/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141209.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 244 Headlines ACCOR BUSINESS: Fails to Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Claims ACH FOOD: Recalls Beehive Corn Syrup Due to Pieces of Plastic ADAMA AGRICULTURAL: Residents Request Approval of Claim AEROTEK INC: Sued in Md. for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act AFOD LTD: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Chicharron Due to Undeclared Wheat AKI'S FINE: Recalls Certain Aki's Pickle and Chutney Products ALVIN AILEY: Violates Plaintiff's Civil Rights, N.Y. Suit Claims AMAZON.COM INC: Misrepresents Price of Stuff It Sells, Suit Says AMERICAN INT'L: Two Witnesses Address Key Question in Class Action AMINCOR INC: Tyree Holdings Faces ERISA "Violation" Lawsuit APPLE INC: Trial in iPod Class Action to Commence AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit by TRT Third Party Payors BAKER HUGHES: Shareholder Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Halliburton BLUE CROSS: Named as Defendant in Antitrust Class Action BONSOY: Settles Soy Milk Class Action for AU$25 Million BRADENTON YACHT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages CABLECOM LLC: Faces Overtime Class Action in Wisconsin CHEVRON CORP: Bid to Junk Suit Over Oil Blaze in Nigeria Denied CHINA GERUI: Accused of Squandering $234MM on Antique Porcelain CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: Inks MOU to Settle Securities Suits CORGENIX MEDICAL: Signs MoU to Settle Shareholder Suit in Nevada DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 122SD Model Due to Possible Valve Leaking DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Marketing DHW WELL: "Bouchard" Suit Transferred From S.D. to W.D. Texas DIGNITY HEALTH: Court Stays Order on "Church Plan" During Appeal DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA: Judgment Bid in Kickback Suit Denied DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Moved From Washington to Fla. EFT HOLDINGS: "Li" Consumer Lawsuit Remains Pending in California EFT HOLDINGS: "Li" RICO "Violations" Lawsuit Pending in Calif. ELI LILLY: Sued for Injuries Suffered Relating to Use of Cymbalta EXXON MOBIL: Blamed by Residents for Oil Spill in Mayflower FRANK TOWNSHIP: Court to Hear Arguments in Bus Service Class Suit FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Accord With Policyholders Gets Final Okay FIREEYE INC: Faces "Collins" Shareholder Suit in California FORD MOTOR: Recalls F150 and FLEX Models FORD MOTOR: Recalls Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis and Town Car FORD MOTOR: Recalls F150 Model Due to Defective Brake Lamp Switch GFB ENTERPRISES: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Harassment GROWLIFE INC: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Named in Calif. Stock Suit HEADWATERS INC: Utah Court Dismisses "Edwards" Shareholder Suit HEINEN + LOWENSTEIN: Recalls LeoniPlus and LeoniPlus With HFO HEMOCUE: Recalls Glucose 201 Microcuvette HUTCHINSON SEALING: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Va. INNOVATIVE FOOD: Bid to Trim Down Suit v. The Fresh Diet Granted ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in S.D. Indiana ITT EDUCATIONAL: Motions to Consolidate 3 Securities Suits Filed ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Banes" Securities Suit in Indiana Court ITT EDUCATIONAL: Still Faces "Gallien" Labor Suit in Calif. Court JC BUNNY: Recalls Sesame Paste Product Due to Undeclared Peanut JP MORGAN: Removes "Sheehan" Suit to New Jersey District Court KEURIG GREEN: Oral Argument v. Dismissal of Stock Suit Held KEURIG GREEN: Plaintiffs in US Antitrust Suit to Amend Lawsuit KEURIG GREEN: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit by Club Coffee in Canada KEYCORP: Supreme Court Won't Hear Plaintiffs' Class Suit Appeal KUO HUA: Recalls 3:15 PM Coffee Products Due to Undeclared Milk LAS VEGAS VALLEY: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Unifood Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Coq Roti Bolognese Meat MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Hernandez" Suit to W.D. Tennessee MICROSOFT CORP: HealthVault Web site Accused of Spamming Users MODEL N: Faces Securities Litigation in Calif. Superior Court MOL GLOBAL: Sued for Not Delivering 3rd Quarter Financial Results NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Customers Have Until Jan. 27 to Join Fee Suit NATURE'S BOUNTY: Removes "Wilson" Class Suit to C.D. California NATUS MEDICAL: Recalls neoBLUE LED Phototherapy NOVARTIS CORP: Judge Dismisses Excedrin Migraine Drug Class Suit NVIDIA CORP: Shareholders Have Until Feb. to Seek High Court Writ OAKLAND RAIDERS: Class Wage Deal Is Unfair, Cheerleader Claims OSCEOLA REGIONAL: Removes "Francis" Class Suit to M.D. Florida OSP GROUP: Removes "McEwan" Suit to California District Court PACCAR: Recalls 220, K270 and K370 Models PHILIPS ULTRASOUND: Recalls Auto 2D Quantification Software PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Reserves $7.8MM for Note Purchasers' Lawsuit RICHMAN PROPERTY: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Says RIGHTSCORP INC: Faces TCPA Action in California Over Robo-Calls SAGE CAPITAL: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act SHOPKICK INC: Faces "Kozlow" Suit in Tennessee District Court SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Dimension Vista 1500 and 500 Lab SP AUSNET: Bush Fire Victims Await Approval of Settlement SYMMETRY MEDICAL: Has Agreement to Settle Shareholder Lawsuit SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Faces Suit in Mo. for TCPA Violations SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: US Trustee Wants Discovery v. Bank SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Faces Two TCPA Violations Litigations SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Quarles" Suit Over Trademark Infringement TALLGRASS DISTRIBUTING: Recalls 52.5 g. Megafood Daily Energy TAKATA CORP: Faces "Clow" Suit Arising From Defective Airbags TARGET CORP: Judge Refuses to Toss Claims in Data Breach Suit TETRA TECH: Montreal Court Keeps Dismissal of Taxpayers' Suit TRULIA INC: Inks Agreement to Settle Shareholder Litigation VENOCO INC: Trial in Suit Over Going Private Deal Set for 2015 YOUNG AMERICA: Didn't Cover Accidents With Uninsured Drivers W.A.R. LLP: Lawyer Enjoined From Submitting Further Court Filings WALGREEN CO: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation WHITE & BLUE: Sued for Selling Dirty Needles & Ink in Tattoo Kits ********* ACCOR BUSINESS: Fails to Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Zioueche, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Accor Business & Leisure Mgmt LLC d/b/a Sofitel New York a/k/a Gaby Restaurant Francais, Didier Bosc. Alan J. Rabinowitz, Rebecca Lennard and Greg Steven Toon, Case No. 1:14-cv-09441 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2014) accuses the Defendants of willfully failing and refusing to pay the Plaintiff and the class at the legally required minimum wage for all hours worked and one-and-one-half times this rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and allowing non-tipped employees to share in their tips. Accor Business and Leisure Mgmt, LLC, is a foreign business corporation organized under the laws of France, and authorized to do business under the hotel brand name "Sofitel," which is located in New York City. The hotel is operated by Accor and the Individual Defendants are principals and managers of the hotel. Accor also operates a restaurant called Gaby Restaurant Francaise. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence F. Morrison, Esq. MORRISON-TENENBAUM, PLLC 87 Walker Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 620-0938 ACH FOOD: Recalls Beehive Corn Syrup Due to Pieces of Plastic ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 6, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: ACH Food Companies, Inc. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Warehouse CFIA reference number: 9412 Affected products: 55 gal. Beehive Corn Syrup with 76172-019121 UPC ADAMA AGRICULTURAL: Residents Request Approval of Claim ------------------------------------------------------- A financial claim and a request for approval of the claim as a class action were filed by residents of Moshav Nir Galim and Ashdod alleging damages caused by odor and noise, according to Adama Agricultural Solutions Ltd.'s Nov. 18, 2014, Form F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On July 24, 2011, a financial claim and a request for approval of the claim as a class action were received in the offices of Agan, which were filed by two residents of Moshav Nir Galim and a resident of Ashdod alleging damages caused due to odor and noise nuisances. To the extent the claim will be approved as a class action, the plaintiffs assess that the amount claimed from Agan is about NIS 642 million ($185 million). On December 8, 2013, a decision was rendered by the District Court in Be'er Sheva rejecting the request for certification of the claim as a class action and charging the plaintiffs for expenses. Subsequent to the date of the statement of financial position, on February 10, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the said court decision to the Supreme Court. AEROTEK INC: Sued in Md. for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Craig Mitchell, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Aerotek, Inc. and Allegis Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03691-WMN (D. Md., November 25, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS AND MAILMAN PC 100 S Broad St., 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Martin Eugene Wolf, Esq. GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTS. 102 W Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 402 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 825-2300 Facsimile: (410) 825-0066 E-mail: mwolf@GWCfirm.com AFOD LTD: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Chicharron Due to Undeclared Wheat ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 4, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Afod Ltd., Corinthian Distributors Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9426 The food recall warning issued on Oct. 31, 2014, has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Industry is recalling Jack 'N Jill brand Chicharron products from the marketplace because they contain wheat which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to wheat or sensitivity to gluten should not consume the recalled products described. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to wheat or sensitivity to gluten, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life- threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: Jack 'N Jill Chicharron ni Mang Juan with all codes where wheat is not declared on the label AKI'S FINE: Recalls Certain Aki's Pickle and Chutney Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 6, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Aki's Fine Foods Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9422 The food recall warning issued on Nov. 4, 2014 has been updated to include additional distribution information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Aki's Fine Foods Ltd. is recalling certain Aki's brand pickle and chutney products from the marketplace because they contain mustard which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to mustard should not consume the recalled products. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to mustard, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. ALVIN AILEY: Violates Plaintiff's Civil Rights, N.Y. Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin E. Byrd v. Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09392 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2014) seeks damages for the Defendant's alleged unlawful and discriminatory employment practices and concomitant violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation, Inc. is a New York domestic not-for- profit corporation headquartered in New York City. The Defendant operated The Ailey Extension program at The Joan Weill Center for Dance, a continuous, ongoing program intended to make dance and fitness classes more accessible to the general public. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan R. Ratchik, Esq. KRAMER & DUNLEAVY, L.L.P. 61 Broadway, Suite 2220 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 226-6662 AMAZON.COM INC: Misrepresents Price of Stuff It Sells, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Amazon.com misrepresents the list price of stuff it sells so it can exaggerate consumers' "savings," a class action claims in Superior Court. AMERICAN INT'L: Two Witnesses Address Key Question in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leslie Scism, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that the headlines in the long-running trial over the bailout of American International Group Inc. have been dominated by three heavy hitters who testified -- and one who didn't. But as testimony was expected to likely wrap up Nov. 24 after eight weeks, legal observers said two low-profile witnesses from early in the proceedings addressed what may be the key question: whether the government correctly interpreted a 1930s-era section of the Federal Reserve Act to allow it to acquire a sizable equity stake in AIG to help compensate taxpayers. That issue stands out as one that former longtime AIG Chief Executive Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg has the best chance of winning, said attorneys and legal scholars. The lawsuit is at its strongest as "a test of the scope of a government agency's authority: Did it do things it was authorized to do by law, or did it exceed those boundaries?" said Anthony Sabino, a professor of law at St. John's University. "The government is vulnerable on that argument." The nearly two months of testimony in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims delivered few bombshells. The most-scrutinized moments involved Mr. Greenberg's lawyer, prominent litigator David Boies, squaring off against former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Treasury secretaries Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner. But their verbal jousting was largely incidental to the statutory- authority legal dispute. Mr. Greenberg is seeking $40 billion on behalf of AIG shareholders in the lawsuit. Mr. Greenberg, who is 89 years old and leading a new global insurance conglomerate, Starr Cos., was on the government's witness list but was never called. Justice Department lawyers changed their mind about calling Mr. Greenberg as they streamlined their arguments amid urging from Judge Thomas Wheeler for the parties to avoid duplicative testimony. Even with testimony essentially finished, a ruling may be months away. The two sides are expected to file legal briefings in coming weeks that Judge Wheeler can consult in his deliberations. The losing side is expected to appeal. Mr. Greenberg, who built AIG into a global titan before departing in 2005, was AIG's biggest individual shareholder when it nearly collapsed in September 2008. His lawsuit claims that the government didn't have statutory authority to demand a 79.9% ownership stake in AIG in exchange for providing an $85 billion loan at the height of the financial crisis. He maintains the law in question restricted the Fed to collecting interest on its loan. Early in the trial, Mr. Boies called Scott Alvarez, general counsel for the Fed, and Thomas Baxter, general counsel for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Over the course of their combined four days on the stand, Mr. Boies used internal emails, memos and other documents to seek to show uncertainty and debate within the Fed and New York Fed as to whether the government was on solid legal footing in acquiring the AIG equity stake. Mr. Alvarez said staff at the Fed, which historically has regulated banks, started analyzing options for dealing with nonbanks in early 2008, as housing and financial markets were deteriorating. He said he prepared a memo concluding that the Federal Reserve Act gave the Fed flexibility in designing loan terms, going beyond merely charging interest. In justifying the AIG equity stake, the government's legal filings cite phrasing in the act including that the Fed can make loans to nonbanks "subject to such limitations, restrictions and regulations" as it deems necessary, and it puts the equity stake in that bucket. Mr. Bernanke testified he relied on Messrs. Alvarez and Baxter and other Fed lawyers to determine the legality of the AIG rescue package. Even if Judge Wheeler rules that the government overreached its authority, it is unclear that Mr. Greenberg and about 300,000 other shareholders in the class action would receive any of the $40 billion being sought. Judge Wheeler could rule in favor of Mr. Greenberg on the legal question but conclude shareholders didn't suffer an economic loss, because their alternative to the bailout was being wiped out in bankruptcy court, the lawyers and scholars said. The lawsuit also alleges other wrongdoing, including that the government violated shareholders' constitutional rights by taking their property without just compensation. But legal experts said there is a high hurdle to clear to win on this claim, as former AIG directors have testified they voluntarily accepted the bailout to avert the insurer's bankruptcy. AMINCOR INC: Tyree Holdings Faces ERISA "Violation" Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Tyree Holdings Corp. is facing a lawsuit filed by a former employee in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, according to Amincor, Inc.'s Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On September 9, 2014 a former employee of Tyree commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Registrant its Tyree subsidiaries and their officers alleging various ERISA violations and seeking class action certification. The alleged amounts in controversy are not material and management believes that class action certification will not be granted. APPLE INC: Trial in iPod Class Action to Commence ------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that depending on who you ask, Apple Inc.'s 2006 iTunes update was either a "significant enhancement" that gave users "amazing new features," or it was a ruse created solely to feed the company's monopoly over the MP3 music industry. That critical distinction lies at the center of a trial commencing in Oakland federal court. It's a battle 10 years in the making, which pits Apple's legal team of Jones Day and Boies, Schiller & Flexner against a class of iPod buyers represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. Barring a last-minute settlement, which neither side seems to think is likely, opening arguments was set to begin on Dec. 2 before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Apple's 2006 upgrade made it so new iPods would only play music purchased from the company's iTunes music store. Plaintiffs lawyers say that change helped Apple maintain nearly complete control over the MP3 market, which drove up prices for iPod buyers. Now jurors must decide whether seizing market share was the upgrade's main purpose or whether it also provided a real benefit to consumers -- and is therefore protected from antitrust claims. It's a delicate question, and one Judge Gonzalez Rogers has said left her "treading in uncertain waters." On the one hand she's tasked with holding Apple accountable for any illegal anticompetitive behavior, while on the other she must be cautious not to infringe upon the company's right to develop new products. Courts are still figuring out how to toe the line, said Jonathan Jacobson -- jjacobson@wsgr.com -- an antitrust partner in Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati's New York office. "The entire issue is a struggle," he said, and courts must find a balance between "bending over backwards to encourage innovation, but striking down tactics that use faux innovation purely as a pretext for eliminating rivals." Plaintiffs lawyers have estimated damages at $350 million, which would be tripled to $1 billion if they win at trial. But their case has significant hurdles. Monopoly suits tend to be more difficult than the price-fixing class actions that dominate the antitrust sector, Mr. Jacobson said. If plaintiffs can prove a price-fixing conspiracy, it's assumed the cartel hurt the market. Monopolies aren't inherently illegal, however, so plaintiffs in the iTunes case must prove Apple's behavior injured consumers. "Plaintiffs will have to convince the jury if Apple had not made these software changes, a significant portion of consumers would have utilized a cheaper alternative," said Robert Bunzel -- rbunzel@bzbm.com -- of Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller in San Francisco. "And that is ultimately a lot of what-ifs that have to be overcome." Plaintiffs have enlisted economist Roger Noll, a Stanford University professor who played a key role in O'Bannon v. NCAA, the summer's highly publicized trial that granted college athletes the right to profit from television and video game contracts. Plaintiffs also will call several Apple executives, and plan to play a video deposition of Apple's late co-founder and former CEO Steve Jobs. The trial is expected to last two weeks. Bonny Sweeney -- bonnys@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller, who has spent a decade working on the case, said she long figured it would need to be tried. "Apple has always fought us very hard at every step of the litigation," she said. FINETUNING ITUNES Apple launched the iTunes music store in 2003. By 2004, rival RealNetworks Inc. had found a way around Apple's antipiracy encryptions, allowing iPod users to play RealNetworks' music. Apple's 2006 update shut down that interoperability. Apple is adamant the update also was an improvement. iTunes 7 made more than 75 movies available for download, according to a 2006 company release, and offered "stunning new features" such as a tool that let users browse their digital libraries more easily. The update also prevented the technical problems that had plagued iPod users who tried to play unauthorized RealNetworks songs, Apple senior director Augustin Farrugia said in a deposition. The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, 05-0037, predates the 2006 software update but has morphed considerably over the years. U.S. District Judge James Ware, who presided over the case before retiring in 2012, dismissed part of the suit based on an earlier enhancement but allowed claims against the 2006 update to proceed, saying there was conflicting evidence as to whether the new software was an improvement. For plaintiffs lawyers, the case now hinges on convincing the jury that the update had no consumer benefits. "There's evidence that we believe shows that the purported fix didn't match the purported problem," Sweeney said. "So we think Apple's justifications are pretextual." In October, the court made public a handful of internal Apple emails that provide a glimpse at how company executives responded to competition in the MP3 music industry. In an early 2004 email, Apple's late CEO touted the company's position as the "largest, most successful standard" in the MP3 market. "Let's leverage this position now!!!!" Mr. Jobs wrote. Apple executives sounded alarmed later that year when RealNetworks circumvented the iTunes protections, calling the company "aggressive" in internal emails and accusing it of "hacking" and "hijacking" Apple software, as they kept an eye on their competitor's rising sales. And around that time, iTunes Vice President Eduardo (Eddy) Cue told Jobs and other executives that record labels were worried Apple was growing too big, and were pushing the company to license its encryption model to RealNetworks. That seems to conflict with assertions from Apple lawyers that the update was needed to satisfy the labels' concerns about piracy. HITTING THE RIGHT NOTE Established case law says redesigning a product in a way that benefits consumers is not an antitrust violation, even if the redesign hurts competitors. