/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141218.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 18, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 251 Headlines ABC HEALTH: Faces "Reinhart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AIR FRANCE: Deutsche Bahn Plans to Expand Air Cargo Cartel Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Over Nevada Facility Wage Theft Pending APCO OIL: Faces Class Action in Oklahoma Over Pluspetrol Sale ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act BCI COCA-COLA: Removes "Rodriguez" Class Suit to C.D. California BEYOND TOMORROW: Faces "Fuller" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages BFC MANAGEMENT: Sued in Mich. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BLOOMBERG LP: Ex-Payroll Analyst Seeks to Collect Wages & Damages BOB'S DISCOUNT: Removes "Wenger" Suit to District of New Jersey CALIFORNIA: Jenkins Claims Severed From Webb's Claims vs. CDCR CALIFORNIA: Medina Claims Severed from Webb's Claims vs. CDCR CBE GROUP: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act CC-PALO ALTO: Judge Dismisses Vi Residents' Class Action COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: "Queen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT COLUMBIA: Maintenance Workers File Grievance Over External Hire CONNECTICUT: Settles Autism Treatment Class Action CORIGIN HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CVI.CHE 105: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages DAIMLER AG: "Barinova" Suit Removed to District of New Jersey DANVILLE, IL: Corrections Dept Wins Favorable Ruling in Appeal ELI LILLY: 7th Cir. Upholds Judgments Entered in "Welch" Case EMPIRE STATE: Provides Updates on Original Class Actions EMPIRE STATE: Plaintiffs in 2nd Class Actions Appeal Dismissal EMPIRE STATE: 12 Opt-Out Investors Seek Arbitration ESTES EXPRESS: Removes "Poleon" Suit to Florida District Court FANDUEL INC: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Florida FLUVANNA, VA: Correction Center Settles Female Inmates' Suit FRESNO BEE: Trial Scheduled for Newspaper Carriers' Class Action GC SERVICES: Judge Uses Foti Decision in FDCPA Ruling GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Sued Over Winter Price Increases ICC/MARIE CALLENDER: Order to Show Cause in Musgrave Case Vacated ILLINOIS: ISHAA Faces Concussion Class Action IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Settlement Warrants Distributed in October IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Posts $9.1MM Legal Costs for 9 Months HARBORTOUCH: February 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set HOME DEPOT: "Riveron" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL HSBC BANK: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Madoffs Fraud HURONIA REGIONAL: Deadline to File Settlement Claims Passes KCG HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Awaits Court Ruling KCG HOLDINGS: NY Plaintiff Files Stipulation of Discontinuance KCG HOLDINGS: Removed as Defendant in Amended Complaint KENTUCKY: Jan. 27 Settlement Conference Set in Deaf Inmates' Suit LGLC ENTERPRISES: "Meyo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages LIGHT UP: Faces "Baldares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages LIN MEDIA: Continues to Face Sciabacucchi Class Action MAJESTIC SEALS: "Fields" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Infuse MELOHN PROPERTIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Hanis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MMI VENTURES: "Sustaita" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MOBILEREV LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid and Withheld Overtime MOL GLOBAL: Law Firms Mull Class Actions Over IPO NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Accused of Illegally Confiscating Firearms NEW HORIZONS: "Rosales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages NEW YORK CITY, NY: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act OFFICE CARE: "Amaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages OVASCIENCE INC: Answer to Amended Complaint Due PACIFIC COAST: Faces Class Action by Thomas Welch PACIFIC COAST: Faces Class action by Ralph Berliner PENTHOUSE EXECUTIVE: Judge Approves $1.125MM Settlement PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Sued in S.D.N.Y Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports POLAR CARGO: Jan. 30 Hearing to Approve C$425,000 Settlement QR ENERGY: Tentative Deal Reached to Settle Merger Class Action RAYONIER INC: "Brown" Suit Transferred From New York to Florida REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Securities Class Action Filed in New York REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Morris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SAN FRANCISCO: Obtains Favorable Judgment in "Kirola" Class Suit SPECIALTY GRAPHICS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims SWEDBANK ROBUR: 2,000+ People to Join Closet Indexing Class Action SWISHER HYGIENE: North Carolina Court Approves Settlement SWISHER HYGIENE: Fresh Statement of Claim Filed in Ontario Suit SWISHER HYGIENE: Stockholder Suit Filed in Ontario Superior Court TESCO PLC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports TEXTURA CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Securities Law Violations TOYOTA MOTOR: "Emerson" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California TRULAND GROUP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss WARN Class Action TURTLE BEACH: Seeks Review of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss TURTLE BEACH: "Vasek" Class Action Dismissed Without Prejudice TWITTER INC: "Nunes" Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid UBER TECH: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices UBS AG: Accused of Participating in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi Scheme UNIVERSAL ALLOY: Court Enters Judgment in "Gonzalez" Class Action USA TRUCK: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Law Firms Mull Shareholder Litigation WASHINGTON: Two Cities Sued Over Indigent Misdemeanor Treatment WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Arace" Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania WELLS FARGO: Sued in New York by Investors in Two RMBS Trusts WRIGHT NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over FEMA Program Scheme ZOETIS INC: Nine Actions Over Roxarsone Dismissed ZOETIS INC: Received 240 Claims in Europe and NZ Over PregSure * Judges Grant Most Class Action Payouts * Shareholder Class Suit Fears Deter Boards From Profit Guidance ********* ABC HEALTH: Faces "Reinhart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Reinhart, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. ABC Health Care, Inc., 1605 Holland Road, Suite A1 Maumee, Ohio 43537, Case No. 3:14-cv-02703 (N.D. Ohio, December 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. ABC Health Care, Inc. is a local, family owned, full service home care agency located at 1605 Holland Road, Suite A1, Maumee, Ohio 43537. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy L. Zawacki, Esq. Kera L. Paoff, Esq. WIDMAN & FRANKLIN Ste. 1550, 405 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (419) 243-9005 Facsimile: (419) 243-9404 E-mail: amy@wflawfirm.com kera@wflawfirm.com AIR FRANCE: Deutsche Bahn Plans to Expand Air Cargo Cartel Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Michaels, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that the cargo unit of German state railway Deutsche Bahn AG is claiming damages of potentially more than $3 billion from 13 airlines, including Air France-KLM SA, British Airways, Deutsche Lufthansa AG and Australia's Qantas Airways Ltd. , for colluding to inflate airfreight fees, senior Deutsche Bahn executives said. Deutsche Bahn planned on Dec. 1 to update and expand a lawsuit filed in Germany last year, claiming more than $1.5 billion in damages, the executives said in an interview. The company also for the first time put a figure of $370 million on damages it is seeking in a parallel case filed in New York in August. The 13 carriers, along with almost 20 others, have pleaded guilty to conspiring on surcharges for fuel and security fees from about 2000 to 2006. Antitrust regulators in the U.S., the European Union, Australia, South Korea and other countries fined them more than $3 billion between 2007 and 2013. All 13 airlines struck plea deals, and nine airline executives in seven countries served jail sentences, paid fines, or both. Deutsche Bahn's German and U.S. lawsuits are likely to be among the final litigations stemming from the cartel. The airlines have already agreed to pay more than $1 billion in damage settlements in class-action and private lawsuits filed on behalf of shippers. "It's been established they wronged us," said Deutsche Bahn management board member Gerd Becht in an interview. "It's just a question of coming to terms with us." The airlines declined to comment on the litigation or settlements. Mr. Becht said Deutsche Bahn had tried unsuccessfully to negotiate settlements with the airlines. Many of the carriers have set aside financial provisions and acknowledged potential liability. British Airways, now part of International Consolidated Airlines Group SA, in 2007 provisioned œ350 million ($547.7 million) for the litigation of the cargo cartel. Lufthansa said in its 2013 annual report that it and other cargo airlines "were involved in a cargo cartel in the period between December 1999 and February 2006" and the airline was "at risk of civil claims for damages by customers" relating to the cartel. Deutsche Bahn in August filed a claim in U.S. Federal Court against six airlines, but didn't previously state how much it sought in damages. The claim will be roughly $370 million if the case advances next year, said Christopher Rother, Deutsche Bahn's head of antitrust and competition law, in an interview. The U.S. filing presented details of an industrywide effort to make a significant portion of cargo airlines' costs not subject to traditional discounting negotiations with customers. The airlines also coordinated efforts to lift surcharges for fuel and security fees faster than the costs actually rose. If Deutsche Bahn prevails in the case, under U.S. law it could be awarded three times its claim, or roughly $1.1 billion. The claim relates only to shipments to, from or within the U.S. The German shipping company last December filed a separate preliminary claim in a Cologne court against Lufthansa and Qantas for unspecified