement, which level, initially $9.6 million, was
reduced by the portion attributable to any Defendant in the case
that no longer operated a skilled nursing facility during the
injunction period.
In April 2011, five of the subsidiary Defendants transferred their
operations to an unaffiliated third party skilled nursing facility
operator (the "Former Humboldt County Facilities"). On November
14, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion to terminate the
injunction and vacate the final judgment in the Humboldt County
Action. Based upon compliance with the injunction through the
requisite eighteen-month period, on December 21, 2012, the
Superior Court of California, Humboldt County granted the
Defendants' motion for early termination of the injunction, and
the injunction has now ended with respect to the 17 California
nursing facilities that the subsidiary Defendants still operate.
In its order, the court determined that the injunction termination
did not apply to the Former Humboldt County Facilities. However,
the 2010 court-approved stipulation and order establishing the
injunction provides that the injunction applies to the named
defendants and any successor licensees of the applicable nursing
facilities, but only if those successor licensees are affiliates
of the named defendants. As noted above, the Former Humboldt
County Facilities have been operated by an unaffiliated third
party since April 2011. Therefore, under the terms of the
injunction it does not apply to the Former Humboldt County
Facilities unless an affiliate of the Defendants operates them.
Pursuant to the BMFEA matter discussed below the California
theories in this context were released in February 2013.
In the course of ongoing communications with the California
Attorney General's Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud & Elder Abuse
("BMFEA") related to the BMFEA matter discussed below,
representatives of the California Attorney General and the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ") indicated an interest in pursuing an
action under the False Claims Act ("FCA"). The DOJ expressed that
it believes the company has FCA and other legal liabilities based
upon the jury findings in the Humboldt County Action and otherwise
related to staffing and perhaps other considerations related
thereto. While the Company continues to cooperate with the
government's evaluation of the matter, the Company views the
government's apparent legal theories, including the False Claims
Act theories, as lacking support in the established case law.
SOLYNDRA: Judge Won't Force Trust to Hand Over Documents
--------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
magistrate judge in San Francisco won't force the bankruptcy trust
of Solyndra to hand over a trove of documents it produced in
government investigations to its opponents in an antitrust
lawsuit.
Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte, however, also expressed
frustration with the defunct solar panel maker's lack of
transparency during discovery in the antitrust case at a hearing
on Nov. 25. The judge is giving Solyndra and its antitrust
opponents two weeks to jointly propose a resolution to their
discovery spat.
Fremont-based Solyndra was the source of plenty of political
intrigue before it became an antitrust plaintiff. The company
benefited from more than $500 million in loans backed by the U.S.
Department of Energy before filing for bankruptcy in 2011. Those
loans were the focus of a congressional probe led by House
Republicans and a federal criminal investigation headed up by the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California.
The Solyndra controversy even served as a sideshow in the most
recent presidential campaign, with GOP candidate Mitt Romney
pointing to the company's loan deal as an example of the Obama
administration's "crony capitalism."
"Solyndra: the gift that keeps on giving," Judge Laporte said at
the beginning of the Nov. 25 hearing. "I knew there'd be more
hearings in this case, but I thought they'd probably be in
[Washington,] D.C."
The discovery fight before Laporte on Nov. 25 sprang from an
antitrust lawsuit Solyndra's lawyers at Winston & Strawn filed in
October 2012. According to the complaint, a trio of Chinese
companies -- Suntech Power Holdings Co., Trina Solar Ltd. and
Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd. -- plotted with trade groups
and Chinese government entities to take over the U.S. market for
solar panels by dumping the vast majority of their products in the
United States at predatory prices. The three companies are
represented by Shearman & Sterling, Kirkland & Ellis and Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett, respectively.
In April, U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, who's
overseeing the litigation, denied the Chinese companies' motion to
dismiss in a 25-page order. Armstrong found that Solyndra alleged
facts that "are more than sufficient to suggest that defendants
reached an agreement to fix prices and flood the American market
with their below cost Chinese-made panels for the purpose of
stifling competition."