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit added a nuance to that standard in 2010, ruling in Allied Orthopedic Appliances v. Tyco Healthcare Group that the court cannot determine an antitrust violation by weighing the benefits of a product redesign against the injuries it caused competitors. It must be a "yes or no" standard -- was the redesign an improvement? That precedent seemed to cause a headache for Gonzalez Rogers during a pretrial hearing in October, as she grappled with how to allow plaintiffs to present evidence that the update was not an improvement, but exclude evidence that would lead the jury to weigh the update's merits against its effect on competitors. In the end, she said she'd instruct the jury to focus on whether Apple's update provided a genuine product improvement. "The task we're asking the jury to engage in is tough for lawyers, much less for nonlawyers," Judge Gonzalez Rogers said, "because they have to slice that evidence so thinly to use it appropriately." AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit by TRT Third Party Payors -------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action complaint (Case Number 1:14cv8857) was filed on behalf of Medical Mutual of Ohio and similarly situated third party payors in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois against 19 manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies products, including Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Auxilium" or the "Company") and FCB I Holdings Inc. ("FCB") have been litigating various matters with Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. ("Upsher-Smith") related to Upsher-Smith's filing of Paragraph IV certifications in connection with a 505(b)(2) New Drug Application (the "505(b)(2) NDA") and an Abbreviated New Drug Application, in each case, using Testim as the reference product. Subsequent to the withdrawal of Auxilium's appeal in the litigation regarding the 505(b)(2) NDA, as previously disclosed, Upsher-Smith filed a motion with the District Court seeking reimbursement of its legal fees by Auxilium. On November 10, 2014, the Company and Upsher-Smith entered into a Settlement and Mutual Release of Claims whereby the parties released each other from, and agreed to dismiss, any claims arising out of any of the pending litigations between them, including any claim by Upsher-Smith for attorneys' fees and costs, and pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay Upsher-Smith $750,000. In addition to the recent studies of testosterone replacement therapies ("TRT"), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") class labeling changes for TRT products, the accumulating product liability suits against the manufacturers and marketers of TRT products, and the FDA Advisory Committee on TRT products, on November 5, 2014, a putative class action complaint (Case Number 1:14cv8857) was filed on behalf of Medical Mutual of Ohio and similarly situated third party payors in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois against 19 manufacturers of TRT products, including the Company (the "Complaint"). The Complaint alleges substantially similar facts to those being alleged in the TRT product liability suits to which the Company and many of the other defendants are currently a party. The Complaint requests relief for damages, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief on behalf of the putative class for alleged violations of the federal civil RICO statute, state consumer fraud and deceptive trade practice act laws, negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. The Complaint seeks damages from Auxilium for these alleged violations with respect to its Testim and TESTOPEL products and against the other 18 defendants for their respective products. The Complaint defines the class, in relevant part, as "[a]ll health insurance companies, third party administrators, health organizations, self- funded health and welfare benefit plans, third party payors and any other health benefit providers, in the United States of America and its territories, which paid or incurred costs for the drug AndroGel, Testim, Testopel, Axiron, Fortesta, and/or Androderm for purposes other than resale, since their respective approval dates." The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The Company is in the process of examining the allegations in the Complaint and intends to vigorously defend the allegations made in the Complaint. BAKER HUGHES: Shareholder Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Halliburton ------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Rovner, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, Clarence P. Cazalot, Jr., Martin S. Craighead, Lynn L. Elsenhans, Anthony G. Fernandes, Claire W. Gargalli, Pierre H. Jungels, James A. Lash, J. Larry Nichols, James W. Stewart, Charles L. Watson, Gregory Brenneman, William H. Easter III, Halliburton Company, and Red Tiger LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-03416 (S.D. Tex., November 26, 2014) is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Baker Hughes arising out of the Defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty or the aiding and abetting of those breaches in connection with the Board's agreement to sell the Company to Halliburton and its wholly owned subsidiary Red Tiger LLC. The Plaintiff, the owner of Baker Hughes common stock, seeks to enjoin the Defendants from further breaching their fiduciary duties in their pursuit of a sale of the Company at an unfair price through an unfair and self-serving process to Halliburton. Baker Hughes is a publicly traded Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas. Baker Hughes is a leading supplier of oilfield services, products, technology and systems to the worldwide oil and natural gas industry. The Company provides industrial products and services to the downstream chemicals, and process and pipeline industries. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Halliburton is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in Houston, Texas. Merger Sub is a Delaware limited liability company and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton. The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com BLUE CROSS: Named as Defendant in Antitrust Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- VTDigger reports that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont has been named in a class action suit alleging the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its regional affiliates violate federal antitrust law. The suit accuses the association and its affiliates of price- fixing, anticompetitive market allocation and a "boycott conspiracy" that ensures "every other Blue gets the benefit of the artificially reduced prices that each Blue pays to healthcare providers." The individual Blue Cross affiliates, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, are often referred to as "Blues." The plaintiffs in the suit are health care providers, medical device and equipment makers and people insured by the Blues. VTDigger was not immediately able to confirm if any of the plaintiffs are from Vermont. The Blues have an "explicit agreement" to divide the country into regional service areas that allows each company to reduce what it pays health care providers, fix those prices across their association and boycott providers outside their service areas, according to an amended complaint filed on Sept. 30. Each affiliate is an independent company, and if it weren't for their association, they would compete with one another for market share, according to the suit. "We believe the claims are without merit and we have joined with the other defendants to vigorously defend against them," officials from BCBS Vermont said in a statement to VTDigger. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association has 37 affiliates in the U.S., which cover more than 105 million people, or one out of three Americans, according to the association's website. More than 91 percent of U.S. health care providers and more than 96 percent of U.S. hospitals contract directly with the Blues, according to figures attributed to the association in the legal complaint. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont is the largest health insurer in the state, covering close to 200,000 Vermonters, or nearly one- third of the state's population. The company has significant market power in areas of the state, according to the suit, which cites its 42 percent market share in Burlington and South Burlington as an example. The class action suit is being litigated in U.S. District Court in Alabama, where it originated. BONSOY: Settles Soy Milk Class Action for AU$25 Million ------------------------------------------------------- Paul Farrell, writing for The Guardian, reports that a class action suit against the manufacturer, exporter and distributor of Bonsoy soy milk has ended with what may be a record AU$25 million settlement to compensate victims who said they suffered serious health side-effects. Nearly 500 people joined a major legal action in 2010 after concerns were raised that they may have suffered serious health consequences as a result of dangerous levels of iodine in Bonsoy from a seaweed product in the milk. Some of the participants reported heart palpitations, losing muscle function, unconsciousness and other serious health effects. Bonsoy was recalled and then reformulated in 2010. Maurice Blackburn, the leading law firm, brought a case in the Victorian supreme court against the brand owner Spiral Foods. The class action suit was later widened to include two Japanese companies -- the manufacturer Marusan-ai Co Ltd and exporter Muso Co Ltd. Maurice Blackburn issued a release on Nov. 24 and said the funds would be placed in a fund and then distributed to the class action participants. The defendants did not admit liability in the case and no formal court finding was made against them. Jacob Varghese, class action principal, said: "We began this case in 2010 and it reinforces just how tough it is to pull these class actions together, to run them and fight them this hard for this long, and ultimately, how difficult it is to achieve a resolution for victims, hundreds of victims in this case. "We believe this is the highest settlement of a food safety class action in Australia's history and it reinforces how important it is for people to have access to a mechanism that can help remedy a mass wrong, and in the process, place a check on corporate conduct." Erin Downie, one of the class action participants, said it was a welcome outcome. Ms. Downie became bedridden due to losing muscle function and needed a full-time career. "I've been through a lot due to drinking Bonsoy, and so have hundreds of others all over Australia. [It] means a lot because we've been able to get a result that tells us we were right to stand up to the companies involved, despite it being a long, tough road," she said. A spokeswoman for Spiral Foods said in a statement: "Spiral Foods is pleased to confirm that a mutual settlement has been reached with the plaintiffs in a case with regards to the levels of naturally sourced iodine, via an ingredient called Kombu -- which was used in Bonsoy during 2004-2009." It said it had voluntarily recalled the product in late 2009 and reformulated it to exclude Kombu. BRADENTON YACHT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Debbie Arbuckle, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Bradenton Yacht Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Kenneth Nyhus, an individual, Case No. 8:14-cv-02970-CEH-AEP (M.D. Fla., November 26, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiff and the class, and for retaliatory discharge in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kendra D. Presswood, Esq. SHANKMAN LEONE, PA 707 N Franklin St., Suite 500 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-1099 Facsimile: (813) 223-1055 E-mail: kpresswood@shankmanleone.com CABLECOM LLC: Faces Overtime Class Action in Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------ Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a putative class action claims that Cablecom LLC switched the pay scale on its splicers -- workers who test and repair cables and wires -- and failed to compensate them for time spent responding to work emails and phone calls. In Hatton v. Cablecom former employee Jayson Hatton alleged in a complaint filed on Nov. 22 in the Eastern District of Wisconsin that the Milwaukee-based cabling company effectively slimmed down his paycheck by paying him a daily wage without acknowledging additional work hours. The suit, brought on Fair Standards Labor Act grounds, alleges that Mr. Hatton was hired in June to work as a splicer for $34 per hour. But he was subsequently asked to sign a "Compensation Plan Review" that re-valued his wage at a flat $272 per day. The company has been subjecting all its splicers to the new pay plan for at least three years, according to the suit. Cablecom also did not compensate splicers for the time spent responding to work emails and phone calls on off- days, or for their work during the half-hour meal period. "[S]plicers do not take meal periods where they are completely relieved from duty," according to the complaint. Moreover, the company did not include some of these additional work hours to calculate overtime compensation, the suit alleges. Mr. Hatton is also invoking a Wisconsin statute, Sec. 103.455, to protest Cablecom's policy of reducing splicers' wages in the event of "poor workmanship," without the workers' written authorization. According to Mr. Hatton, Cablecom fired back at his complaints by raising the bar for his bonuses. While the company promised a $2 bonus for each cable burned in addition to the baseline of 25 per day, it retroactively eliminated the bonus for Mr. Hatton on days when he burned less than an average 18 cables per hour. Plaintiffs' attorneys are with The Previant Law Firm. CHEVRON CORP: Bid to Junk Suit Over Oil Blaze in Nigeria Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jonny Bonner reports that a federal judge refused to dismiss a $5 billion class action against Chevron over a six-week-long oil rig blaze in Nigeria. U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti ruled on Nov. 25 that he was "ill-suited" to address specifics of the injuries. It was the plaintiffs' third go-round with Conti, who'd slammed them in no uncertain terms twice this year. Lead plaintiff Foster Ogala sued Chevron in January, seeking to represent an estimated 65,000 residents of the Niger Delta region of southern Nigeria. The KS Endeavor, an offshore natural gas rig drilling in the North Apoi Field exploded on Jan. 16, 2012, causing a fire that burned for 46 days. Ogala claims that he and others suffered "losses to their livelihood, environmental damage, and health problems as a result of the explosion and fire." Chevron Corp., Chevron Investments and Chevron U.S.A. (CUSA) were named as defendants, but not Chevron Nigeria Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron Investments. Conti dismissed the lawsuit in May for failure to state claims against the defendant companies as alter egos of Chevron Nigeria Ltd. "Plaintiffs claim that defendants are liable for CNL's actions," Conti wrote. "However, '[i]t is a general principle of corporate law deeply ingrained in our economic and legal systems that a parent corporation . . . is not liable for the acts of its subsidiaries.'" Conti also found that the plaintiffs failed to "claim anywhere in the complaint to represent a class." In August, Conti slammed the Nigerians' amended complaint, finding that it copied the original complaint "almost verbatim." Conti found, again, that the plaintiffs failed to state specific injuries. "Plaintiffs 'must allege and show that they personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent,'" Conti wrote. "Plaintiffs appear to be aware of that requirement. But their FAC [first amended complaint] includes only allegations of injury to unidentified class members. Nowhere does the FAC ever describe any injury to any of the named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs must describe a specific injury to each of the named plaintiffs. Because they fail to do so, their FAC is insufficient to establish standing for their negligence claims." On Nov. 25, Conti granted in part Chevron's motion to dismiss or strike a second amended complaint. Having twice dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state injury specifics, Conti again scolded the plaintiffs and dismissed their public nuisance claim with prejudice. "Plaintiffs generally claim that members of the alleged class suffered four types of injuries: illness, contamination of fish stocks, pollution of water supplies, and contamination of farmland," the 9-page ruling states. "None of the named plaintiffs asserts any injury different in kind from those injuries generally suffered throughout their communities. The court has now directed plaintiffs to fix this defect in their pleadings twice. Plaintiffs have failed to do so both times. Accordingly, plaintiffs' public nuisance claim is dismissed with prejudice." Conti granted Chevron's motion to strike, to the extent that the second amended complain asserted claims on behalf of communities rather than the communities' individual members. But he denied Chevron's motion to strike a paragraph that refers to the "individuals" and "residents" who live in the Niger Delta. Conti rejected Chevron's claim that material discharged from the Endeavor explosion polluted ocean, rivers and air around the site of the rig. Ogala claimed, specifically, that contamination caused by the explosion destroyed five of his fish ponds and polluted his farms in Yenogoa City, 60 miles from the coast. "Chevron's argument that it is impossible for the explosion to have caused the alleged injury is improper at this stage," the ruling states. "Indeed, the court is ill-suited to make that sort of determination; this is precisely the sort of matter on which expert testimony is warranted. The court cannot conclude that plaintiffs' allegations of causation are facially implausible." The case is Foster Ogala, et al. v. Chevron Corporation, Case No. 14-cv-173-SC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. CHINA GERUI: Accused of Squandering $234MM on Antique Porcelain --------------------------------------------------------------- Shares in a leading Chinese steel processor dropped 20 percent overnight after the company squandered $234 million on antique porcelain, a federal class action alleges, according to Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service. China Gerui Advanced Materials Group, abbreviated in the complaint as CHOP, "is a leading niche niche and high value-added steel processing company," lead plaintiff Aram Pehlivanian says. Though CHOP had made it a point earlier this year to "tout[] its significant cash reserves," shareholders are now beginning to learn the truth, according to the Nov. 26 complaint. Pehlivanian says that CHOP had reported in March 2014 that it held $230.7 million in unrestricted cash. On Sept. 4, however, "CHOP disclosed that, at some point between March 31, 2014, and June 30, 2014, it had purportedly spent $234 million of its unrestricted cash reserves to acquire a collection of antique