damages related to shipments outside the U.S. Deutsche Bahn planned on Dec. 1 to submit a more complete case, adding at least eight airlines to last December's German suit and claiming $1.5 billion in damages, said Mr. Rother. Interest on the claim could add $690 million, based on Deutsche Bahn calculations, a company spokesman said. Deutsche Bahn's case in Germany could be strengthened by the European Union Competition Commission's publication this October of its 2010 ruling on the air-cargo cartel. The EU's executive body fined 15 airlines, now part of 11 airline companies, EUR799 million ($994.9 million) for "operating a world-wide cartel" from late 1999 to early 2006, the commission said. The publication of the commission's ruling, which was delayed by appeals by airlines to protect commercially sensitive information, makes the airlines' culpability a matter of official public record and a reference for the German court. Mr. Rother, Deutsche Bahn's attorney, said the cartel was unusually international and disciplined. "It was one of the very few cartels I know of that really worked," he said. AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Over Nevada Facility Wage Theft Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ T.L. Stanley, writing for Mashable, reports that Amazon, which recently fell behind Alibaba to become the world's second-largest e-commerce company, is in the throes of its annual temporary seasonal worker program that includes a few thousand graying retirees in its giant warehouse facilities around the U.S. The employees live full-time in recreational vehicles, following mostly low-paying, strenuous jobs around the country instead of enjoying those golden years on the golf course. Amazon reported earlier this fall that it planned to hire 80,000 temp workers for its fulfillment centers in Kentucky, Tennessee, Nevada and Kansas, up from 70,000 last season. The older employees make up a fraction of the total, though Amazon won't confirm the exact numbers. There's a symbiotic relationship between the often just-scraping- by retirees and companies like Amazon that employ them, said Jessica Bruder, who's writing a book on the subject based on her well-read Harper's magazine story from this summer. "This is plug-and-play labor. They show up, they're self- contained, and then they leave. It's frictionless," Ms. Bruder said. "And this is the Greatest Generation. They have an amazing work ethic, they're willing to grit their teeth and bear it, and they're reliable." Despite not having done physical labor in their professional lives before, they don't complain about the abundance of lifting, bending, squatting and walking on concrete slab floors for 10- to 12-hour shifts at Amazon's warehouses. They're too busy being grateful for the work, Ms. Bruder said. A class-action lawsuit accusing Amazon of wage theft at the Nevada facility is now before the Supreme Court. Justices recently heard arguments over whether those workers must be paid for time spent going through security screenings that can take as long as 25 minutes at the end of their shifts. Criticism of the seasonal work can be expected when many of the employees live a hand-to-mouth existence doing rote assembly line- style jobs. Even Amazon calls its training, "work hardening," which Bruder thinks is "a bizarrely blunt way to describe what's happening." Temp employees have said the company is generous with free Advil, for all the aches and pains, and sometimes doles out swag and gratis meals. Unless and until these jobs are automated, Ms. Bruder expects Amazon to continue hiring seasonal temps, many in their 50s, 60s and 70s. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 12% of those 70-plus continue working today versus 6.7% in 1985, and the Center for Retirement Research found that 49% of those 50-59 years old aren't covered by a pension. Fifty-three percent of households are at risk of not being able to maintain their living standards in retirement, the center found, and the risk is greater when health care costs are factored in. Older Americans expect less financial security than their parents had, according to the AARP, and 80% of Baby Boomers expect to work in retirement, citing "need the money" as their primary reason. The market conditions created "a bit of a perfect storm," said David Allen Larson, professor of labor and employment law at Minnesota's Hamline University. "Companies reduced costs during the recession, which meant getting rid of the higher salaried people, most of them older Companies reduced costs during the recession, which meant getting rid of the higher salaried people, most of them older," he said. "It's statistically harder to get re-employed at that age." Older people who continue working list a number of hardships that landed them in their current situation, among them declining home values, exhausted savings and loss of health insurance, according to AARP research. Not to say that there aren't some comfortable retirees combining seasonal jobs with sightseeing, but many of the migrant elderly folks that Ms. Bruder encountered during her reporting "seemed one injury or broken axle away from true homelessness," she wrote in Harper's. They have no union protection, and Larson likens them to immigrant workers who may