In the discovery that's followed Armstrong's decision, Solyndra
has so far refused to produce all the documents it previously
handed over to government investigators in Congress and the U.S.
attorney's office. Lawyers for the Chinese companies argue those
documents relate directly to the company's financial condition and
the reasons for its collapse -- central issues in the antitrust
lawsuit.
"Any burden associated with gathering the materials was incurred
at the time of their original production," the Chinese companies'
lawyers wrote in a joint motion to compel filed in October. "Any
claim of privilege was waived when the documents were produced to
the government."
Solyndra's lawyers responded that the documents are off-topic and,
in some cases, privileged. Solyndra's lawyers maintain that the
government investigations focus on representations the company
made in its application for the Department of Energy loan.
They also state that since it was cost-prohibitive for Solyndra to
review all the documents produced to the government, the company
made productions to federal prosecutors under Federal Rule of
Evidence 502(d) -- a method that allows a party to hand over
documents without waving privilege. The U.S. attorney's office,
according to Solyndra, established a "taint team" to screen
Solyndra's documents for privileged material before they reached
the prosecutors directly working on the investigation.
On Nov. 25, Judge Laporte said she would "absolutely" enforce the
Rule 502 orders related to documents handed over to prosecutors.
"I'm happy to see people aren't forgetting about" the rule, she
said. However, she questioned whether Solyndra could claim that
documents produced to both prosecutors and Congress were
privileged.
Arguing for the defendants, Scott Lerner --
scott.lerner@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis said of the 1.5
million documents Solyndra has handed over to the government, only
about 5 percent have been produced to the antitrust defendants,
and not all of them relate to the company's financial issues.
That's left the defendants hamstrung in supporting their primary
argument that Solyndra failed because of its own financial
problems and mismanagement.
Winston & Strawn's Robert Pringle indicated that Solyndra would be
willing to apply new search terms to all of the company's
documents to see if they yield documents relating to the company's
financial condition that haven't yet been disclosed.
Judge Laporte asked the parties to meet and confer, and file a
joint letter proposing a way forward within two weeks.
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Alexande" Suit Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard A. Alexander and Thomas J. Faber, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated persons v. Takata Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-09396 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2014),
alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured
by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants
from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel
vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and
shrapnel.
Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
David A. Straite, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: dstraite@kaplanfox.com
-and-
Laurence D. King, Esq.
Linda M. Fong, Esq.
350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 772-4700
Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Burch" Suit Over Defective Airbags
------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Burch and Keith Gauchet, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02703 (E.D. La., November 25, 2014), alleges
that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the
Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from
bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel
vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and
shrapnel.
Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
jflowers@motleyrice.com
kdean@motleyrice.com
- and -
Val Patrick Exnicios, Esq.
LISKA, EXNICIOS & NUNGESSER
1515 Poydras Street, 14th Floor, Ste. 1400
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 410-9611
Facsimile: (504) 410-9937
E-mail: vpexnicios@exnicioslaw.com
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Dube" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-----------------------------------------------------
Clark Stanley Dube, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-24492
(S.D. Fla., November 25, 2014), alleges that the Defective
Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that,
instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during
accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with
lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.
Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alec Huff Schultz, Esq.
Jared Reed Kessler, Esq.
Scott Brian Cosgrove, Esq.
LEON COSGROVE LLC
255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 424
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 740-1986
Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
E-mail: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
jkessler@leoncosgrove.com
scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Johnston" Suit Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher D. Johnston and Hartman Law Firm, P.A., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Takata
Corporation, et al., alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain
airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting
vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently
explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal
debris and shrapnel.
Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catherine H. McElveen, Esq.
T. Christopher Tuck, Esq.
A. Hoyt Rowell III, Esq.
James L. Ward Jr., Esq.
Robert S. Wood, Esq.
RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, L.L.C.
1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Building A
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 727-6500
Facsimile: (843) 216-6509
E-mail: kmcelveen@rpwb.com
ctuck@rpwb.com
hrowell@rpwb.com
jward@rpwb.com
bwood@rpwb.com
- and -
William Garvin, Esq.