Chinese porcelain that it valued at $905 million," the complaint states. This announcement allegedly came with the disclosure "that as of June 30, 2014, it had a mere $3 million in unrestricted cash." Pehlivanian says CHOP has remained silent on "when or from whom the porcelain was purchased, where the collection was being stored, whether it is insured, and who appraised and authenticated the collection." "This supposed purchase of antiquities was all the more shocking because, in the years and months leading up to the announcement, CHOP had consistently and unambiguously communicated to the investing public that its goals for growth included an expansion and diversification of its product lines, identification of the overseas markets, and business combinations with competitors," the complaint states. CHOP's Sept. 4 announcement caused its price to close that day at 49 cents a share shares, down 20 percent overnight, according to the complaint. Noting that NASDAQ has a $1 per share listing requirement and that the exchange was primed to delist CHOP, Pehlivanian says CHOP's board of directors approved a one-for-10 reverse stock split on Nov. 6. "However, the utter failure of CHOP's directors and officers to make any clarifying disclosures since Sept. 4, 2014, regarding CHOP's purported antiquities purchase has caused the investing public's total loss of confidence in CHOP's corporate governance, which has resulted in the price of CHOP's shares declining to a reverse split-adjusted low of $1.70 per share on Nov. 12, 2014, a mere fraction of the reverse split-adjusted Sept. 3, 2014, price of $6.10," the complaint states. Pehlivanian enumerates several alleged misleading statements by CHOP, including that it purportedly had more than $200 million in unrestricted cash. "Further, defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the company in fact planned to squander virtually its entire unrestricted cash holdings in order to -- purportedly -- purchase Chinese porcelain; and (2) that later, the company had largely disposed of its cash in order to -- purportedly -- purchase Chinese porcelain," the complaint continues. Though CHOP is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and has its main offices in Xinzheng City, Zhengzhou, China, the class says that jurisdiction arises from CHOP's Manhattan contacts. CHOP allegedly uses the Manhattan office of the public-relations firm Grayling, for example, where it also has meetings, according to the complaint. Grayling is not a party to the action. "Additionally, Harry Edelson, a member of CHOP's board, wrote in 2012 that CHOP's Hong Kong auditor transmits its financial audit to a 'highly capable' New York affiliate for further review," the complaint states. "Finally, CHOP CFP Edward Meng has served as a panelist at the American Metal Market's Steep Success Strategies Conferencce in Manhattan in 2012, 2013, and 2014, each of which was sponsored in part by CHOP." Both Edelson and Meng are listed as defendants, alongside CHOP, five other directors and CEO Mingwang Lu. CHOP allegedly said that its porcelain acquisition dates back more than 1,000 years to the Song Dynasty. Claiming that the collection's previous owner gave it a major discount because of financial pressure, CHOP purported that it would "sell all 206 pieces over time to reinforce our cash position and earn a substantial return," the complaint states, citing CHOP's Sept. 4 announcement. CHOP allegedly said at the time that "steel and iron ore prices have reached all-time lows over the past few years, [but that] prices of antique porcelain have risen sharply over the same time period." Pehlivanian hopes to represent investors who bought CHOP stock between Jan. 11, 2012, and Sept. 4, 2014. The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis Trinko, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO 16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 490-9550 Facsimile: (212) 986-0158 E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: Inks MOU to Settle Securities Suits -------------------------------------------------------- Concur Technologies Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the stockholder lawsuits captioned In re Concur Technologies, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 10167-CB and In re Concur Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Superior Court of Washington, King County, Case No. 14-2-26630-8, according to the company's Nov. 18, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. The Company said, "Five stockholder class action complaints have been filed in connection with the Merger, two in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court") (collectively, "Delaware Complaints") and three in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County (collectively, "Washington Complaints"). The Delaware Complaints have since been consolidated in the action entitled In re Concur Technologies, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 10167-CB ("Delaware Class Action"). The Washington Complaints have now been consolidated in the action entitled In re Concur Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Superior Court of Washington, King County, Case No. 14-2-26630-8 ("Washington Class Action, and together with the Delaware Class Action, "Actions"). Each of the Actions challenges the proposed sale of Concur to SAP as a putative class action filed on behalf of our stockholders and names Concur, our directors, SAP and Merger Sub as defendants." "The Actions allege that by agreeing to sell Concur to SAP pursuant to the Merger Agreement, our directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, allegedly failing to maximize stockholder value in connection with such sale, agreeing to deal protection devices that allegedly preclude competing offers from emerging, allegedly putting their personal interests ahead of those of Concur's stockholders, allegedly unfairly depriving our stockholders of the true value inherent in Concur, allegedly failing to disclose all material information regarding the Merger, allegedly failing to maximize stockholder value in connection with such sale, and allegedly ignoring or not protecting against the conflicts of interest of our directors. The Actions also allege that Concur, SAP and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. "The plaintiffs in the Actions seek, among other things, class action status, an injunction preventing the completion of the Merger, a declaration that the Merger is in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and therefore the Merger Agreement is unlawful and unenforceable, an award of damages to the plaintiffs if the Merger is consummated prior to the final judgment, disclosure of all material information about the Merger, an order requiring a new process to evaluate our value and maximize strategic alternatives, an accounting from the defendants for all profits and any special benefits they may have obtained as a result of their alleged unlawful conduct, pre- and post-judgment interest, an imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiffs and members of the class upon any benefits improperly received by the defendants, an injunction against any material transactions or changes in our business and assets until a new process is conducted to evaluate our strategic alternatives, an injunction rescinding the Merger Agreement, an injunction against the consummation of the Merger, and the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses. On November 10, 2014, we entered into a memorandum of understanding ("Memorandum of Understanding") with the plaintiffs in the Actions, regarding the settlement of these Actions." CORGENIX MEDICAL: Signs MoU to Settle Shareholder Suit in Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corgenix Medical Corporation signs Memorandum of Understanding regarding settlement of a shareholder litigation and announces plan to adjourn special meeting to December 10, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Corgenix Medical Corporation (OTC QB: CONX.OB) (the "Company") entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated Nevada putative shareholder class action lawsuit described in the Company's definitive proxy statement dated October 21, 2014, as supplemented (the "Proxy Statement"), in connection with the Company's proposed merger with an affiliate of Orgentec Diagnostika (the "Merger"). The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement with respect to the action. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, the Company will file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") additional materials that supplement the Proxy Statement. In order to allow shareholders time to review the supplemental proxy materials, the Company also announced today that it has decided to convene the special meeting scheduled for 9:00 a.m, Mountain Time, on November 20, 2014, but then immediately adjourn it, without a vote being taken on the Merger and the merger agreement, until 9:00 a.m., Mountain Time, on December 10, 2014. The meeting on November 20, 2014, and the reconvened meeting on December 10, 2014, will each be held at the Westin Westminster, 10600 Westminster Blvd, Westminster, CO 80020. Only shareholders of record at the close of business on October 14, 2014, the record date for the special meeting, are entitled to vote. DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 122SD Model Due to Possible Valve Leaking ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 6, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 19 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014507TC ID number: 2014507 On certain vehicles equipped with a Wabco quick release with double check valves, used to control park/spring brake application, the valve may leak internally. This could cause unintended partial or full park/spring brake application, which could affect service brake function and increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will affect repairs. Affected products: 2015 Freightliner DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Marketing ----------------------------------------------------------------- DePaul University law school graduates cannot sue the school for allegedly inflating alumni employment and salary figures, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing an Illinois appeals court ruling. Nine licensed attorneys who graduated with law degrees from DePaul University College of Law between 2007 and 2011 sued the school in 2012, claiming the university deceptively overstated the percentages of graduates who obtained full-time attorney positions with salaries of $70,000 or more. The attorneys allege that they relied on DePaul's employment and salary statistics when they decided to go to law school, but they were not told that the data was based on voluntary surveys of a small fraction of graduates. In addition, the school calculated graduates' average salary by only using full-time salary figures, excluding graduates who only found part-time work. As a result, plaintiffs claim they "graduated with a J.D. degree from DePaul with near-term and lifetime job prospects that are, statistically, less than they would have been had they obtained a degree from a DePaul with the employment numbers DePaul claimed to have." The plaintiffs all say they have had difficulty finding legal employment that pays them enough to pay off their hefty student loans. They sought to recover damages as a percentage of their tuition payments, as well as additional lifetime income, which they claim they would have earned had DePaul's employment data been accurate. However, an Illinois appeals court affirmed the dismissal of the attorneys' action in November. "We find that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead any omission or misrepresentation by DePaul constituting a deceptive act or practice," Justice Mary Rochford said, writing for the three- justice panel. "Plaintiffs expressly acknowledged in their first- amended class action complaint that they were aware '[t]he Employment Information was based upon surveys sent to then recent DePaul graduates.' Thus, as plaintiffs admittedly were aware of the basis for the data contained in the employment information, their claims of deception regarding DePaul's failure to inform them of that basis necessarily fails." While the information published by DePaul could have certainly been more specific, the complaint does not identify any affirmative misrepresentation by the school of its post-graduation employment statistics, according to the judgment. And even if, "but for" DePaul's allegedly misleading information, plaintiffs would have enrolled in other law schools with better actual employment statistics, that would not be enough to win damages, given the multitude of factors that affect a lawyer's earnings over the course of a lifetime, the court said. "At the time of plaintiffs' enrollment in DePaul, one could not foresee their subsequent academic records and practical experiences while at DePaul, the geographic areas in which they would seek employment, their efforts put into obtaining legal employment, their interview abilities, and the economic climate and overall availability of jobs during the period of their job searches, all of which would impact their job searches and salaries," Rochford said. Even if the attorneys expected to make more money with their DePaul law degree, the school's published statistics did not consist of a promise or projection of plaintiff's future earnings, and any amount of damages plaintiffs claim is wholly speculative, the court said. The case is Phillips v. DePaul University, Case No. 2014 IL App (1st) 122817, in the Appellate Court of Illinois. DHW WELL: "Bouchard" Suit Transferred From S.D. to W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Bouchard v. DHW Well Service, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00418, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (San Antonio). The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-01045 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by improperly failing to pay Safety Technicians and other workers overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq. Lawrence Morales II, Esq. THE MORALES FIRM, P.C. 115 E. Travis St., Suite 1530 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 225-0811 Facsimile: (210) 225-0821 E-mail: ahartry@themoralesfirm.com lawrence@themoralesfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Gayla Corley, Esq. Erica Escobar Valladares, Esq. LANGLEY & BANACK, INC. 745 E Mulberry, Suite 900 San Antonio, TX 78212 Telephone: (210) 736-6600 Facsimile: (210) 735-6889 E-mail: gcorley@langleybanack.com evalladares@langleybanack.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Court Stays Order on "Church Plan" During Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that Dignity Health convinced a judge to put on hold a ruling that its pension plans are not a "church plan" exempt from ERISA requirements while it appeals that finding. The dispute stems from a class action filed by former Dignity Health billing coordinator Starla Rollins in April 2013, claiming that Dignity Health's pension benefits plan was underfunded in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Dignity countered that its plan need not conform to ERISA standards because it is a church plan. Enacted in 1974, ERISA establishes minimum funding standards and disclosure obligations for employee benefit plans, among other requirements, to ensure that employees receive the benefits they are promised. ERISA specifically exempts "church plans" from its requirements. The term "church plan" means "a plan established and maintained by its employees by a church or a convention or association of churches." Last December, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson found that Dignity does not have statutory authority to establish its own plan and must follow ERISA regulations, a ruling that Dignity tried to appeal only for Henderson to refuse. In July, Henderson found the plan was not exempt from ERISA requirements because it was established by Catholic Healthcare West, Dignity's predecessor, which is not a church. He rejected arguments that the plan should be exempt because the Internal Revenue Service has consistently considered it exempt or because various religious women's orders controlled CHW when the plan was established in 1989, reasoning in July that an "erroneous IRS ruling . . . should not be permitted to trump a court's interpretation of a statute" and that even if the religious groups exhibited some control over CHW, "that alone is insufficient to set aside CHW's separate identity." In October, Rollins moved for a permanent injunction and class certification. The court stayed the motions in November, after which Dignity Health again moved to certify the July order for interlocutory appeal. Finding that the trajectory of the litigation will change significantly depending on the appellate court's ruling, Henderson now considers the appeal to be an "exceptional situation" justifying interlocutory appeal. He noted that should the appeals court reverse his earlier ruling, for example, his court might have to determine if Dignity or its predecessor was "associated with" or "controlled by" a church while it maintained the plan, according to the ruling. The judge also found that other courts have disagreed with his interpretation, including a ruling from the District of Colorado that held that a plan can be exempt if it is maintained by a church but not established by one and a ruling from the Western District of Washington that held that the "term 'church plan' is somewhat misleading because even a plan established by a corporation controlled by or associated with a church can also qualify as a church plan." Furthermore, according to Henderson, allowing an interlocutory appeal will "materially advance the termination of the litigation." Henderson decided to stay the case over Rollins' objections that her class would lack ERISA protections for retirement benefits, noting that the defendants had put forth evidence indicating the plan is adequately funded for the next decade. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Rinaldi, Esq. COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL PPLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: brinaldi@cohenmilstein.com The Defendants are represented by: Barry S. Landsberg, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP 11355 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-4259 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 E-mail: blandsberg@manatt.com The case is Starla Rollins v. Dignity Health, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01450-TEH, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA: Judgment Bid in Kickback Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Haitian immigrant workers at a public school bus terminal in Washington can pursue claims that they had to pay kickbacks for overtime, reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Mica Saint-Jean, Guerline Bourciquot and Marie Dorlus brought the class action against the District of Columbia in 2012, alleging they were barred from working overtime hours at a D.C. school bus terminal unless they paid illegal kickbacks to their former supervisor, Michelle Smith. Saint-Jean and Dorlus say they each paid Smith $75 to $150 per pay period to obtain overtime assignments. When they stopped paying Smith in September 2007, she refused to assign them overtime hours, selectively enforced Division of Transportation policies against them, and issued "repeated and unnecessary warnings," according to the complaint. Smith even suspended Bourciquot without pay, the complaint states. Smith was allegedly suspended for six weeks scheme in October 2006 after several Haitian employees told Transportation Administrator David Gilmore about her scheme. The plaintiffs say they reported Smith's conduct to the mayor's office, the Offices of the Inspector and Attorney General, and the FBI in late 2007, and to the Division of Transportation's assistant manager in March 2008. Later that year, two supervisors allegedly issued four written warnings and a written reprimand to Saint-Jean and Bourciquot for refusing a directive and padding the clock. The plaintiffs say they told Gilmore that Smith discriminated against Haitians, accepted bribes in exchange for paying employees for hours not worked, and let her boyfriend use division buses for personal purposes. Days later, the division's Deputy Terminal Manager Michael Roberts allegedly suspended Bourciquot and Dorlus without pay for five days. They were cited for failure to "report they would be late [to work] on July 18," and had a security guard escort them off the property later that day, according to the complaint. Within weeks, the division notified the pair of their "proposed termination[s]" for insubordination to an immediate supervisor, effective Aug. 14, the complaint states. As for Saint-Jean, the division allegedly placed her on a 10-day administrative leave for insubordination on Sept. 10, with notice that she would be fired two weeks later. The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and local statutory and common law. D.C. moved for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment, arguing that the division is not liable because it was under a receivership during the relevant time period. Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts denied the motion on Nov. 21. "The district's conclusory assertion that a transportation administrator is the same as a receiver sheds no light on whether the district can be held liable for actions undertaken while Gilmore was the transportation administrator," Roberts wrote. "The district's analysis assumes that Gilmore was a receiver, and makes only cursory arguments about why Gilmore is a receiver." The judge later added: "Even if Gilmore's position of transportation administrator was functionally the same as that of a receiver -- a proposition that the district has not proven -- the district fails to show that it nevertheless cannot be held liable for the actions undertaken during Gilmore's tenure. The district fails to cite a single case where the organization under the leadership of a functional equivalent of a receiver was held not liable." The case is Mica Saint-Jean, et al. v. District of Columbia, Case No. 08-1769 (RWR), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Moved From Washington to Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Gonzalez v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00634, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24502- DPG to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. James Lee Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: aradbil@mgjdlaw.com jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com EFT HOLDINGS: "Li" Consumer Lawsuit Remains Pending in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The consumer case entitled Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of one or more of the Company's products against the Company and Jack Qin in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The amended complaint, filed on July 11, 2014, alleges, among other things, violation of unfair competition law and false advertising law and fraud. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. The case is currently pending. EFT HOLDINGS: "Li" RICO "Violations" Lawsuit Pending in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case Li, et al. v. Qin, et al., alleging violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is pending, according to EFT Holdings, Inc.'s Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. Qin, et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Company's products against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The amended complaint, filed on July 11, 2014, adds certain other persons and entities as defendants and alleges, among other things, operation of an endless chain scheme, fraud, corporate waste and gift, and violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. The case is currently pending. ELI LILLY: Sued for Injuries Suffered Relating to Use of Cymbalta ----------------------------------------------------------------- Janine Ali v. Eli Lilly and Company, an Indiana corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-01615-GBL-TRJ (E.D. Va., November 26, 2014) alleges personal injuries and damages that the Plaintiff allegedly suffered as a result of Lilly's failure to provide adequate instructions for stopping Cymbalta and an adequate warning that fully and accurately informed the Plaintiff about the frequency, severity, and duration of symptoms associated with Cymbalta withdrawal. Cymbalta (generically known as duloxetine) is a prescription antidepressant manufactured, marketed and sold by Lilly. Eli Lilly and Company is an Indiana corporation with its headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana. Lilly is a pharmaceutical company involved in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale ofnumerous pharmaceutical products, including Cymbalta. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Andrew Miller, Esq. MILLER LEGAL LLC 175 S Pantops Drive, Third Floor Charlottesville, VA 22911 Telephone: (434) 529-6909 E-mail: pmiller@millerlegalllc.com EXXON MOBIL: Blamed by Residents for Oil Spill in Mayflower ----------------------------------------------------------- ExxonMobil exacerbated the 2013 Pegasus pipeline rupture by not immediately reporting the spill, creating the "worst crude oil and tar sands spill in Arkansas history," dozens of families claim in a class action, reports Erik de la Garza at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Jason Hays and nearly 60 residents of Mayflower sued ExxonMobil, three pipeline subsidiaries and an operations and maintenance technician on November 25, in Faulkner County Court. The 60 year-old underground pipeline burst in the small town of Mayflower, pop. 2,200, about 25 miles northwest of Little Rock on March 29, 2013. The pipeline runs 850 miles through four states, taking crude oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast. The families say authorities learned about the oil rupture when local citizens began calling 911 "to report the fact that crude oil was leaking through Mayflower." More than 27,000 barrels of oil flowed through residential communities and waterways beginning at 1:15 p.m., according to the lawsuit. "Exxon failed to report the Mayflower oil spill until 4:06 p.m., nearly three hours after the drop in pressure. Exxon failed to act because it did not immediately report the problem to the National Response Center so local officials in Arkansas could be notified and mobilize to Mayflower," the complaint states. The families say that while the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality responded to the local calls and tried to evacuate citizens, "defendants were still deciding what to do with their information about the pipeline failure and how to suppress the truth from the public, including plaintiffs and class members affected by the oil spill." "Once the pipeline failed, the Canadian Tar Sands with toxins spread quickly through residents and affected a large area around Mayflower, including the plaintiffs' and class members' property. The Tar Sands migrated into a storm drain and by 3:09 p.m. was migrating toward Lake Conway. The Canadian Tar Sands released from the Pegasus Pipeline emitted dangerous and poisonous toxins into the air contaminating the air quality, making it difficult to breath and violating air quality standards for residents in the community forcing residents to evacuate their homes." The families say Exxon deceived the public by reporting that the pipeline pumps had been shut down in 16 minutes, though in reality they were not shut down "for well over 98 minutes." "The pipeline continued leaking for two days, contrary to information publicly provided by the defendants to the public and media. Defendant suppressed material facts about the Tar Sands spill, omitted significant material information provided to the public, and failed to provide full disclosure of relevant and material information," the families say. They say the spill affected air quality, water sources, and consequently their health and property. They seek punitive damages for strict liability, nuisance and negligence. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rob Pointer, Esq. DUNCAN FIRM 900 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 725 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 228-7600 Facsimile: (501) 228-0415 FRANK TOWNSHIP: Court to Hear Arguments in Bus Service Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the Indiana Supreme Court is preparing to hear oral arguments in the case of an Indianapolis school district whose decision to outsource bus transportation was ruled unconstitutional. The justices were scheduled to hear arguments on Nov. 24 in the class-action lawsuit filed by parents against Franklin Township Community School Corp. The district outsourced transportation in 2011-2012 to a private company that charged parents fees. The state Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the move was unconstitutional and that state law required districts to provide free bus service. Schools Superintendent Flora Reichanadter argues that if that's the case, Indiana should be required to fully fund transportation. She tells The Indianapolis Star she hopes the case will press the Legislature to offer relief to school districts strapped by property tax caps. FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Accord With Policyholders Gets Final Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity Guaranty Life Insurance Company obtained final approval of a settlement with a nationwide class consisting of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive, according to Fidelity & Guaranty Life's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014. On July 18, 2011, a putative class action Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. OM Financial Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:2011-cv-05871. The Plaintiff asked the Court to certify the action as a class action on behalf of both a nationwide and a California class defined as certain persons who were sold OM Financial Life Insurance equity-indexed universal life insurance policies. The Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on defendants' advice to purchase unsuitable insurance policies. After extensive motion practice, the federal court dismissed the federal causes of action, with prejudice, and, on May 9, 2013, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissed the state law claims, without prejudice, and granted the Plaintiff leave to re- file the state law claims in California state court. On July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et al. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), at No. BC-514340. The state court Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in purchasing unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class defined as "all persons who reside or are located in the state of California who were sold OM Financial/FGL Insurance equity-indexed universal life insurance policies as an investment." On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 to settle the claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions, of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive. As part of the settlement, FGL Insurance agreed to certification of the nationwide class for settlement purposes only. An amended Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on June 5, 2014 as part of the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Conditional Class Certification. On June 19, 2014, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Conditional Class Certification and entered its Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement ("Order"). The Superior Court set a hearing date of October 3, 2014 for final approval of the settlement. The deadline for members of the settlement class to opt out of or file objections to the class settlement was September 2, 2014. FGL Insurance would have had the right to unilaterally terminate the settlement if either: (i) 100 policyholders or (ii) policyholders representing more than one percent (1%) of the total premiums paid opted out of or objected to the settlement. However, only two objections and one opt out were submitted. The deadline for class members to submit claim forms expired on October 2, 2014. Over one thousand claim forms were filed. On October 2, 2014, the Court adjourned the October 3, 2014 date for the final approval hearing for the class settlement, and rescheduled the final approval hearing for November 18, 2014. On November 18, 2014, the Court granted final approval of the class settlement, subject to entry of a Final Order and Judgment. The Court ordered the parties to submit a proposed Final Order and Judgment consistent with her ruling, by November 25, 2014. At September 30, 2014, the Company estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action would be $9.9 and established a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $4.8. Based on the information currently available the Company does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related cost to differ materially from the amount accrued. The Company is seeking indemnification from OMGUK under the First Amended and Restated Stock Purchase Agreement, dated February 17, 2011 (the "F&G Stock Purchase Agreement") between HFG and OMGUK related to the settlement and the costs and fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both the federal and state courts. The Company has established an amount recoverable from OMGUK for the amount of $4.9, the collection of which the Company believes is probable. The actual amount recovered from OMGUK could be greater or less than the Company's estimate, but the Company anticipates that the amount recovered will not be materially different than its current estimate. The settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action and the amount recoverable from OMGUK is presented net in the income statement in the caption "Benefits and other changes in policy reserves." FIREEYE INC: Faces "Collins" Shareholder Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Directors of network security firm FireEye pumped the share price with false and misleading statements then sold their own shares for "tens of millions of dollars" before the price plummeted by two-thirds, shareholders say in a class action, according to Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff John E. Collins sued FireEye and its four top officers on Nov. 24, in Federal Court. Collins claims FireEye raised $325 million in a Sept. 20, 2103 IPO, at $20 a share. FireEye stock rose to its all-time high of $95.63 on March 5 this year, after the company acquired Mandiant Corp. On March 6, FireEye raised $1.1 billion in a follow-on stock offering, at $82 a share, according to the complaint. "Mere days after the follow-on offering, a significant number of the company's insiders sold their shares at $79.54, earning tens of millions of dollars in profits. In the ensuing weeks, the company's stock began a steady decline," the complaint states. FireEye announced its first-quarter 2014 results on May 6: its revenue of $24.5 million fell "meaningfully short" of analysts' estimates of $31 million, according to the complaint. By Oct. 10, the stock was trading at $25.76, down 74 percent from its high. Collins claims that throughout this time, the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse facts. "Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (a) the company's business model had radically changed from that of a software company with high fixed costs but low marginal costs that would not escalate with increases in subscriber base, to an end-to-end service provider; (b) that the company's secret strategy would require highly trained professional staff to respond to network security breaches, their number increasing with the customer base; and (c) the company's costs would therefore escalate incrementally with an increased customer base so that the company's future profitability was in serious doubt," according to the complaint. Collins seeks class certification and damages for securities violations. Defendants include CEO and Chairman of the Board David D. GeWalt; CFO and Senior Vice President Michael J. Sheridan; founder, former CEO, chief technology officer and Vice Chairman of the Board Ashar Aziz; and COO and Senior Vice President Kevin Mandia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachelle Rickert, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP Symphony Towers 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: rickert@whafh.com FORD MOTOR: Recalls F150 and FLEX Models ---------------------------------------- Starting date: November 5, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 19975 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014504TC ID number: 2014504 Manufacturer recall number: 14C10 On certain vehicles, a defect in the manually-adjustable seat tracks may cause the occupant classification system to incorrectly register the weight of the seat occupant. This could affect or disable the airbags and other supplemental restraint systems, and could increase the risk of injury to the seat occupant in a crash that warrants airbag deployment and/or other supplemental restraint system function. Correction: Dealers will adjust seat track spacing and recalibrate the occupant classification system. Affected products: 2014 F150 and FLEX Ford FORD MOTOR: Recalls Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis and Town Car -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 5, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 1757 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014502 TC ID number: 2014502 Manufacturer recall number: 14S25 Certain vehicles serviced as part of recall 2013-287 (13S08) or special service campaign 13R01 may require re-inspection and repair. The service procedure may have resulted in over-extension of one part of a collapsible joint in the intermediate steering shaft. This could potentially result in the shaft becoming disconnected, resulting a loss of steering, which could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the intermediate shaft connection and replace the intermediate shaft if necessary. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 LINCOLN TOWN CAR 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 FORD MOTOR: Recalls F150 Model Due to Defective Brake Lamp Switch ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 5, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 328 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014503 TC ID number: 2014503 Manufacturer recall number: 14C09 Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices. The brake light switch may have been improperly adjusted and could result in the brake lamps failing to illuminate during a service brake application, contrary to the requirements of the standard. This could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will adjust the brake lamp switch. Affected products: 2014 FORD F150 GFB ENTERPRISES: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Harassment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paulette Maynard v. G.F.B. Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Lexus of Kendall, Case No. 1:14-cv-24516-MGC (S.D. Fla., November 26, 2014) alleges unlawful discrimination and harassment based on race. The Plaintiff is a 51-year-old Black female from St. Kitts. G.F.B. Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Lexus of Kendall, is a Florida corporation, having its main place of business in Miami- Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant. The Defendant operates as car dealer located in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com GROWLIFE INC: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Named in Calif. Stock Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder Bryan Chong was appointed as Lead Plaintiff, Laurence M. Rosen of the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. was appointed as Lead Counsel and all three shareholder cases against Growlife, Inc. were consolidated into one, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On April 18, 2014, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed against the Company in the United States District Court, Central District of California (Randy Romero v. Growlife, Inc., et al.; Case No.: 2:14-cv-03015) (the "Romero Action"). On May 30, 2014, the United States District Court, Central District of California (the "Court") ordered the Romero Action consolidated with another class action alleging securities violations also filed with the Court against the company entitled Gerald Young v. Growlife, Inc., et al. (Case No.: 2:14-cv-03183) (the "Young Action"). The Young Action was filed on April 25, 2014 but not served on the company. Per the Court's May 30, 2014 order, any subsequently filed securities law class actions were to be consolidated into the actions. The Court further ordered a hearing to determine the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel prior to the filing of a single, consolidated complaint for the company to defend against. On June 5, 2014, the Company entered a general appearance in connection with a third class action alleging securities violations filed with the Court entitled Rochelle Wolf v. Growlife, Inc., et al. (Case No.: 2:14-cv-04112)(the "Wolf Action"). The Wolf Action has also been consolidated into the Romero Action as was done with the Young Action based on the Court's standing order and procedural rules. A hearing was held on July 21, 2014 in United States District Court in Los Angeles on a Motion for Appointment of Lead Counsel and Lead Plaintiff and to consolidate cases. The purpose of the hearing was to choose a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel and to formally consolidate the three actions into one. At the hearing, shareholder Bryan Chong was appointed as Lead Plaintiff, Laurence M. Rosen of the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. was appointed as Lead Counsel and all three cases were consolidated into one. Lead Counsel will have 60 days to file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint with the input of the other two plaintiffs and their counsel. This Consolidated Complaint will combine the claims of all three matters into one single pleading for the company's response. After being served with the Consolidated Complaint the Company will have 60 days to file a responsive pleading. HEADWATERS INC: Utah Court Dismisses "Edwards" Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Utah entered an order of final judgment approving a settlement and dismissing the stockholder lawsuit filed by James W. Edwards against Headwaters Incorporated, according to the company's Nov. 18, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. In May 2013, James W. Edwards, purportedly a stockholder of Headwaters Incorporated, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against current and former members of the Board of Directors of the Company and against Headwaters Incorporated. The complaint alleged that the Board breached its fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets in connection with the Compensation Committee's grant of certain stock appreciation rights to