be willing to put up with less-than-idea conditions, including injuries. "They probably feel like they need to keep their mouths shut and take what they can get," Mr. Larson said, "because if they leave they'll be worse off." APCO OIL: Faces Class Action in Oklahoma Over Pluspetrol Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit claims Apco Oil and Gas Inc. breached its fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value during a proposed sale to co-defendant Pluspetrol Resources Corporation. Also listed as defendants in the lawsuit, filed on behalf of George P. Assad in United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on Nov. 24, are Apco Oil and Gas board of directors Richard Muncrief, Bryan Guderian, J. Kevin Vann, Keith Bailey, Piero Ruffinengo and Robert LaFortune. The suit states that the board of directors agreed to a merger agreement on Oct. 2, in which Pluspetrol would acquire all outstanding shares of Apco stock for $14.50 per share in cash, a transaction valued at $427 million. The process allegedly deprived Apco public stockholders of participating in the company's long-term prospects because the agreement substantially favors Pluspetrol. Apco also allegedly failed to adequately disclose details of the proposed transaction during a proxy statement filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31. The law firms of Federman & Sherwood, Ridgrodsky & Long P.C. and Ryan & Maniskas LLP are representing the plaintiffs. United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma case number 14-cv-707. ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Lynn Mullins, Voula Markos and Susan Schoenberg, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., a foreign corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-03073-SCB-AEP (M.D. Fla., December 10, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron M. Swift, Esq. Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq. J. Andrew Meyer, Esq. LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA 3900 First Street N, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, FL 33703-6109 Telephone: (727) 327-3328 Facsimile: (727) 327-3305 E-mail: aswift@leavenlaw.com ileavengood@leavenlaw.com ameyer@leavenlaw.com BCI COCA-COLA: Removes "Rodriguez" Class Suit to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Rodriguez v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, Case No. BC555485, 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-09479 to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks to collect unpaid wages. The Defendant is represented by: Lena Kae Sims, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 501 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: lsims@littler.com BEYOND TOMORROW: Faces "Fuller" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juanita Fuller, Ariana Waldo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Denise Burke, in her individual and professional Capacities and Beyond Tomorrow Daycare Incorporated, Case No. 1:14-cv-07184 (E.D.N.Y., December 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a child day care center located at 98-30 57th Avenue, 6D, Corona, New York 11368. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Brian Kaviar, Esq. 712 Third Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11232 Telephone: (718) 965-6146 Facsimile: (718) 768-5077 E-mail: ericbkaviar@aol.com BFC MANAGEMENT: Sued in Mich. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Does 1-19 v. Masoud Hanna Sesi, Case No. 2:14-cv-14698 (E.D. Mich., December 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Masoud Hanna Sesi owns and operates BFC Management Company, an adult entertainment bar. The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah L. Gordon, Esq. Sarah S. Prescott, Esq. Nicholas M. Saleh, Esq. DEBORAH GORDON LAW 33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 258-2500 E-mail: dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com sprescott@deborahgordonlaw.com nsaleh@deborahgordonlaw.com BLOOMBERG LP: Ex-Payroll Analyst Seeks to Collect Wages & Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Hill v. Bloomberg L.P., Case No. 1:14-cv-09809 (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2014) is a civil rights action for declaratory relief, equitable relief, and monetary relief including back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and other relief to redress discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment, based on the Plaintiff's age, race and gender. Mr. Hill is a male black employee of Bloomberg from November 1998 until he was terminated on June 4, 2013. He has worked as a Payroll Analyst and a Global Mobility Analysis in Bloomberg's Human Resources Department. Bloomberg L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership headquartered in New York City. Bloomberg describes itself as business "quickly and accurately delivering data, news and analytics through innovative technology." The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth W. Richardson, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH W. RICHARDSON 305 Broadway, Suite 801 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 962-4277 Facsimile: (212) 619-1358 BOB'S DISCOUNT: Removes "Wenger" Suit to District of New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Wenger, et al. v. Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC, Case No. MID-L-6629-14, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-07707-FLW-LHG to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from alleged contract dispute. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew S. Oorbeck, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 Facsimile: (732) 545-1030 E-mail: moorbeek@wolflawfirm.net The Defendant is represented by: Sean C. Sheely, Esq. Duvol M. Thompson, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 513-3200 Facsimile: (212) 385-9010 E-mail: sean.sheely@hklaw.com duvol.thompson@hklaw.com CALIFORNIA: Jenkins Claims Severed From Webb's Claims vs. CDCR -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng issued an order in DONNELL WEBB, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILTATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-01528-MJS (PC), (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Donnell Webb is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action filed on September 29, 2014 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Complaint, which was dismissed for failure to state a claim, purported to proceed on behalf of class- action plaintiffs including Marvin Jenkins. On October 31, 2014, Marvin Jenkins filed in this action a letter of joinder asserting his claims. On November 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, raising only his individual claims. Plaintiff's first amended complaint has not yet been screened, and will be addressed in a separate order. The Court, in its order dismissing the Complaint, determined that the allegations did not provide a basis for a class action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008), and that this action would proceed as an individual civil suit brought by Plaintiff Donnell Webb in his sole behalf. Accordingly, Judge Seng held that Mr. Webb will proceed as the sole plaintiff in case number 1:14-cv-01528-MJS-PC. The claims of Marvin Jenkins are severed from the claims of Mr. Webb. The Court directed the Clerk of the Court to: a. Open a separate Section 1983 civil rights action for Marvin Jenkins, AS-9654, North Kern State Prison, Bldg. #C-1-B, Bunk 150 L, P.O. Box 5004, Delano, CA 93216; b. Assign the new action to the Magistrate Judge to whom the instant case is assigned and make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for such assignment; c. File and docket a copy of this Order in the new action opened for Marvin Jenkins; d. Place a copy of the letter regarding joinder, which was filed in the instant action, in the new action opened for Marvin Jenkins; e. Send Marvin Jenkins an endorsed copy of the letter regarding joinder, bearing the case number assigned to his own individual action; f. Send Marvin Jenkins a Section 1983 civil rights complaint form; and g. Send Marvin Jenkins an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Within 30 days from the date of service of this Order, Marvin Jenkins must file an original complaint bearing his own case number and signed under penalty of perjury. Within 45 days from the date of service of this Order, Marvin Jenkins must submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or payment of the $400.00 filing fee, in his own case. The failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation that the action of Marvin Jenkins be dismissed. A copy of the Court's November 16, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/ud8hsNfrom Leagle.com. Marvin Jenkins, Plaintiff, Pro Se. CALIFORNIA: Medina Claims Severed from Webb's Claims vs. CDCR ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng issued an order in DONNELL WEBB, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILTATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-01528-MJS (PC), (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Donnell Webb is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed on September 29, 2014 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Complaint, which was dismissed for failure to state a claim, purports to proceed on behalf of class-action plaintiffs including Pablo Medina. On October 24, 2014, Pablo Medina filed in this action a letter of joinder asserting his claims. On November 3, 2014, Mr. Medina filed a letter requesting the status of his joinder. The Court, in its order dismissing the Complaint, determined that the allegations did not provide a basis for a class action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008), and that this action would proceed as an individual civil suit brought by Plaintiff Donnell Webb in his sole behalf. Accordingly, Judge Seng held that Mr. Webb will proceed as the sole plaintiff in case number 1:14-cv-01528-MJS-PC. The claims of Pablo Medina are severed from the claims of Plaintiff Webb. The Court directed the Clerk of the Court to: a. Open a separate Section 1983 civil rights action for Pablo Medina, AT4819, North Kern State Prison, Bldg. # C-1-B, Bunk 163, P.O. Box 5004 Delano, CA 93216; b. Assign the new action to the Magistrate Judge to whom the instant case is assigned and make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for such assignment; c. File and docket a copy of this Order in the new