THE GARVIN LAW FIRM
1546-1 Metropolitan Blvd
Tallahassee, FL 32308
Telephone: (850) 422-3400
E-mail: wgarvin@garvinlawfirm.com
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Leger" Suit Over Defective Airbags
------------------------------------------------------
Monte Leger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03392
(S.D. Tex., November 25, 2014), alleges that the Defective
Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that,
instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during
accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with
lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.
Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
Eugene R. Egdorf, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
6810 FM 1960 West (77069)
Houston, TX 77269-1448
Telephone: (713) 659-5200
Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
Direct Facsimile: (281) 866-6963
E-mail: jrm@lanierlawfirm.com
ere@lanierlawfirm.com
- and -
Bradley L. Leger, Esq.
LEGER ADKINS LLP
2323 S. Shepherd Drive, Suite 915
Houston, TX 77019-7028
Telephone: (713) 574-5558
Facsimile: (713) 574-1894
TARGET CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that Target Corp. on
Nov. 20 doubled down on its bid to dismiss class action litigation
brought by customers over the retailer's massive data breach,
arguing consumers have failed to show that any fraudulent charges
can be traced to the intrusion.
In a reply brief filed in Minnesota federal court, Target defended
its pending motion to dismiss a consolidated class action brought
by more than 100 named plaintiffs from all but a handful of
states. Target contends that customers lack standing to pursue
legal claims against the company, saying most of the plaintiffs
have not alleged they have incurred fraudulent charges nearly a
year after the breach was revealed.
According to Target, the plaintiffs' lawsuit fails to "trace" the
breach of the company's computer systems to any potential injuries
suffered by consumers as a result of the theft of customer contact
information and payment card data that was allegedly stolen at the
retailer's point of sale terminals during last year's holiday
shopping season.
Target also claims the lawsuit fails to sufficiently allege that
any potential risk customers face of having their information
stolen in the future is high enough to give the plaintiffs
standing to pursue legal claims against the retailer. The company
noted that it has provided affected customers with a year of free
credit monitoring that, while not eliminating the risk of identity
theft, reduces "the risk of future injuries."
"Plaintiffs merely speculate that third parties will use their
data at some uncertain future point and that they will be subject
to (unreimbursed) unauthorized charges. Plaintiffs' argument that
the hackers have their data and intend to misuse it does nothing
to nudge their allegations to certainty," Target said in its
brief.
"That more than half of the 112 named plaintiffs do not allege any
unauthorized charges (much less unreimbursed charges) many months
after the intrusion occurred and others state that their debit or
credit cards have been canceled (and thus could not be misused)
shows otherwise," Target said.
The litigation, which includes separate claims brought by payment
card issuing banks, stems from what may be one of the largest data
breaches in U.S. history. During the course of the legal
proceedings, which have been combined into multidistrict
litigation in Minnesota, Target has deflected blame for the attack
by arguing that consumers and banks lack standing to pursue their
cases.
Attorneys have been closely following the litigation, which is
expected to provide some guidance on how data breach cases will
proceed against other retailers, including Home Depot Inc.
Earlier this month, Target announced that it has brought on GM's
former compliance officer to head up its data security.
An attorney representing the plaintiffs declined to comment on
Nov. 21, saying they will respond to Target's arguments at a
hearing.
The consumer plaintiffs are represented by Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP, Milberg LLP, Girard Gibbs LLP, Nichols Kaster PLLP and Heins
Mills & Olson PLC.
Target is represented by Wendy J. Wildung --
wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- and Michael A. Ponto --
michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels and by
Harold J. McElhinny -- hmcelhinny@mofo.com -- Jack W. Londen --
jlonden@mofo.com -- Michael J. Agoglia -- magoglia@mofo.com --
Rebekah Kaufman -- rkaufman@mofo.com -- and David F. McDowell --
dmcdowell@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP.
The case is In re: Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, case number 0:14-md-02522, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota.
TENET HEALTHCARE: Receives Court Approval of Deal in "Doe" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation received court approval of a final
agreement to settle a lawsuit captioned Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen
Smith Medical Foundation, according to Tenet Healthcare's Nov. 3,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2014.