the Company's Chief Executive Officer in November 2011 under the 2010 Incentive Plan (Plan). The complaint alleged that the 2011 grant exceeded Plan limits and that the 2013 Proxy Statement in connection with the Company's 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders contained false and misleading information concerning the 2011 grant. The complaint sought to rescind the 2011 grant, unspecified damages and other remedies, plus interest, attorney fees, and costs. The complaint was brought derivatively on behalf of Headwaters Incorporated and as a purported class action on behalf of all shareholders of record as of December 31, 2012. Defendants filed their initial response to the complaint in January 2014. The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in February 2014 on terms including (i) the cancellation of stock appreciation rights granted to the CEO allegedly in excess of the Plan, with authority for the Compensation Committee to assess and compensate the CEO for the value of the cancelled award; (ii) certain training and controls in relation to future grants under the Plan; and (iii) payment of plaintiff's attorney fees in the amount of $500,000. In May 2014, the District Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of settlement and Headwaters published notice of the proposed settlement. In September 2014, the District Court entered an order of final judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice. HEINEN + LOWENSTEIN: Recalls LeoniPlus and LeoniPlus With HFO ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 5, 2014 Posting date: November 21, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-42219 Recalled products: LeoniPlus and LeoniPlus with HFO If contrary to the instruction for use, the display is cleaned with liquids instead of wiping with an approved cleaning agent, ingress of such liquids may lead to malfunction of the keypad identified as a permanent or a mission function of the keys. Do not use machine. Companies: Manufacturer Heinen + L”wenstein GmbH & Co. KG, Arzbacher Strabe 80 Bad Ems 56130 Germany HEMOCUE: Recalls Glucose 201 Microcuvette ----------------------------------------- Starting date: November 4, 2014 Posting date: November 20, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-42165 Recalled Products: HemoCue Glucose 201 Microcuvette Batches of Hemocue Glucose 201 Microcuvette show discoloration and provide results outside the specification at the end of their shelf life, approximately after 6 months. Companies: Manufacturer Hemocue AB, Kuvettgatan 1 Angelholm 26271 Sweden HUTCHINSON SEALING: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Hill, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Hutchinson Sealing Systems, Inc. and Randstad North America L.P. dba Randstad US, L.P., Case No. 7:14-cv-00638-GEC (W.D. Va., November 25, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Mark Falabella, Esq. Rebecca Hope Royals, Esq. BUTLER ROYALS, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: paul.falabella@butlerroyals.com rebecca.royals@butlerroyals.com INNOVATIVE FOOD: Bid to Trim Down Suit v. The Fresh Diet Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of 109 drivers as an increase from the 29 in the case against The Fresh Diet Inc. was denied; and Innovative Food Holdings, Inc.'s motion to decertify the case from 29 down to the 8 named defendants was granted, according to Innovative's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On June 1, 2012, nine persons, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a Collective and Collective and Class Action Complaint against The Fresh Diet Inc. and certain individuals and on or about October 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint adding additional defendants seeking to recover unpaid wages on behalf of drivers for The Fresh Diet and/or Late Night Express who delivered meals in New York Tristate area. In an Opinion dated September 29, 2014 the Plaintiff's motion for summary Judgment was denied as was the company's cross motion for Summary Judgment; the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of 109 drivers as an increase from the 29 in the case was denied; and the company's motion to decertify the case from 29 down to the 8 named defendants was granted. The Company has recorded a contingent liability of $250,000 representing the estimated potential amounts payable pursuant to this litigation, but believes the actual amount may be much less. ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------ Kristopher Hennen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., Kevin M. Modany and Daniel M. Fitzpatrick, Case No. 1:14-cv-01948-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind., November 25, 2014) seeks relief under the Securities Exchange Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Offer Korin, Esq. KATZ & KORIN P.C. The Emelie Building 334 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 464-1100 Facsimile: (317) 464-1111 E-mail: okorin@katzkorin.com ITT EDUCATIONAL: Motions to Consolidate 3 Securities Suits Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the Banes Litigation, Tarapara Litigation and Jindal Litigation against ITT Educational Services, Inc. filed a stipulation to consolidate the Tarapara Litigation and Jindal Litigation into the Banes Litigation, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On March 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company and two of the company's current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption: William Koetsch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch Litigation"). On April 17, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company and two of the company's current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the following caption: Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al (the "MLAF Litigation"). On July 25, 2013, the court consolidated the Koetsch Litigation and MLAF Litigation under the caption: In re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Securities Litigation"), and named the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Retirement Fund as the lead plaintiffs. On October 7, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the Securities Litigation, and on January 15, 2014, a second amended complaint was filed in the Securities Litigation. The second amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by: * the company's failure to properly account for the 2007 RSA, 2009 RSA and PEAKS Program; * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; * making untrue statements of material facts, or omitting material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; * making the above statements intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth; * engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated in connection with their purchases of the company's common stock; * deceiving the investing public, including lead plaintiffs and the purported class, regarding, among other things, the company's artificially inflated statements of financial strength and understated liabilities; and * causing the company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices and causing the plaintiff and other putative class members to purchase the company's common stock at inflated prices. The putative class period in this action is from April 24, 2008 through February 25, 2013. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and such equitable/injunctive and other relief as the court deems appropriate. On July 22, 2014, the district court denied most of the company's motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. On August 5, 2014, the company filed the company's answer to the second amended complaint denying all of the plaintiffs' claims and the parties are currently engaged in discovery. ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Banes" Securities Suit in Indiana Court --------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Educational Services, Inc. is facing a securities suit filed by David Banes in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On September 30, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company and two of the company's current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the caption: David Banes, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the "Banes Litigation"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by: * misleading investors regarding the integrity of the company's financial reporting, including the reporting of the PEAKS Trust; * knowingly or recklessly making materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business operations and prospects, including that: * the company's financial statements contained errors related to the accounting of the PEAKS Trust and the PEAKS Program; and * the company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; * knowingly or recklessly engaging in acts, transactions, practices and courses of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon the plaintiff and the purported class; * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of the company's common stock; * deceiving the investing public, including the plaintiff and the purported class; and * artificially inflating and maintaining the market price of the company's common stock and causing the plaintiff and other putative class members to purchase the company's common stock at artificially inflated prices. The putative class period in this action is from April 26, 2013 through September 19, 2014. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award of unspecified damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. "Tarapara Litigation" On October 3, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company and two of the company's current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the caption: Babulal Tarapara, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Tarapara Litigation"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by knowingly or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, prospects and financial results. In particular, the complaint alleges that: * the company failed to consolidate the PEAKS Trust in the company's consolidated financial statements; * the company's consolidated financial statements contained errors related to the accounting of the PEAKS Trust and PEAKS Program; * the company improperly accounted for the company's guarantee obligations under the PEAKS Guarantee; * the company's financial results were overstated; * the company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; * the company's consolidated financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times; * the company artificially inflated and maintained the market price of the company's common stock, causing the plaintiff and other putative class members to purchase the company's common stock at artificially inflated prices; * the company deceived the investing public, including the plaintiff and the purported class; and * the company employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of the company's common stock. The putative class period in this action is from February 26, 2013 through September 18, 2014. The plaintiff seeks, among other things: * the designation of this action as a class action; * an award of unspecified compensatory damages, including interest; * an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees; and * such other relief as the court deems proper. "Jindal Litigation" On October 9, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company and two of the company's current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the caption: Kumud Jindal, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the "Jindal Litigation"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by knowingly or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, prospects and financial results. In particular, the complaint alleges that: * the company's financial statements contained errors related to the accounting of the PEAKS Trust and PEAKS Program; * the company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; * the company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times; * the company engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the plaintiff and the purported class; * the company employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of the company's common stock; and * the company artificially inflated and maintained the market price of the company's common stock, causing the plaintiff and other putative class members to purchase the company's common stock at artificially inflated prices. The putative class period in this action is from April 26, 2013 through September 19, 2014. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award of unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, and such other relief as the court deems proper. All of the defendants have defended, and intend to continue to defend, themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the complaint. On November 7, 2014, the parties in the Banes Litigation, Tarapara Litigation and Jindal Litigation filed a stipulation to consolidate the Tarapara Litigation and Jindal Litigation into the Banes Litigation. ITT EDUCATIONAL: Still Faces "Gallien" Labor Suit in Calif. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Educational Services, Inc. continues to face the "Gallien" labor lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On December 17, 2013, a complaint was filed against the company in a purported class action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles under the following caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James Rayonez, an individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation"). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2014. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that under California law, the company: * failed to pay wages owed; * failed to pay overtime compensation; * failed to provide meal and rest periods; * failed to provide itemized employee wage statements; * engaged in unlawful business practices; and * are liable for civil penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act. The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed by the company during the period of December 17, 2009 through December 17, 2013. The amended complaint seeks: * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other losses; * general damages; * pay for missed meal and rest periods; * restitution; * liquidated damages; * statutory penalties; * interest; * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses; * civil and statutory penalties; * injunctive relief; and * such other and further relief as the court may deem equitable and appropriate. JC BUNNY: Recalls Sesame Paste Product Due to Undeclared Peanut --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 5, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: JC Bunny Bunny Trading Co. Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9428 JC Bunny Trading Co. Ltd., is recalling a sesame paste product from the marketplace because it contains peanut which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to peanut should not consume the recalled product. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. If you have an allergy to peanut, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: 400 g. (Chinese Characters Only) name Sesame Paste with all codes where peanut is not declared on the label JP MORGAN: Removes "Sheehan" Suit to New Jersey District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Sheehan v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, et al., Case No. GLO L 001237 14, was removed from the Gloucester County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-07385-RMB-JS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lewis G. Adler, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER 26 Newton Avenue Woodbury, NJ 08096 Telephone: (856) 845-1968 E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, is represented by: Franco A. Corrado, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 E-mail: fcorrado@morganlewis.com KEURIG GREEN: Oral Argument v. Dismissal of Stock Suit Held ----------------------------------------------------------- The Second Circuit scheduled an oral argument for December 1, 2014 in an appeal against the dismissal of the suit Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289, according to Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.'s Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2014. One putative securities fraud class action is presently pending against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, along with two putative stockholder derivative actions. The pending putative securities fraud class action was filed on November 29, 2011. The first putative stockholder derivative action is a consolidated action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont that consists of five separate putative stockholder derivative complaints, the first two were filed after the Company's disclosure of the SEC inquiry on September 28, 2010, while the others were filed on February 10, 2012, March 2, 2012, and July 23, 2012, respectively. The second putative stockholder derivative action is pending in the Superior Court of the State of Vermont for Washington County and was commenced following the Company's disclosure of the SEC inquiry on September 28, 2010. The putative securities fraud class action, captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its revenues and its inventory accounting practices. The amended complaint sought class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. Plaintiffs sought to represent all purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2, 2011 and November 9, 2011. The initial complaint filed in the action on November 29, 2011 included counts for alleged violations of (1) Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's underwriters in connection with a May 2011 secondary common stock offering; and (2) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and the officer defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer defendants. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until January 30, 2012 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class. Competing applications were filed and the Court appointed Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, Sjunde AP-Fonden, Board of Trustees of the City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System, Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands, and Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi as lead plaintiffs' counsel on April 27, 2012. Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 22, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint on November 5, 2012. Plaintiffs' amended complaint did not allege any claims under the Securities Act against the Company, its officers and directors, or the Company's underwriters in connection with the May 2011 secondary common stock offering. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 1, 2013 and on December 20, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal the court's December 20, 2013 order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Pursuant to a schedule entered by the appeals court, briefing on the appeal was completed on June 23, 2014. The Second Circuit has scheduled an oral argument for December 1, 2014. The underwriters previously named as defendants notified the Company of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to their underwriting agreement dated May 5, 2011 in regard to the claims asserted in this action. KEURIG GREEN: Plaintiffs in US Antitrust Suit to Amend Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- All plaintiffs in In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB) informed Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. of their decision to amend their complaints rather than oppose the Company's motions to dismiss, according to Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.'s Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2014. On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv- 00905-VSB). The TreeHouse complaint asserts claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that the Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve coffee portion packs, including through its contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection with the launch of its next generation coffee brewer. The TreeHouse complaint seeks monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD). The claims asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint are substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse complaint. Additionally, beginning on March 10, 2014, twenty-seven putative class actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief have been filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of the Company's products in various federal district courts. On June 3, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The actions are now pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick in the Southern District of New York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB). On June 23, 2014, TreeHouse and JBR filed a joint motion to expedite discovery, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on July 23, 2014. On August 11, 2014, JBR filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which the Company opposed. The Court held a hearing on September 3-4, 2014, and by order dated September 19, 2014, the Court denied JBR's motion for a preliminary injunction. On September 24, 2014, JBR filed a notice of appeal of the denial of the preliminary injunction. On October 28, 2014, JBR moved to expedite its appeal, and on November 7, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to JBR's motion for expedited treatment. A briefing schedule for the appeal has not yet been set. Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014. The Company filed motions to dismiss these complaints and the complaints in the TreeHouse and JBR actions on October 3, 2014. On October 27, 2014, all plaintiffs informed the Company of their decision to amend their complaints rather than oppose the Company's motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs' amended complaints are due November 25, 2014. KEURIG GREEN: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit by Club Coffee in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada are facing a lawsuit by Club Coffee L.P. claiming damages of $600 million for alleged antitrust practices, according to Keurig Green's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2014. On September 30, 2014, a statement of claim was filed against the Company and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club Coffee L.P. ("Club Coffee"), a Canadian manufacturer of single-serve beverage packs, claiming damages of $600 million and asserting a breach of competition law and false and misleading statements by the Company. On October 21, 2014, Club Coffee filed an amended statement of claim against the Company and Keurig Canada, Inc. claiming the same amount of damages as in the original statement of claim and asserting essentially the same breaches of competition law and false and misleading statements by the Company. KEYCORP: Supreme Court Won't Hear Plaintiffs' Class Suit Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Pensions & Investments reports that the U.S. Supreme Court declined two cases involving defined contribution plans. On Nov. 10, the court declined a petition that it review Tussey et al. vs. ABB Inc. et al., a fiduciary breach case that has been closely watched by the defined contribution plan community. The court's decision -- denying certiorari -- means the complex ruling in March by a federal appeals court in St. Louis remains in effect regarding complaints by participants in two 401(k) plans run by ABB, Cary, N.C. The request for Supreme Court review was filed in August by the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Jerome J. Schlichter, founding and managing partner of law firm Schlichter, Bogard & Denton. He sought the review because he claimed various appellate courts used different standards to decide complaints about fiduciaries' "statutory duties of prudence and loyalty," according to his Supreme Court petition. In an interview Nov. 10, Mr. Schlichter said the next step will be for the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., to set a date to retry a portion of the original suit that was sent back for further consideration by the appellate court. The retrial is based on the appellate court's vacating a ruling -- and a $21.8 million judgment against ABB -- focusing on ABB's mapping one investment in the 401(k) plans' menu, Vanguard's Wellington Fund, to the Fidelity Freedom Funds target-date series. On Nov. 18, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by participants in a class-action lawsuit against Cleveland-based KeyCorp and fiduciaries of the firm's $1.5 billion 401(k) plan, alleging company stock was an imprudent investment. In March, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati applied a more stringent standard for pleading stock-drop cases alleging "artificial inflation" of employee stock investments than one addressed by the Supreme Court in its June 25 decision in Fifth Third Bancorp et al. vs. Dudenhoeffer et al. In Fifth Third vs. Dudenhoeffer, an "alternative investments" case, the Supreme Court removed a presumption of prudence standard used by defined contribution plans sued for fiduciary breaches when the company stock sank. KUO HUA: Recalls 3:15 PM Coffee Products Due to Undeclared Milk --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 4, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Kuo Hua Trading Company Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia, Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9382 Affected products: 3:15 PM coffee products with all codes where milk is not declared on the label LAS VEGAS VALLEY: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------- Heriberto Caban v. Las Vegas Valley Water District; and Does XI through XX and Roe Corporations XXI through XXX inclusive; Case No. 2:14-cv-01970 (D. Nev., November 25, 2014) alleges discrimination and retaliation. Mr. Caban was employed as a Training Specialist in the Human Resources Department of the Defendants at the time of his termination. Las Vegas Valley Water District is a public, quasi-municipal corporation created by the Las Vegas Valley Water District Act. The Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe and Roe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Q. Callister, Esq. Mitchell S. Bisson, Esq. CALLISTER & ASSOCIATES 823 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 330 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 385-3343 Facsimile: (702) 385-2899 E-mail: mqc@call-law.com mbisson@call-law.com LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Unifood Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 4, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Les Aliments Unifood Inc. Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9425 Affected products: 10 kg. Les Aliments Unifood Inc. Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Coq Roti Bolognese Meat --------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 4, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Les Aliments O Sole Mio Inc. Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 9404 Affected products: 2.5 kg. Coq Roti Bolognese Meat Sauce with all codes where mustard is not declared on the label MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Hernandez" Suit to W.D. Tennessee --------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Hernandez v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No. CT-004963-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 02921-JTF-cgc to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that he was injured by his physician's off- label use of Medtronic and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.'s Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device. The Defendants are represented by: Leo M. Bearman, Esq. Robert F. Tom, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC First Tennessee Building 165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 Facsimile: (901) 577-0818 E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com rtom@bakerdonelson.com - and - Andrew E. Tauber, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3324 Facsimile: (202) 263-5324 E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com - and - Daniel L. Ring, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 701-8520 Facsimile: (312) 706-8675 E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com - and - Sean P. Fahey, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Telephone: (215) 981-4000 Facsimile: (215) 981-4750 E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com MICROSOFT CORP: HealthVault Web site Accused of Spamming Users -------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that Microsoft promoted its HealthVault Web site and app with unsolicited emails, a class action alleges. Harold Hoffman, a lawyer who has brought hundreds of class actions against various companies over the last few years, is the lead plaintiff in the complaint against Microsoft in Bergen County Court. He filed the 12-page action on Nov. 19, one day after receiving an email about Health Vault, which Microsoft describes as a "trusted place for people to gather, store, use, and share health information online," the complaint states. "The subject of the email was 'Your latest Microsoft Health Vault account summary,'" according to the complaint. Hoffman says "the email contained numerous hyperlinks, most of which allowed Hoffman to view his profile, log in to an account, or otherwise utilize HealthVault goods and/or services." The problem, Hoffman says, is that he "never requested to receive an email from HealthVault and . . . he has never created a HealthVault account or otherwise provided any personal information, or even an email address, to Health Vault." Microsoft's wording of the email allegedly "insinuated that Hoffman had previously created a HealthVault account and could easily unenroll or opt out of the HealthVault Account Summary email through a simple click." But Hoffman says that the unsubscribe Web site was very convoluted. "The website contained a header 'Notifications' which allowed for checking or unchecking two options: 'Send me informational updates and reminders that are related to my HealthVault account,' and 'Send me the Health Vault newsletter.' Nowhere did 'unsubscribe' or 'unenroll' appear on the website," the complaint states. When both options listed under "Notifications" are unchecked, "the website merely advises that 'your notification settings have been updated,'" Hoffman says. "At no time is a subscription opt-out confirmed," the complaint continues. Hoffman says Microsoft "co-opted [his] private email address for its own Health Vault commercial and/or advertising purposes without [his] consent and against his will." Also, "by not permitting unenrollment or unsubscription pursuant to the requirements of federal and state laws and regulations, defendant misrepresented the terms of their solicitation," the complaint states. Hoffman hopes to represent "all New Jersey recipients of defendant's 'spam' email solicitations during the six year period prior to the filing of this action." Microsoft did not return a request for comment on the filing. The class seeks damages for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and conversion. Englewood, N.J.-based Hoffman filed the complaint with attorney Raphael Rosenblatt: Raphael Rosenblatt, Esq. ROSENBLATT LAW PC 21 Court Plaza South, Suite 305 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (551) 444-8100 Facsimile: (551) 497-4665 MODEL N: Faces Securities Litigation in Calif. Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Model N, Inc. is facing a purported securities class action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On September 5, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former directors and executive officers and underwriters of the Company's IPO. The lawsuit was brought by a purported stockholder of the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased Company stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's IPO. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. MOL GLOBAL: Sued for Not Delivering 3rd Quarter Financial Results ----------------------------------------------------------------- A company that billed itself as the largest e-payment enabler in Southeast Asia failed to deliver third-quarter financial results, sending shares into a tailspin, a federal class action alleges, reports Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service. MOL Global, a Cayman Islands-based LLC, sold 13.5 million American Depository Shares (ADS) pursuant to its initial public offering last month, opening NASDAQ trading on Oct. 9, according to the complaint filed November 24. The company provides payment solutions for online goods and services in Southeast Asia, and touted its physical distribution network of more than 970,000 locations in 13 countries across four continents, the complaint states. Lead plaintiff Michael Freedman says Deutsche Bank recommended MOL Global stock as a "buy" on Nov. 20, one day before the company was scheduled to release its third-quarter financial results. After the market closed that day, however, "little more than forty days after the company's IPO, MOLG announced 'that the company has rescheduled the date it plans to release its third quarter 2014 financial results to Wednesday, December 3, 2014, before market opens,'" the complaint states. "Shockingly, the company also announced that the CFO had abruptly resigned 'for personal reasons," the complaint states. Freedman says the news caused MOLG stock to suffer a "precipitous decline," and shareholders incurred "significant losses." Deutsche Bank, which assisted in MOL Global's IPO, described "MOL's sudden announcement as 'potentially ominous" on Nov. 21, the complaint states. Freedman notes that MOLG shares closed on Nov. 21 at a 54 percent drop from the day before. "This represented a 67% decline in MOLG's ADS price from the IPO price of $12.50," the complaint states. By the time NASDAQ halted trading in the company on Nov. 24, pending MOL Global's release of "additional information," its shares were trading at "$4.09 per ADS," according to the complaint. Freedman blames MOLG for "grossly overstat[ing] its financial results in the registration statement." In addition to overstating revenue and profit, MOLG concealed that "its actual business model could not sustain the growth trends described in the offering documents," the complaint states. Freedman notes that at "MOLG's primary product is MOLPoints micropayment system, which sells payment credits that can be used by consumers to purchase online game credits and other digital content, including Facebook Game Cards." In addition to MMOG.asia, an online games portal, the company "also operates MOLReloads, a . . . network that distributes prepaid mobile airtime and digital content; [and] MOLPay, a payments solutions for online merchants," the complaint states. Founded in 2000, MOLG had seen "year over year, and quarter over quarter" of improvement prior to the IPO, Freedman claims. "Profit from operations reportedly increased 96.6% to MR25.4 million for 2013 from MYR12.9 million for 2012," the complaint states, abbreviating the Malaysian ringgit, which on November 26 is worth 30 cents of a U.S. dollar. Freedman seeks damages for violations of the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act. Defendants include MOL Global and its underwriters Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., UBS Securities LLC and CIMB Securities (Singapore) PTE Ltd. MOLG chief executive officer Ganesh Kumar Bangah and seven other current or former MOLG officers are also named as defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Customers Have Until Jan. 27 to Join Fee Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that National Australia Bank customers slugged with unfair fees have a second chance to take part in a multi-million dollar compensation claim. About 30,000 NAB customers are already part of a class action against the bank over excessive bank account and credit card fees. The Federal Court earlier approved settlement orders sought by NAB and law firm Maurice Blackburn which could result in the bank paying $40 million in compensation. Law firm Maurice Blackburn says NAB customers who paid fees on their bank accounts and credit cards, and who aren't already part of the action, have from Nov.24 to Jan. 27 to sign up. The class action is part of a string of legal action launched by Maurice Blackburn against eight banks in Australia, including Westpac, Commonwealth Bank and ANZ. More than 150,000 customers with more than 200,000 accounts are involved in these actions, says Financial Redress, a subsidiary of litigation funder IMF Bentham. Financial Redress managing director James Middleweek says banks used to routinely charge customers $30 to $40 if they became overdrawn, went beyond an agreed limit, or made a late payment. "Banks have made billions of dollars from these unfair charges," he said. "Some banks and credit card companies still continue to charge exorbitant amounts." He said NAB deserved credit for fronting up and agreeing to settle this claim with their own customers. NATURE'S BOUNTY: Removes "Wilson" Class Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Wilson v. Nature's Bounty, Inc., et al., Case No. BC561527, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 09082 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that that the Defendants manufacture, market and sell four Ginkgo Biloba products that are falsely advertised. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants specifically target the elderly by claiming: "Ginkgo helps support memory, especially occasional mild memory problems associated with aging." The Plaintiff is represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Allison R. Willett, Esq. MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (888) 835-8055 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com awillett@milsteinadelman.com - and - Clayton Halunen, Esq. Susan M. Coler, Esq. Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES 1650 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com coler@halunenlaw.com wolchansky@halunenlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: William A. Delgado, Esq. Eileen M. Ahern, Esq. WILLENKEN WILSON LOH & DELGADO LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 955-9240 Facsimile: (213) 955-9250 E-mail: wdelgado@willenken.com eahern@willenken.com NATUS MEDICAL: Recalls neoBLUE LED Phototherapy ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 5, 2014 Posting date: November 21, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-42275 Recalled products: neoBLUE LED Phototherapy (neoBLUE 2 with replacement board) Due to increased efficiency of LED manufacture, the replacement LED boards (part number 001840) for the neoBLUE 2 systems contain LEDs which have higher intensity than those in the original device. As a result, the light intensity may need to be adjusted using the device potentiometer or through treatment distance. Natus is sending a letter and a copy of the latest technical bulletin to all customers who have purchased a replacement LED board (P/N 001840). Natus will be calling each customer that received the new board to verify the receipt of this letter. Companies: Manufacturer Natus Medical Incorporated, 5900 First Avenue South Seattle 98108 Washington United States NOVARTIS CORP: Judge Dismisses Excedrin Migraine Drug Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a putative class action claiming Novartis Corp. overcharged customers for its Excedrin Migraine medication has been dismissed by a federal judge in Newark. The suit, Yingst v. Novartis AG, claimed Novartis charged more for Excedrin Migraine than for Excedrin Extra Strength even though the two have identical formulations. But U.S. District Judge Claire Cecchi of the District of New Jersey ruled that the company's pricing policy did not represent an "unconscionable commercial practice" under New Jersey law and that the plaintiff did not present a cognizable claim for unjust enrichment. Novartis had contended that the complaint failed to state sufficient facts to sustain a claim for relief, and Judge Cecchi agreed. The plaintiff, Kerri Yingst, is a migraine sufferer and user of Excedrin Migraine who said she assumed the higher price of that product made it more effective for migraine relief than Excedrin Extra Strength, according to Judge Cecchi's opinion. The parties did not dispute that both products had the same formulation -- 250 milligrams of acetaminophen, 250 milligrams of aspirin and 65 milligrams of caffeine per tablet, Judge Cecchi's opinion said. But Novartis said the package instructions and warnings for Excedrin Migraine were specifically tailored for users who suffer migraines. The suit said Novartis, of East Hanover, N.J., sells Excedrin Migraine at a wholesale price of $3.60 for 24 tablets, which is 12.5 percent more than for its $3.20-priced Excedrin Extra Strength. The drug company, for its part, said a finding of liability would be "unduly interfering with free market forces." In rejecting the suit's claim for unconscionable practices under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Judge Cecchi said the price differential between the two products was too small. Citing cases in which consumer practices were deemed unconscionable under the act, she said the circumstances were "much more distinct" from those in the present case. Judge Cecchi noted that the plaintiff did not allege any affirmative acts of deception, fraud, false pretense or misrepresentation by Novartis, and that the plaintiff does not argue that the company knowingly concealed any material facts to induce reliance. "Defendant utilized the market forces present in our capitalistic society in order to charge a higher price for Excedrin Migraine. This slight price differential is within the bounds of reasonableness and concomitantly outside the ambit of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act," Judge Cecchi said. The unjust enrichment claim was rejected because the suit did not claim that Excedrin Migraine failed to provide relief to the plaintiff or that one product provided greater relief than another, Judge Cecchi said. The judge agreed with Novartis' assertion that the plaintiff "deliberately purchased the higher- priced product and received exactly what she paid for." A motion to dismiss is still pending before Judge Cecchi in another suit raising similar claims about Excedrin Migraine, but under California law. That case is Winkelman v. Novartis AG. Todd Muhlstock of Baker Sanders in Garden City, N.Y., who represented the plaintiff and putative class, did not return a call seeking comment. The lawyer for Novartis, John Coyne -- JCOYNE@MDMC-LAW.COM -- of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter in Morristown, N.J., declined to comment. NVIDIA CORP: Shareholders Have Until Feb. to Seek High Court Writ ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs have until February 9, 2015 to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court