action opened for Pablo Medina; d. Place a copy of the letters regarding joinder, which were filed in the instant action, in the new action opened for Pablo Medina; e. Send Pablo Medina an endorsed copy of the letters regarding joinder, bearing the case number assigned to his own individual action; f. Send Pablo Medina a Section 1983 civil rights complaint form; and g. Send Pablo Medina an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Within 30 days from the date of service of this Order, Pablo Medina must file an original complaint bearing his own case number and signed under penalty of perjury. Within 45 days from the date of service of this Order, Pablo Medina must submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or payment of the $400.00 filing fee, in his own case. Plaintiff's request for status is addressed by the foregoing. The failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation that the action of Pablo Medina be dismissed. A copy of the Court's November 14, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/1bwEIW from Leagle.com. Donnell Webb, Plaintiff, Pro Se. CBE GROUP: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Wegh, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. The CBE Geoup, Inc. f/k/a Nelson, Watson & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07188 (E.D.N.Y., December 10, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com CC-PALO ALTO: Judge Dismisses Vi Residents' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Sue Dremann, writing for Palo Alto Weekly, reports that residents of the Palo Alto senior community Vi saw their class-action lawsuit against its company dismissed by a federal judge on Tuesday, Nov. 25. Six residents of the posh senior-living center filed a class- action lawsuit against the company, CC-Palo Alto, on Feb. 19, after discovering that more than $190 million in refundable entrance fees were transferred to its corporate parent, CC- Development, in Chicago. The lawsuit claimed the transfer jeopardized the financial security of the residents. The complaint also alleged that CC-Palo Alto overcharged the residents by improperly allocating tax assets, earthquake insurance and marketing costs to Vi as operating expenses and representing the charges as inflated monthly fees. The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of 500 residents, is believed to be the first of its kind in the Bay Area challenging a continuing-care retirement community's financial practices. But Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the entire case. The plaintiffs could not show injury, which is necessary to have "standing," the court ruled. On Sept. 9, CC-Palo Alto's attorneys asked the court to dismiss the class-action suit on grounds that the case was "not ripe" for judicial hearing. The seniors have not been harmed by the transfer of millions of dollars in entrance fees to the Chicago headquarters, attorney James McManis told the court. The contract residents signed also does not actually specify that the money should be retained at the Palo Alto community or how it should be used, he added. To live at Vi, residents enter into a Continuing Care Residency contract, which entails an entrance fee ranging from $745,500 to $4,620,800, and monthly fees ranging from $4,320 to $9,320, depending on the type of apartment. The entrance fees are "loans" to CC-Palo Alto, with a portion repaid to occupants' heirs or estate upon death or if occupants chose to leave upon sale of their apartment. The first occupants of the 388-unit independent-living facility are supposed to receive as much as 90 percent, with subsequent occupants receiving a lesser amount on a sliding scale, according to court documents. Since Vi opened in 2005, CC-Palo Alto has collected more than $450 million in entrance fees. Entrance-fee refunds come from subsequent occupants' fees, according to the documents. The seniors alleged that CC-Palo Alto transferred more than $190 million of entrance fees to the Chicago parent without their knowledge and without obtaining security or any repayment promise. Consequently, CC-Palo Alto does not have enough money to refund the entrance fees when they become due. Continuing-care communities are required by California law to maintain reserves as security for the entrance fees. But CC-Palo Alto now allegedly has a deficit of more than $300 million, according to the attorneys. Sending the money to Chicago created a concrete detriment to the seniors' security interest in the entrance fees. A security interest is an interest in personal property or fixtures that secures payment or performance of an obligation, according to state law. California case law has recognized that lenders, such as the seniors, have a security interest in the property subject to the loan (the entrance fees) and that impairment of that security interest is a harm, the seniors' attorneys said. CC-Palo Alto lawyers, however, claimed the entrance fees are "unsecured loans," though the contract and promissory notes simply state they are "loans." CC-Palo Alto has always been able to return the money to residents or their families, so no harm has yet occurred, company attorneys said. In his ruling, Judge Davila found that the residents' argument that the contract's omission of the word "unsecured" indicates the loan is secured and creates a security interest was unpersuasive. The plaintiffs did not argue that collateral was provided in exchange for the loan or that other documents taken together with the contract established a security interest. The residents also failed to argue whether the residency contract was a type covered under state law requiring reserves -- a so- called "refundable" contract -- but rather they only argued that the state law was violated, Judge Davila said. "Even assuming that Plaintiff's entrance fee constitutes a security interest, in order to have standing, Plaintiff's security interest must have been harmed," Judge Davila wrote. The court would assume in this case that the plaintiffs have a legally protected security interest established by the entrance fee, he said, but there is no indication that any plaintiff has terminated their residency contract and been denied repayment, so there was no actual injury. The state's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that in some cases imminent harm or the threat of imminent harm could be considered an injury. But Judge Davila did not find that to be the case at Vi. "There is no indication that any Plaintiff has yet to resell their apartment or is in such critical health that termination is imminent. Accordingly, there is no indication that Defendants will further deprive Plaintiffs of a repayment," he wrote. Vi residents also claimed the company artificially inflated their monthly fees dues through three improper charges. The Santa Clara County Tax Assessor increased assessment of CC-Palo Alto's property taxes based on its "entrepreneurial profit," after the company transferred $174 million to Chicago during its first three years of operations. The company has stated it will pass on $12 million in back taxes to residents through higher monthly fees. Prior to the assessment, the company returned operating surplus to the residents, but since then, there have been no surplus payments, attorneys said. CC-Palo Alto also passed on earthquake insurance premiums to residents, even though residents should not incur insurance charges for anything other than furniture, fixtures or equipment under terms of the residency contract, their attorneys said. The company also allegedly charged residents for marketing costs, ostensibly to promote Vi, but instead the money funded the parent company's national marketing campaign, according to the complaint. The company's attorneys argued that residents "only speculate" they will be harmed by the increased taxes, not that they have already been harmed. The residency contract provides that real estate taxes are an operating expense of the community to be paid from monthly fees. The court agreed. Judge Davila said the contact's language was clear and unambiguous. The court found there is no harm resulting from the suspension of credits because any credit disbursals are at the company's discretion. Insurance-policy payments are also clearly defined as part of the operating costs under the contract, the Davila noted. The contract states that an operating cost paid from monthly fees includes "any marketing costs" and is not specific to spending the money only on marketing Vi, the judge added. Judge Davila did leave room for the residents to file an amended complaint within 15 days. Neither side could be immediately reached for comment. COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: "Queen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Alvin P. Queen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cogent Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01668 (E.D. Va., December 10, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Cogent Communications, Inc. is an Internet and network service provider offering Internet access, data transport, and colocation services through their Internet data centers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC. 836 Bonifant St. Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (301) 587-9397 E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com COLUMBIA: Maintenance Workers File Grievance Over External Hire --------------------------------------------------------------- Yasemin Akcaguner, writing for Daily Columbia Spectator, reports that three Columbia University maintenance workers are raising concerns about a recent decision by Facilities management to fill an open engineering position with an external candidate. In a written grievance that Transport Workers Union Local 241 submitted to Labor Relations Manager Hazel Theresa Todman on Nov. 6, three complainants alleged that Columbia violated its collective bargaining agreement -- which states that union members should be considered before the University looks outside to fill the position -- by hiring an external candidate to fill an open assistant watch engineer position. The grievance demands that Columbia give the position to a Local 241 member through a new selection process. "They just interviewed from the outside first, then interviewed us," Louis Rodriguez, a licensed refrigeration engineer and one of the complainants, said. "But they weren't planning to pick us. . . . They were just going to the outside, but they needed to go through the process." Mr. Rodriguez and the two other