The Company states "In October 2014, we received court approval of
a final agreement to settle a previously disclosed class action
lawsuit captioned Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen Smith Medical
Foundation, which was filed in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in Louisiana in March 1997. The plaintiffs
pursued a claim for tortious invasion of privacy due to the fact
that in April 1996 patient identifying records from a psychiatric
hospital we closed in 1995 were temporarily placed in an unsecure
location while the hospital was undergoing renovations. The court
certified a class of over 5,000 persons; however, only eight
individuals (in addition to the two plaintiffs) have been
identified to date in the class certification process. The
plaintiffs have asserted each member of the class is entitled to
common damages under a theory of presumed "common damage"
regardless of whether or not any members of the class were
actually harmed or even aware of the incident. In an effort to
avoid protracted litigation, the parties settled this matter in
June 2014 for a maximum potential payment of $32.5 million,
subject to the number and type of claims asserted by the class
members between January 15 and March 31, 2015. The settlement will
be funded in amounts and on a schedule to be agreed to by the
parties. In the three months ended June 30, 2014, we established a
reserve of $17 million, recorded in discontinued operations, to
reflect our current estimate of probable liability for this matter
based on anticipated levels of class member participation."
TGI FRIDAY'S: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Over Cost of Drinks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
T.G.I. Friday's Inc. and its parent companies are facing a class
action for allegedly misleading customers on the price of drinks.
Customer Michael Grace of New Jersey is accusing the restaurant
chain of manipulating customers by not disclosing the price of
drinks on its menu. He is asking for a penalty of at least $100
per customer per drink, according to a court filing.
Mr. Grace v. T.G.I. Fridays was transferred on Nov. 27 from the
Superior the Court of New Jersey, Burlington County, to U.S.
District Court in New Jersey at the request of the defendants,
which cited the Class Action Fairness Act. The two other
defendants are Sentinel Capital Partners LLC and Triartisan
Capital Partners, the new owners of T.G.I. Friday's.
The proposed class would include all customers of T.G.I. Friday's
located in New Jersey who ordered drinks from a menu that did not
list their prices, on or after July 14, 2014, the date of T.G.I.
Friday's acquisition by the two other parties, according to the
complaint.
Mr. Grace notes in the complaint that he has dined several times
at T.G.I. Friday's establishments, and yet upon finding a mixed
drink on sale cost a "staggering" $10.39, he considered that "was
far greater than he expected it to be and in the excess of a
reasonable price."
Though Mr. Grace estimated that total relief costs would add up to
less than $5 million, the defendants argued that they would exceed
that mark, and thus moved the suit to federal court.
The plaintiff's attorney is with the firm Wesley Glenn Hanna and
the defendants' attorneys is with the firm LeClair Ryan.
TIER REIT: District Court Approves Motion to Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas has granted the motion to dismiss an alleged class action
lawsuit filed against Tier Reit, Inc., Behringer Harvard Holdings
and certain of its officers, according to Tier Reit's Nov. 3,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2014.
On each of September 17 and November 28, 2012, lawsuits seeking
class action status were filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division). On January
4, 2013, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the Court. The
plaintiffs purported to file the suit individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, referred to herein as
"Plaintiffs."
The Company states "Plaintiffs named us, Behringer Harvard
Holdings, LLC, our previous sponsor, as well as the directors at
the time of the allegations: Robert M. Behringer, Robert S.
Aisner, Ronald Witten, Charles G. Dannis and Steven W. Partridge
(individually a "Director" and collectively the "Directors") and
Scott W. Fordham, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and
President, and James E. Sharp, the Company's Chief Accounting
Officer (collectively, the "Officers"), as defendants. In the
amended complaint filed on February 1, 2013, the Officers were
dismissed from the consolidated suit.
Plaintiffs alleged that (1) the Directors each individually
breached various fiduciary duties purportedly owed to Plaintiffs,
(2) the Directors violated Sections 14(a) and (e) and Rules 14a-9
and 14e-2(b) of and under federal securities law and (3) the
defendants were unjustly enriched by the purported failures to
provide complete and accurate disclosure regarding, among other
things, the value of our common stock and the source of funds used
to pay distributions.