regarding the dismissal of a consolidated securities suit by NVIDIA Corporation, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 26, 2014. In September 2008, three putative securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California arising out of the company's announcements on July 2, 2008, that the company would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of the company's previous generation MCP and GPU products and that the company was revising financial guidance for the company's second quarter of fiscal year 2009. The actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and seeking unspecified compensatory damages. The company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted the company's motion with leave to amend. On December 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. The company again moved to dismiss and on October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg again granted the company's motion to dismiss, this time denying Plaintiffs leave to amend. On November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument was held on January 14, 2014. On October 2, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming the dismissal. On October 16, 2014, Plaintiffs requested a rehearing or en banc review of the Ninth Circuit's opinion affirming the dismissal. Plaintiffs' request was denied on November 10, 2014. Plaintiffs have until February 9, 2015 to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. OAKLAND RAIDERS: Class Wage Deal Is Unfair, Cheerleader Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Henneman at Courthouse News Service reports that an Oakland Raiders cheerleader appealed a class action wage settlement, claiming the deal was unfair. Jenny C. objected to the settlement of Lacy T. and Sarah G. et al. vs. the Oakland Raiders. Represented by Drexel Bradshaw of San Francisco, the Nov. 17 filing objects to the class action settlement reach by attorney Sharon Vinick, with Levy, Vinick, Burrell and Hyams. Vinick told Courthouse News in a telephone interview that she is "very confident" that the settlement provided "good resolution" for the Raiderettes' complaints. "We feel the settlement is very fair and adequate and compensates the Raiderette minimum wage along with fees and penalties," Vinick said. "It is a very good settlement for the class." The settlement in early September covered 90 women who worked as cheerleaders from 2010 to 2013 during NFL seasons. Each cheerleader was to receive more than $6,000 for each year worked from 2010 to 2012 and $2,500 for 2013, when the Raiders started paying minimum wage and overtime. But in her objection, Jenny C. claims the settlement "drastically fails to compensate class members according to what they are due," and excludes the National Football League from paying damages, as it is not mentioned by name in the settlement. The proposed settlement leaves "millions and millions of dollars on the table", according to the objection, and underpays the class plaintiffs by of $1.4 million to $2.7 million. Jenny C. claims that the Raiderettes should have been paid $13.15 to $20 an hour, not the $8 the settlement "sheepishly" accepted. She also objects to the $400,000 in legal fees that Vinick was to receive. "A lot more could have been achieved in this case and the short amount of time invested by Vinick and the large take of the settlement is an issue," Bradshaw told Courthouse News in an interview. Bradshaw also is counsel in a lawsuit that names the NFL and the Oakland Raiders as defendants. That case Caitlin Y. and Jenny C. vs. the National Football League, the Oakland Raiders, is pending in Alameda County Court. The cheerleaders said in their initial class action suit that the Raiders placed excessive demands on them and did not pay them fully until the season was over. The Raiders demanded that they attend preseason, regular season and postseason home football games, all practices, rehearsals, fittings, preparations, drills, photo sessions, meetings and workouts. The team fined cheerleaders for wearing the wrong workout clothes to rehearsals, for failing to bring a yoga mat to practice, and for losing pom- poms or not turning in biographies on time, according to lead plaintiff Lacy T. who said she spent $650 a year in unreimbursed expenses. "This will likely be a case that will be going on for a long time and we felt the previous Raiderette representation did a poor job and did not work for what they could have achieved," Bradshaw said in the interview. Jenny C. is represented by: Drexel A. Bradshaw, Esq. S. Clinton Woods, Esq. Nicolet Corliss, Esq. BRADSHAW & ASSOCIATES, P.C. San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-4800 E-mail: drexel@bradshawassociates.com cwoods@bradshawassociates.com ncorliss@bradshawassociates.com The case is Lacy T. and Sarah G., et al. v. The Oakland Raiders, et al., Case No. RG14710815, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. OSCEOLA REGIONAL: Removes "Francis" Class Suit to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Francis v. Osceola Regional Hospital, Inc., et al., Case No. 2014-CA-003217-CI, was removed from the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Osceola County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-01974-RBD-KRS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid wages and for damages. The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Bolanovich, Esq. BOGIN, MUNNS & MUNNS, PA 2601 Technology Dr. PO Box 2807 Orlando, FL 32802-2807 Telephone: (407) 578-1334 Facsimile: (407) 578-2181 E-mail: jbolanovich@boginmunns.com Defendants Osceola Regional Hospital, Inc. and Michelle Reed are represented by: Lori R. Benton, Esq. FORD & HARRISON, LLP 300 S Orange Ave., Suite 1300 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 418-2300 Facsimile: (407) 481-2327 E-mail: lbenton@fordharrison.com Defendant HCA, Inc. is represented by: Alexander David Del Russo, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA 525 Okeechobee Blvd., Suite 1200 PO Box 150 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 659-7070 E-mail: adelrusso@cfjblaw.com OSP GROUP: Removes "McEwan" Suit to California District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled McEwan v. OSP Group, L.P., et al., Case No. 37-2014-00035422-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv- 02823-BEN-WVG to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq. DOSTART CLAPP & COVENEY, LLP 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 623-4200 Facsimile: (858) 623-4299 E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Brendan F. Hug, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, Sixth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 239-3432 Facsimile: (424) 239-2323 E-mail: BHug@blankrome.com PACCAR: Recalls 220, K270 and K370 Models ----------------------------------------- Starting date: November 6, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 14 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014508TC ID number: 2014508 Manufacturer recall number: 14KWM / 1114J On certain vehicles equipped with a Wabco quick release valve with double check valves, used to control park/spring brake application, the valve may leak internally. This could cause unintended partial or full park/spring brake application, which could affect service brake function and increase the risk of a crash. Also, dragging brakes could result in overheated components, increasing the risk of a fire. These issues could cause injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will affect repairs. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- KENWORTH K370 2014 PETERBILT 220 2014 KENWORTH K270 2014 PHILIPS ULTRASOUND: Recalls Auto 2D Quantification Software ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 6, 2014 Posting date: November 26, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-42601 Recalled Products: A) Auto 2D Quantification Software B) Auto Cardiac Motion QUantification software C) Q-Station Philips has become aware that when using the QLAB Auto 2D Quantification (A2DQ) and Auto Cardiac Motion Quantification (ACMQ) applications to calculate End-Systolic Volume (ESV), the reported ESV may be smaller ESV calculated by manual tracing without the use of QLAB. Correspondingly, the left ventricular Ejection Fraction (EF) calculated using these applications may be higher than the EF calculated by manual tracing without the use of QLAB. Philips' investigation has found that this difference may occur in cases where the EF is less than approximately 40%. Companies: Manufacturer Philips Ultrasound Inc. 22100 Bothell-Everett Highway Bothell 98021-8431 Washington United States PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Reserves $7.8MM for Note Purchasers' Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Prosper Marketplace, Inc.'s reserve for a class action settlement liability is $7.8 million in its condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2014, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. In 2008, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California. The suit was brought on behalf of all promissory note purchasers on the platform from January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008. The lawsuit alleged that the Company offered and sold unqualified and unregistered securities in violation of the California and federal securities laws. On July 19, 2013 solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the class action litigation agreed to enter into a settlement to resolve all claims related thereto (the "Settlement"). In connection with the Settlement, the Company agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $10 million into a settlement fund, split into four annual installments of $2 million in 2014, $2 million in 2015, $3 million in 2016 and $3 million in 2017. The Settlement received final approval in a final order and judgment entered by the Superior Court on April 16, 2014. Pursuant to the final order and judgment, the claims in the class action were dismissed, and at the effective time of the Settlement (June 16, 2014), the defendants will have been released by the plaintiffs from all claims that were or could have been asserted concerning the issues alleged in the class action lawsuit. The reserve for the class action settlement liability is $7.8 million in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2014. RICHMAN PROPERTY: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Rosa, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated individuals v. Richman Property Services, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv- 02967-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla., November 26, 2014) is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com RIGHTSCORP INC: Faces TCPA Action in California Over Robo-Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Mullin, writing for Ars Technica, reports that Morgan Pietz, one of the lawyers who wrapped "copyright troll" Prenda Law in a whirl of judicial sanctions, has set his sights on a new target: Rightscorp. In a class action lawsuit filed on Nov. 21, Mr. Pietz says the copyright enforcement company made illegal, harassing robo-calls to his clients, who were accused of illegal downloading. The lawsuit says that Rightscorp broke the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a 1991 law which limits how automated calling devices can be used. The suit also claims that Rightscorp met the legal definition of a "debt collector" but made harassing phone calls and didn't abide by federal or California debt collection laws. Rightscorp company managers, including CEO Christopher Sabec and COO Robert Steele, and Rightscorp's clients are all named as defendants in the lawsuit. Violations of federal debt collection laws can result in damages of $1,000 and include provisions for paying attorneys' fees in successful cases. TCPA violations can cost $500 per incident, and that can be tripled if the violations were willful. In an interview with Ars, Pietz says he doesn't know how many violations have occurred. But he says just one of his named plaintiffs was subject to enough illegal phone calls to add up to tens of thousands of dollars in damages. "They robo-called Jeanie Reif's cell phone darn near every day for a couple of months," Mr. Pietz said. "And there could be thousands of members of this class." If a judge agrees with Mr. Pietz that the phone calls were harassing and illegal, Rightscorp could be on the hook for many millions of dollars. That's a lot more money than Rightscorp actually has -- the company has lost $6.5 million since its inception in 2011, and its stock price hovers near all-time lows. The wild card in Mr. Pietz's case are the defendants not yet named: John Does 1-10. Those Does are Rightscorp's clients, who Mr. Pietz says are liable for Rightscorp's TCPA violations. If Mr. Pietz and his clients win big against near-bankrupt Rightscorp, there's a possibility that the enforcement company's marquee music clients -- including BMG Rights Management and Warner Brothers -- could end up holding the bag. Calls from "Yaddy" and "Marina" The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles federal court on Nov. 21, has two named plaintiffs: Karen J. Reif, who goes by her middle name Jeanie, and Isaac Nesmith. Ms. Reif is a Charter Communications subscriber who lives in Saginaw, Michigan. She called Rightscorp in April of this year after she got a "settlement offer" consisting of an e-mail from Rightscorp, forwarded to her by Charter. Starting around July, she started getting continuous calls from Rightscorp to both her home phone and her cell phone. Some of the calls were from people, including a woman who identified herself as "Yaddy." Many were automated with what sounded like "an artificial or pre-recorded voice." According to the suit, Rightscorp left Ms. Reif a voicemail in September, saying: "This is an urgent message from Rightscorp regarding your Internet account. We have evidence that one or more of our clients' copyrighted materials has been illegally distributed through your Internet connection in violation of U.S. Federal Law 17 U.S.C. 106. To settle this urgent matter you can reach one of our agents by pressing any number on your phone keypad now. Or, you can call us at 888- 851-3801 between 8am and 8pm Pacific Standard Time. This urgent message is from Rightscorp." By late September, she was getting one robo-call per day, the lawsuit states. Mr. Pietz says he's called Rightscorp personally about Ms. Reif's case and has been unable to get any details about the infringement accusations against her. He followed up via e-mail. "I asked for the documentation Rightscorp supposedly has substantiating the copyright claims against Ms. Reif," Mr. Pietz said. "I am still waiting." Mr. Nesmith, who lives in Riverside County, California, is a customer of a smaller ISP called Greenfield Communications. He was first contacted by Rightscorp in September, when he received a letter to his home address accusing him of downloading two "tracks," without identifying the tracks or who owned them. That was followed up by repeated phone calls from "Marina" at Rightscorp, who identified herself as "the DMCA agent who is handling your unsettled copyright infringement case." One voicemail from "Marina" went as follows: "Hi Isaac. This is Marina contacting you from Rightscorp. I've contacted you on one other occasion, the 22nd of September, in regards to your copyright infringement case. You have two unsettled infringements at this point and we are contacting you on behalf of our client, which is the owner of this copyrighted material. If you'd like to settle with them to receive a liability release to protect yourself against litigation, contact me immediately. Otherwise, if we don't hear back from you sir, we will have to escalate the case. We have obtained your information via subpoena against your Internet service provider in regards to the federal law being broken." When Mr. Nesmith asked her to stop calling and provide written evidence of the allegations, she refused and kept asking for a $40 settlement. "We do have that authorization to continue contacting you with the settlement option," said Marina. The "evidence of infringement" had been sent to his home already, she said, and it consisted of a spreadsheet that listed "the two separate file sharing incidents that occurred for the illegal distribution of Pearl and Not Like the Movies," both Katy Perry songs. On Nov. 19, Marina called again, telling Nesmith she was "closing all escalated cases with a settlement on behalf of the copyright holder . .. If you are not capable of settling the matter yourself please have your attorney send in a letter of representation immediately." Copyright enforcer or debt collector? The lawsuit makes the case that Rightscorp's monetary demands have to be classified as debt collection. They can't be threats of an actual lawsuit, because no lawsuit ever has taken place or could take place. Rightscorp doesn't have the authority to file a lawsuit on behalf of its clients, who keep control over their copyrights. So when Rightscorp's calls to Nesmith and others talk about an "unsettled copyright infringement case," it's a bluff. The complaint states: "Rightscorp has threatened Plaintiffs and other members of the FDCPA Class that if they do not pay Rightscorp a 'settlement,' their 'case' will be 'escalated.' Rightscorp has threatened Plaintiffs and other members of the FDCPA Class that if they do not pay settlements, their Internet connections will be disconnected. However, on information and belief, disconnection of consumers' Internet connections is not an action that could have been legally taken nor was it intended to be taken." The plaintiffs claim that Rightscorp's suggestion that Internet access will be terminated, as well as the implicit threat of a lawsuit, are both threats "to take action that cannot be legally taken," which violate federal debt collection laws. As for the robo-calling, the TCPA bars the use of equipment "having the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention" to call cell phones. The suit also includes abuse of process claims, saying that Rightscorp sent out 142 clerk-stamped subpoenas from the Central District of California that are legally invalid. When Grande Communications Networks, a Texas-based ISP, moved to quash one of those subpoenas in September, Rightscorp immediately withdrew it. Grande's lawyer filed an advisory note with the court suggesting that it may want to consider "ordering Rightscorp and its counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for misusing the federal court's subpoena powers . . . . It appears clear that Rightscorp and its counsel are playing a game without regard for the rules, and they are playing that game in a manner calculated to avoid judicial review." Rightscorp management didn't respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. SAGE CAPITAL: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Sage Capital Recovery, LLC, Case No. 1:14- cv-06957 (E.D.N.Y., November 26, 2014) seeks relief pursuant to 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 SHOPKICK INC: Faces "Kozlow" Suit in Tennessee District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Kozlow, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Shopkick, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02303 (M.D. Tenn., November 26, 2014) arises from restrictions on use of telephone equipment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Bock, Esq. Richard J. Doherty, Esq. BOCK AND HATCH LLC 134 N La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602-1233 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com rich@bockhatchllc.com - and - Steven A. Taterka, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. TATERKA P O Box 368 Kingston Springs, TN 37082 Telephone: (615) 952-3661 E-mail: stevetaterka@earthlink.net SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Dimension Vista 1500 and 500 Lab ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: November 6, 2014 Starting date: November 6, 2014 Posting date: November 18, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-42143 Recalled Products: Dimension Vista 1500 Lab System(Class2) Dimension Vista 1500 Lab System(Class3) Dimension Vista 500 Lab System Siemens has received customer complaints of discrepant flagged and/or unflagged patient and QC results on Dimension Vista Intelligent Lab Systems. Reagent probe performance may decline more quickly than anticipated and have an effect on assays with similar formulations when processed sequentially on the same reagent server. Replacing an associated reagent probe can resolve this issue. Companies: Manufacturer Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. 500 GBC Drive, Mailstop 514, PO Box 6101 Newark 19714-6101 Delaware United States SP AUSNET: Bush Fire Victims Await Approval of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Karen Sweeney, writing for The West Australian, reports that the wait continues for almost 6,000 Black Saturday bushfires victims to hear whether a record class action settlement will be theirs. Victorian Supreme Court Justice Robert Osborn has to sign off on a AU$494.7 million settlement before it can be distributed to the claimants of the East Kilmore-Kinglake fire class action. "It is in the interests of the people of Victoria, it's in the interests of the group members and the plaintiff that I sort it out quickly," Justice Osborn said on Nov. 24. It would help bring closure and finality for victims, he said on the first day of an approval hearing. "There are a whole series of advantages to approving settlement including avoiding costs, delays and significant stress." Robert Richter QC -- richter@vicbar.com.au -- acting for lead plaintiff Carol Matthews, said only four objections to the settlement amount had been received out of 5847 claimants who are party to an estimated 10,000 claims. He said two simply stated the figure was too low and a third outlined theories of government conspiracies and treason irrelevant to the proceedings, while a fourth was abandoned before the hearing. "The absence of objection speaks volumes to the issues of whether the amount of settlement is fair and reasonable," he said. "This is the best settlement, in all circumstances, that could be achieved. "The alternative was an all-or-nothing outcome for the group." Barrister Lachlan Armstrong, who represents more than 1500 claimants, took Justice Osborn through summaries of some of the more than 20,000 pages of evidence collated during the class action trial. The judge said the trial heard unprecedented levels of evidence during more than 200 sitting days over 16 months and it was important he examine the facts to be satisfied it was a good settlement. "It seems I have to have some regard to the evidence in deciding whether it's in the ultimate range," he said of the settlement amount. If Justice Osborn approves the payout, the largest settlement in an Australian class action, it will be paid by SP AusNet, Utility Services Victoria Ltd and the Victorian government. It's expected it would then take between 18 months and two years for individual claims from the February 7, 2009 fires to be assessed and money to be paid out, according to Maurice Blackburn Lawyers. That's far quicker than the decade or longer it would have taken for individual litigations to be finalized following conventional court processes, Justice Osborn said. The hearing was set to continue on Nov. 25. SYMMETRY MEDICAL: Has Agreement to Settle Shareholder Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Symmetry Medical Inc. agreed to the terms of a settlement with the plaintiff of a stockholder lawsuit filed against it in the Kosciusko Circuit Court in the state of Indiana, according to the company's Nov. 18, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On September 29, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Kosciusko Circuit Court in the state of Indiana on behalf of Resolution Partners, an alleged stockholder of Symmetry Medical, Inc. (the "Company"), and all others similarly situated. The complaint names as defendants the Company, the members of the board of directors of the Company, TecoStar Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings"), Tecomet, Inc. ("Tecomet"), Genstar Capital LLC, Tecomet's sponsor ("Genstar"), and TecoSym Inc. ("TecoSym") (the "Merger Litigation"). The Merger Litigation relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 4, 2014, by and among the Company, Holdings, Tecomet and TecoSym (the "Merger Agreement"). On November 18, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the other named defendants in the Merger Litigation agreed to the terms of a settlement with the plaintiff to settle the Merger Litigation. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Faces Suit in Mo. for TCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Synchrony Bank is facing a putative class action alleging claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), according to Synchrony Financial's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, on November 4, 2014, the Bank was named as a defendant in Hofer et al. v. Synchrony Bank, a putative class action alleging claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleges that the Bank placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system without the prior express consent of the called party, and seeks up to $1,500 for each violation. The allegations are similar to those made in the Abdeljalil, Cowan and Pittman actions. Legal Proceedings and Regulatory Matters to the company's combined financial statements, in which the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to them. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: US Trustee Wants Discovery v. Bank ------------------------------------------------------- The United States Trustee filed an application in In re Nyree Belton, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, for orders authorizing discovery against Synchrony Bank concerning allegations made in Belton et al. v. GE Capital Consumer Lending, according to Synchrony Financial's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On October 30, 2014, the United States Trustee, which is part of the DOJ, filed an application in In re Nyree Belton, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York for orders authorizing discovery against the Bank pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, related to an investigation of the Bank's credit reporting. The proposed discovery concerns allegations made in Belton et al. v. GE Capital Consumer Lending, a putative class action adversary proceeding pending in the same Bankruptcy Court. In the Belton adversary proceeding, which was filed on April 30, 2014, plaintiff alleges that the Bank violates the discharge injunction under Section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code by attempting to collect discharged debts and by failing to update and correct credit information to credit reporting agencies to show that such debts are no longer due and owing because they have been discharged in bankruptcy. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. On October 6, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court denied from the bench the Bank's motion to compel arbitration of the adversary proceeding, entering its order on November 10, 2014. On October 16, 2014 the Bank moved to stay its case pending an appeal of the arbitration decision. This motion to stay and the Bank's previously filed motion to dismiss or strike the class allegations are pending. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Faces Two TCPA Violations Litigations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Synchrony Bank continues to be a defendant in two putative class actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to them, according to Synchrony Financial's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. One case (Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank) was filed on August 22, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, originally naming General Electric Capital Corporation as the defendant. In August 2013, the Court denied without prejudice GECC's motion to dismiss the class allegations. GECC subsequently was dismissed and the plaintiffs amended the complaint to name the Bank as the defendant. The other case (Travaglio et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank and Allied Interstate LLC) was filed on January 17, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Both complaints allege that the Bank placed calls to consumers by an automated dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their consent, and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified. SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Quarles" Suit Over Trademark Infringement --------------------------------------------------------------- Clint Quarles, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00433-JMH (E.D. Ky., November 26, 2014) is brought over alleged trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Michael Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 22 W. Ninth Street, 2nd Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202-2024 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 721-1178 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com - and - Nathan Dale Williams, Esq. BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER, PLC Marion E. Taylor Building, 6th Floor 312 S. Fourth Street Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 587-2002 Facsimile: (502) 587-2006 E-mail: nathan@bccjlaw.com - and - Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com TALLGRASS DISTRIBUTING: Recalls 52.5 g. Megafood Daily Energy ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 6, 2014 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Natural health products Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-42583 Recalled Products: Megafood Daily Energy 52.5 g Typographical error on the label: "the product label displays "mg" as the unit of measure for the quantity of Vitamin B12 and Chromium when it should read "mcg". The error is only typographical in nature and the actual composition of the products was not affected and is as market authorized" Companies: Recalling Firm TallGrass Distributing LTD 375 West 5th Avenue, Suite 201 Vancouver V5Y 1J6 British Columbia Canada Marketing Authorization Holder FoodState Incorporated 8 Bowers Road Derry 03038 New Hampshire United States TAKATA CORP: Faces "Clow" Suit Arising From Defective Airbags ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Clow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc., Highland Industries, Inc., Honda Motor Co. Ltd., Honda of America Mfg., Inc., and American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-24497- RNS (S.D. Fla., November 25, 2014) arises from alleged defective airbags manufactured by Takata and installed in millions of vehicles in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Barr, Esq. Kimberly Lambert Adams, Esq. LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL ECHSNER & PROCTER 316 S Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7000 Facsimile: (850) 436-6045 E-mail: bbarr@levinlaw.com Klambert@levinlaw.com - and - C. Richard Newsome, Esq. NEWSOME LAW FIRM 201 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1500 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 648-5977 Facsimile: (407) 648-5282 E-mail: newsome@newsomelaw.com TARGET CORP: Judge Refuses to Toss Claims in Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Star Tribune's Kristen Leigh Painter and Bloomberg News report that a federal judge in St. Paul refused on Dec. 2 to throw out claims against Target Corp. made by several banks that say they lost money because of the company's data breach last year. U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson dismissed one of four claims argued in the lawsuit, which claimed "negligent misrepresentation by omission" related to Target's security system. But Judge Magnuson, in his court order released on Dec. 2, wrote that the plaintiffs presented a plausible case for the first three counts against Target: negligence, failure in providing sufficient security against data hackers and violation of Minnesota's Plastic Security Card Act. The Dec. 2 memo is not a final ruling, but allows the lenders' lawsuit to move forward. The case involves all Target purchases made in 2013 between Nov. 1 and Dec. 19 using credit and debit cards. The banks allege that the data breach, which affected at least 40 million customers, required them to reimburse victims, reissue cards and monitor accounts for fraud. The plaintiff is a group of five lenders acting on behalf of any financial institution affected by the breach. They claim to have lost tens of millions of dollars combined. A landslide of lawsuits was filed against Minneapolis-based Target after the breach. The courts ultimately decided to consolidate all the federal cases into two lawsuits -- one brought by consumers and one brought by financial -- institutions. Target's lawyer argued that the company had no obligation to the banks because a third-party firm handles all credit and debit card payments. The company declined to comment on the Dec. 2 court order saying it does not typically comment on pending litigation. TETRA TECH: Montreal Court Keeps Dismissal of Taxpayers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A Montreal court did not allow an appeal against the dismissal of a lawsuit against BPR Inc. by individuals and entities that have paid real estate or municipal taxes to the city of Montreal, according to Tetra Tech, Inc.'s Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2014. On April 19, 2013, a class action proceeding was filed in Montreal in which BPR Inc., BPR's former president, and other Quebec-based engineering firms and individuals are named as defendants. The plaintiff class includes all individuals and entities that have paid real estate or municipal taxes to the city of Montreal. The allegations include participation in collusion to share contracts awarded by the City of Montreal, conspiracy to reduce competition and fix prices, payment of bribes to officials, making illegal political contributions, and bid rigging. A class certification hearing was held in March 2014, and on May 7, 2014, the court dismissed the action. On June 5, 2014, the plaintiff filed an appeal, and the defendants then filed a motion to dismiss. On November 3, 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. TRULIA INC: Inks Agreement to Settle Shareholder Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- A memorandum of understanding was entered between parties in the In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation regarding the settlement of that action, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As disclosed in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed pursuant to Securities Act Rule 424(b) with the SEC by Holdco (the "Joint proxy statement/prospectus"), which includes a final prospectus with respect to Holdco's shares to be issued in the proposed transaction and a definitive joint proxy statement of Trulia and Zillow with respect to the proposed transaction, under the heading "The Mergers -- Litigation Relating to the Mergers," between August 7, 2014 and August 20, 2014, four plaintiffs filed purported class action lawsuits against Trulia and its directors, Zillow and Holdco in connection with the Trulia merger, which litigation was consolidated into In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10020-CB. On November 19, 2014, the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation plaintiffs regarding the settlement of that action. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, with the defendants expressly denying that any of the claims has any merit, Trulia has agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, which are contained in this Form 8-K. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to the Trulia stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Delaware Court of Chancery will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Delaware Court of Chancery will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may not be consummated. VENOCO INC: Trial in Suit Over Going Private Deal Set for 2015 -------------------------------------------------------------- Trial for a lawsuit over a going private transaction between Venoco, Inc. and former Chairman Timothy Marquez, is expected to occur in 2015, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. In August 2011, Timothy Marquez, the then- Chairman and CEO of Venoco, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors of Venoco to acquire all of the shares of Venoco he did not beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez Proposal"). As a result of that proposal, five lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in September 2011 against Venoco and each of its directors by shareholders alleging that Venoco and its directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in connection with the Marquez Proposal. On January 16, 2012, Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which Venoco, Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would effect the going private transaction. Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, five additional suits were filed in Delaware and three suits were filed in federal court in Colorado naming as defendants Venoco and each of its directors. In March 2013 the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in which they requested that the court determine among other things that (i) the merger consideration is inadequate and the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger should be rescinded or in the alternative, the class should be awarded damages to compensate them for the loss as a result of the breach of fiduciary duties by the defendants. The Colorado actions have been administratively closed pending resolution of the Delaware case. Venoco has reviewed the allegations contained in the amended complaint and believes they are without merit. Trial for this matter is expected to occur in 2015. YOUNG AMERICA: Didn't Cover Accidents With Uninsured Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------ Young America Insurance Co. systematically denies coverage for accidents involving uninsured and underinsured drivers, a class action claims in Bernalillo County Court, according to Courthouse News Service. W.A.R. LLP: Lawyer Enjoined From Submitting Further Court Filings ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal court issued a filing injunction against attorney Wade Robertson for going beyond "mere litigiousness" in his motions challenging a $7 million verdict against him. Wade Robertson and his former business partner William Cartinhour entered into a 2004 partnership to invest in class action securities litigation, with Cartinhour contributing $3.5 million and Robertson, an attorney, contributing his legal services. Unbeknownst to Cartinhour, however, Robertson borrowed $3.4 million from the partnership in interest-free loans. The invested amount dwindled to $700,000 by the time Cartinhour tried to get his money back in 2009. In 2011, a jury awarded Cartinhour $7 million in compensatory and punitive damages. During the litigation, the U.S. District Court and the D.C. Circuit issued Robertson's attorney, Ty Clevenger of Youngkin & Burns in Bryan, Texas, numerous warnings and $17,000 in sanctions for "vexatious," "meritless," and "reckless" filings. U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle sanctioned Clevenger in 2012 for showing and "utter disregard for the judicial system" by pursuing baseless arguments despite multiple warnings. On November 25, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth barred Robertson from filing anything else in his related bankruptcy action. "Repeated frivolous and meritless filings will not be tolerated by this court," the judge wrote. Even after Huvelle imposed sanctions, Robertson and Clevenger filed multiple motions and other documents, including an appeal, several motions for an extension of time, and a motion for reconsideration -- most of which were dismissed as meritless. "This multitude of frivolous and harassing filings, both in number and in content, made by appellants goes far beyond 'mere litigiousness.' The court thus finds that a filing injunction is appropriate," Lamberth concluded. The case is In re: W.A.R. LLP, Bankruptcy Debtor, Case No. 12-mc- 306 (RCL), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. WALGREEN CO: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------- Tiffany Porter v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 2:14-cv-02284-MHH (N.D. Ala., November 25, 2014) seeks relief from race discrimination and retaliation instituted pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Walgreen Co. is a corporation headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. The Defendant is a retailer of pharmaceutical and household products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Porter, Esq. ADAM M. PORTER, LLC 2301 Morris Avenue, Suite 102 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8999 Facsimile: (205) 402-4619 E-mail: adamporter@earthlink.net WHITE & BLUE: Sued for Selling Dirty Needles & Ink in Tattoo Kits ----------------------------------------------------------------- A California company sold contaminated needles and ink in tattoo kits it sold online, two people who claim they got infections from the kits claim in a federal class action, reports Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service. Kristine Murray and Jack Bradley sued White & Blue Lion Inc., of City of Industry, Calif., on Nov. 25. They claim they bought a tattoo kit from the defendant on Amazon.com, which is not a party to the lawsuit. Bradley, an experienced tattoo artist, says he used the kit to give Murray and himself tattoos on their legs on July 7. Beginning that day, and until July 10, "Plaintiffs could not walk without suffering intense pain in their legs," the lawsuit states. Then they "noticed open sores around the tattoos." The complaint continues: "The skin around plaintiffs' tattoos became very red and hot to the touch. "These conditions persisted for several weeks after July 7, 2014. "The pain in the area around the tattoos fluctuated, but the appearance of the flesh worsened as plaintiffs developed blisters and scabs. "The tattoos also looked worse over time as the skin rejected the tattoo ink." On Aug. 7, Bradley says, he received an email notification that the tattoo kit had been recalled due to contaminated needles and ink. The next day, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a notice stating that the kits could cause infections that could lead to serious health infections, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs say they sought medical treatment and had to take antibiotics. They claim that the skin where they got the tattoos is "permanently damaged and scarred from the contaminated ink and needles. They seek class certification and damages for strict liability, negligence and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan A. Duncan, Esq. DOUGLAS, HAUN & HEIDEMANN, P.C. 111 West Broadway Bolivar, MO 65613 Telephone: (417) 326-5261 Facsimile: (417) 326-2845 E-mail: nduncan@bolivarlaw.com ********* 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 * * *