On March 27, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas granted the motion to dismiss the
lawsuit with prejudice from which no appeal was taken."
TESCO PLC: Sued in S.D. N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Square Capital, LP, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tesco PLC, Sir Richard Broadbent,
Philip Clarke and Laurie McIlwee, Case No. 1:14-cv-09378
(S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.
Tesco PLC operates as a grocery retailer through stores offering
food, groceries, clothing and general merchandise and also
provides retail banking, financial and insurance services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
122 E 42nd Street, Suite 2920
New York, NY 10168
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
-and-
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Michael Goldberg, Esq.
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
1925 Century ParkEast, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310)201-9150
Facsimile: (310)201-9160
TIMBERTECH: Falsely Marketed Decking Products, "Rogers" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rogers and Stephanie Rogers, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Timbertech and CPG International
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09403 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2014), arises
out of the Defendants' false representation that their TimberTech
Decking products require low or no maintenance and that are long
lasting, when in fact they contained design and construction
defects that resulted in deterioration and loss of structural
integrity.
The Defendants are manufacturers of materials for residential and
commercial markets designed to replace wood, metal and other
traditional materials in a variety of building applications for
sale in New York and nationwide.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Parvin K. Aminolroaya, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 584-0700
Facsimile: (2120 584-0799
E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
paminolroaya@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Jeffery A. Leon, Esq.
QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
Highland Park, IL 60035
Telephone: (847) 433-4500
Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
E-mail: jeff@Oulegal.com
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit Over Defective Guardrails
--------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that an accident
victim has filed what her lawyers said ranks as the first case
against Dallas-based guardrail manufacturer Trinity Industries
since a jury issued a $175 million verdict against the company
last month.
On Oct. 20, that jury decided in favor of a whistleblower who
alleged that the company violated the False Claims Act, knowing
about its products' alleged defectiveness.
The accident victim, Danielle Washington, a Greensboro, N.C.
resident, filed on Nov. 14 her complaint in federal court in
Marshall. Her lawyers predict that it will lead a wave of
individual accident victims' claims against Trinity.
In her complaint, Washington alleged that on Nov. 29, 2013, she
fell asleep while driving, and her vehicle collided with a
guardrail. She alleged that because of that guardrail's
defectiveness it pierced the passenger compartment of the car,
leading to her injuries.
Her complaint specifically references the jury verdict issued
Oct. 20 in favor of the whistleblower. Trinity "knew of the
dangerous conditions created by" its guardrail system, Washington
stated in her complaint.
Collen Clark, a partner in Schmidt & Clark in Dallas, and Josh
Maness in Marshall, represent Washington.
"This is the first," Mr. Maness said about Washington's complaint.
He and Clark represent about 20 other accident victims who will
likely file against Trinity, he said. The "bulk" of those clients
contacted the plaintiffs lawyers after the Oct. 20 verdict, which
garnered national attention, said Mr. Maness, who also served as
counsel but not lead in the whistleblower case.
Washington's own role in her accident, falling asleep at the
wheel, doesn't matter, Mr. Maness said.
"Why you left the road" will be "largely irrelevant" in the claims
against the guardrail maker, he said. "The product is failing,
and as long as you are not going 200 miles an hour, it is supposed
to work," Mr. Maness said.
Jeff Eller, a Trinity spokesman, wrote in an email that "it would
not be appropriate to comment on this litigation."
Ethan Shaw, a partner in Dallas' Shaw Cowart, who led a team
representing Trinity in the whistleblower case, did not return a
call by press time.
In a statement posted on its website after the Oct. 20 verdict,
Trinity wrote: "The company respects the jury's decision.
However, Trinity believes the decision cannot and will not
withstand legal scrutiny. The company strongly believes the
courts will affirm its position."
UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Junk Refuge-Seekers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Refuge-seekers' class action accusing the United States of
unreasonably holding them in detention for months may proceed,
reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Rogers on November 21 denied the
government's motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff
Marco Antonio Alfaro Garcia, and granted class certification in
the case.
Garcia, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the
National Immigrant Justice Center, said in his April lawsuit that
the government delays its process of finding out whether
immigrants subject to deportation have a "reasonable fear" of
returning to their home countries.
The average wait time for an immigrant taken into custody to
receive a reasonable fear determination is 111 days, the complaint
states.
Government regulations say that determination should be made
within 10 days.
Marco Antonio Alfaro Garcia, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al., Case
No. 4:14-cv-01775-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
USG CORP: Inks MoU to Settle Domestic Drywall Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation entered into binding memoranda of understanding to
settle all claims made against the Company and its subsidiary,
United States Gypsum Company, in the direct and indirect purchaser
class actions consolidated in the lawsuit, In re: Domestic Drywall
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437, pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according
to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Pursuant to the binding memoranda of understanding, which were
entered into with counsel representing the direct purchaser and
indirect purchaser classes in the lawsuit, the Company has agreed
to pay a total of $48 million in cash to settle the claims. Of
the $48 million settlement payment, $39.25 million will be
allocated to the direct purchaser class settlement fund and $8.75
million will be allocated to the indirect purchaser class
settlement fund. The Company anticipates entering into long-form
settlement agreements memorializing the terms of the binding
memoranda of understanding, which long-form settlement agreements
will be subject to court approval. The memoranda of
understanding, in which the Company denies all wrongdoing, also
include releases of the Company as well as its subsidiaries,
affiliates, and other related parties, for the time period from
January 1, 2012 through the date of execution of the long-form
settlement agreement.
VELDOS LLC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Moskowitz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Veldos LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-06962
(E.D.N.Y., November 27, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791-4400
Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
VICAL INC: Cal. Court Yet to Issue Decision on Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California is
yet to issue an order on the securities lawsuit filed against
Vical Incorporated, according to the company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2014.
In late October and early November 2013, following the Company's
announcement of the results of its Phase 3 trial of Allovectin and
the subsequent decline of the price of its common stock, two
putative securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers. On
February 26, 2014, the two cases were consolidated into one action
and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed. On April 3,
2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging
that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business prospects
and the prospects for Allovectin, thereby artificially inflating
the price of the Company's common stock. The consolidated
complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On
April 25, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion asking the Court
to permit plaintiffs to amend the consolidated complaint, which
the Court granted. On May 12, 2014, lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. On June 9, 2014, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. That same day, defendants also
filed a motion to strike certain allegations in the amended
complaint. The motions to dismiss and strike are fully briefed,
but the Court has not yet issued an order.
VIVINT SOLAR: Sued by Investor for Hiding Cloudy Forecast
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Vivint, a
residential solar energy company, promised long-term clear skies
to investors before going public in October, despite its directors
and underwriters being well aware of the brewing storm clouds that
have since cut its stock's worth by almost a third, an investor
claims in court.
Investor Brennen Hyatt sued the company, its underwriters and
directors for compensatory damages on behalf of hundreds of others
in a class action securities lawsuit filed in the Southern
District of New York on November 21.
Vivint Solar first got its idea for finding customers through a
door-to-door sales pitch from an ex-Goldman Sachs managing
director, Hyatt says in a 15-page complaint.
Customers who sign up for the company's 20-year purchase agreement
can have solar panels installed and maintained in their homes for
free, as long as they pay a fixed rate for the energy for the life
of the contract.
Through this model, Vivint boasted an expansion to seven states to
rise last year to the second largest solar power provider, next to
SolarCity.
The company prepared to go public this year with a May 14 draft
registration statement declared effective on Sept. 30, according
to the complaint.
Hyatt claims that this document was "negligently prepared" by the
company's 10 directors and powerful financial services companies
like The Blackstone Group; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Merrill Lynch,
Credit Suisse, Citigroup Global Markets, Deutsche Bank, Morgan
Stanley and Barclays Capital.
Of the underwriters, Blackstone was the controlling shareholder
with 97 percent of pre-IPO interest in the company and 78 percent
of the post-IPO, according to the complaint.
"Long-term, highly visible, recurring cash flow" was all but
assured by Vivint's business model, the registration said, the
lawsuit says.
In particular, Vivint said in its registration that its 20-year
contracts meant "predictable, recurring cash flows," but it did
not disclose that "ownership trends had changed and that the tax
credits that Vivint had relied upon to drive its revenue growth
were no longer as readily available," the complaint says.
Calling existing solar-power markets "significantly
underpenetrated," Vivint's registration allegedly proposed "to
grow in these markets at lower customer acquisition and
installation costs relative" to its competitors.
But "ownership trends had changed," Hyatt claims in his lawsuit.
"[R]esidential solar customers were increasingly seeking financing
relationships that led to direct ownership (and retention of tax
and related benefits) rather than entering into long-term leases,"
his complaint states.
While asserting that its direct-sales approach drove "cost
efficiency," the registration did not state that Vivint's expenses
"had actually grown substantially in the third quarter of 2014,
without a proportional growth in revenues, significantly
increasing losses in the quarter that had ended on September 30,
one day before the IPO," the complaint states.
The poorly performing quarter also belied statements that Vivint
had been "[c]apitalizing on opportunities to . . . lower costs"
through investments that would "continue to improve [its]
operating efficiency" and "cost structure," according to the
complaint.
Selling 20.6 million shares to the public at roughly $16 per
share, Vivint raised about $329.6 million in gross proceeds at its
IPO, Hyatt says.
"At the time of the filing of this action, Vivint common stock was
trading at below $11 per share, a more than 32% decline from the
IPO price," the complaint states.
It remained below that price on November 24 morning.
Vivint Solar said it believes "the allegations are without merit
and the company will defend itself vigorously." Blackstone
declined to comment.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
WELLS FARGO: Sued by Cook County for Violating Fair Housing Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
County of Cook, Illinois v. Wells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo
Financial, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo "John
Doe" Corps 1-375, Case No. 1:14-cv-09548 (N.D. Ill., November 28,
2014) is brought by the County of Cook -- which embodies all the
communities, neighborhoods and residents it collectively
represents -- as an "aggrieved person" pursuant to the Fair
Housing Act.
The FHA prohibits discrimination in the terms and conditions of
residential real-estate related transactions, including mortgage
loan transactions.
The Plaintiff contends that the ongoing foreclosure crisis in its
communities (and across the nation) was the foreseeable and
inevitable result of the Defendants' (and other industry
participants') alleged ongoing discriminatory housing practice of
"equity stripping," involving the Defendants' interrelated
predatory and discriminatory mortgage lending, mortgage
securitization, mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure
activities.
Wells Fargo & Co. is a nationwide, diversified financial holding
company and bank holding company incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in San Francisco, California. Wells Fargo provides
banking, insurance, investment, and mortgage and consumer finance
services through storefronts, the Internet, and other distribution
channels across the United States and internationally.
Wells Fargo Financial, Inc. is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo and is
a bank holding company with its principal place of business in Des
Moines, Iowa. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is organized as a national
banking association under the laws of the United States, with its
corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James D. Montgomery, Sr., Esq.
James D. Montgomery, Jr. , Esq.
John K. Kennedy, Esq.
Daniel A. Dailey, Esq.
Michelle M. Montgomery, Esq.
JAMES D. MONTGOMERY and ASSOCIATES LTD.
One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, IL, 60602
Telephone: (312) 977-0200
Facsimile: (312) 977-0209
E-mail: jmontgomery@jdmlaw.com
jamesjr@jdmlaw.com
jkennedy@jdmlaw.com
ddailey@jdmlaw.com
mmm@jdmlaw.com
- and -
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq.
Darren W. Penn, Esq.
David J. Worley, Esq.
Leslie G. Toran, Esq.
HARRIS PENN LOWRY LLP
400 Colony Square, Suite 900
1201 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone: (404)961-7650
Facsimile: (404)961-7651
E-mail: jim@hpllegal.com
jeff@hpllegal.com
darren@hpllegal.com
david@hpllegal.com
leslie@hpllegal.com
WESTPAC: Int'l Money Transfer Businesses Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Natalie O'Brien, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that almost 20 international money transfer businesses have so far
joined a class action in the Federal Court against Westpac for
"unconscionable conduct" after the bank foreshadowed it would
close all their accounts on Nov. 17.
The legal action, filed late on Nov. 21 after talks with the bank
failed to resolve the issue, also included a temporary reprieve
with an interim court order stopping Westpac from shutting down
the trading accounts.
The move comes in the wake of industry fears of being
inadvertently caught up in terrorism financing after a money
transfer firm in Lakemba owned by relatives of terrorist Khaled
Sharrouf was shut down for failing to explain millions of dollars
in transfers to the Middle East.
Westpac, which was the last of big four banks to allow the
international transfer businesses to use their banking facilities,
told the small business operators last month that their accounts
will be closed within weeks.
The business owners have argued that the disadvantaged and
isolated communities in some of the world's poorest regions will
be hardest hit by moves to close their operations. The operator
of Sydney Forex Pty Ltd said he set up business in 2004 at a time
when there were no money transfer businesses to Pakistan.
Munir Mohammed said his clients were mostly migrant workers
sending money home to their families.
Lawyer Richard Mitry, who is acting on behalf of the 19 business
owners, said it is an open class action and will apply to all
similar businesses that are affected by Westpac's moves to shut
them down. There are about 5500 international money remitters
that are likely to be affected.
"It is alleged that Westpac has engaged in unconscionable conduct
and breach the code of banking practice by not providing
remittance businesses reasonable notice before closing their
accounts," said Mr Mitry.
"Some of the businessess have hundreds of thousands of dollars
invested. If the accounts are closed and the software is taken
away they will be forced to seek alternatives -- which will take
time. If they are forced to close it could affect the whole
industry."
About 2 million people in Australia, mostly from immigrant
communities, use money transfer services. Statistics provided by
the newly formed Australian Remittance and Currency Providers
Association (ARCPA) show that about 90 per cent of remittances are
to developing countries and the average amount of money sent is
$300. ARCPA director Dianne Nguyen has said their member
businesses are happy to meet any new standards required and were
already complying with Austrac requirements.
ZILLOW INC: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Orange County Register reports that a lawsuit filed against online
real estate website Zillow by one of its Irvine-based sales
associates accuses the company of failing to pay overtime.
That lawsuit -- and another claiming the company retaliated
against a local whistleblower -- was filed on Nov. 19 in federal
court by the Los Angeles firm of attorney Mark Geragos, who has
represented celebrities such as Michael Jackson and Winona Ryder
and is a regular on the talk show circuit.
Orange County resident Ian Freeman seeks to create a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of at least 120 hourly "inside sales
consultants," maintaining they were pressured into working early,
late and through lunch breaks without pay. The suit claims Zillow
failed to pay $5 million in overtime.
A Zillow spokeswoman said the company -- the nation's leading
online real estate site -- does not comment on pending litigation.
"However, I can tell you Zillow takes any allegations about our
work environment very seriously," spokeswoman Katie Curnutte said
in an email. "Our people are our most important asset and we are
committed to providing a safe and productive work environment for
everyone."
The Irvine office opened in August 2012 to sell online ads to real
estate agents across the country.
Mr. Freeman, who worked for Zillow's Irvine office from September
2012 through this past September, alleged that the company used an
automated timekeeping system that recorded employee's hours as 8
a.m. to 4 p.m. regardless of actual hours worked.
"Through various memos, meetings and methods of intimidation,
Zillow demanded from plaintiffs and class members to begin work
prior to the automatically recorded 8 a.m. start time and continue
working well beyond the previously recorded 4 p.m. punch-out
time," the lawsuit said.
In the second lawsuit, Ashley Boehler -- currently a Zillow sales
associate -- maintains he was written up, given poor work reviews,
had lucrative sales accounts stripped from him and given to others
and was micromanaged in retaliation for exposing credit card
fraud, forged contracts and the use of unlicensed agents to
consult with clients.
According to the suit, the violations since have been corrected
and "certain Zillow employees were terminated." But Ms. Boehler
maintains upper management violated a promise to keep his identity
confidential, and he was harassed afterward.
*********
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 * * *