complainants, Chris Hannigan and Kamran Sagheer, also refrigeration engineers, said they were all eligible candidates for the new position. According to Mr. Hannigan, Facilities management informed the grievants that the external candidate was most qualified to fill the position. The external candidate chosen by facilities had a high-pressure steam license, which the job posting listed as "preferred," according to Mr. Hannigan and Pete Morrissey, a licensed refrigeration engineer at Columbia who did not apply for this particular position. The other three candidates did not have this license. After Facilities hired the external candidate, Local 241 filed a class action grievance last month. Messrs. Rodriguez, Hannigan, and Sagheer's first grievance, filed on Oct. 24 to Physical Plant Director Michael Cabanlit, was denied. The three received word that their Nov. 6 grievance was denied as well, and are now moving to the third step -- presenting the written grievance to Columbia's vice president for personnel management. Local 241 declined to comment. Sebastian Dipalma, the union's recording secretary, said in an email that addressing the matter would be "a violation of the Union's oath of office as well as a violation of our International Constitution to divulge and/or make known any private proceedings of this Union." Columbia Facilities also declined to comment. "While we are not able to comment on the details raised in a specific grievance, the dispute resolution process, as agreed to by the parties (Columbia University and TWU Local 241), is being followed," a Facilities spokesperson said in an email. Rodriguez, however, said he is not optimistic about receiving a response to the Nov. 6 grievance from Mr. Todman. Mr. Rodriguez said he expects that he, Mr. Hannigan, and Mr. Sagheer will ultimately take the third step in the process -- presenting the written grievance to Columbia's vice president for personnel management. Both Messrs. Hannigan and Morrissey were skeptical of the facilities management's claim that its aim was to hire the most qualified person for the job. Mr. Morrissey said that the six- week training period and four-month probationary period customary for the position would have ensured that inside hires would be prepared for their new job. "You have four months to see if this person can do the job. If he can't, he goes back to his old job title with no loss of seniority and then you go try to find somebody else," Mr. Morrissey said. "So what is the harm of giving somebody an opportunity?" Mr. Hannigan said he had passed the written and practical tests for the high-pressure steam license after paying out of pocket to take a Consolidated Education class, but said that he ultimately didn't have the hands-on boiler experience needed to receive it. "They [Facilities] weren't educating us, they weren't giving us the opportunity," Mr. Hannigan said. "We educated ourselves, we took the initiative and they're still giving us grief on this." Both Messrs. Hannigan and Morrissey are concerned about the long- term implications of the outside hire, worrying that it sets a precedent for further hires outside of union personnel. "When you've got a policy of 'We're not going to promote from within,' you're telling people, 'Why should you even bother having pride in your work if you're not going to be rewarded for it?'" Mr. Morrissey said. "Now you're going to keep doing it and then those jobs that Columbia is so proud to create for the community don't exist anymore," Mr. Hannigan said. CONNECTICUT: Settles Autism Treatment Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Noel K. Gallagher, writing for Portland Press Herald, reports that for Cathy Dion, the recent class-action lawsuit settlement with state health officials means her autistic son, Ben, will finally come off a waiting list for day treatment. "He's been on it since September 2012," said Ms. Dion. Ben, now 20 years old, had received services through the public school system until June, but since then the Dions have been paying out of pocket for care. "In the last six months we've spent the equivalent of about two years' college tuition," said Ms. Dion, the director of programs and administration at the Autism Society of Maine. The Dions are among the hundreds of Maine families who will directly benefit from the settlement -- completed on Dec. 1 in Kennebec County Superior Court -- which requires the state to provide MaineCare home-based services vouchers and day treatment or job support funding to about 1,000 people with autism and significant developmental disabilities. Although MaineCare juvenile services are available until a person is 20 years old, families can sign up for the adult services as soon as their child turns 18, Dion said. Knowing there was a backlog, she signed Ben up at 18, but they still fell into the gap after he graduated at 20 because of the waiting list. Not only did they have to pay out of pocket for care, but for the first two months they could only find services for three days a week. That meant Ben, who is nonverbal and needs close attention, went to work with Dion for two days each week. "I did what any parent would do," she said, noting that she was lucky she works at a place that would allow a worker to bring in a disabled child. Families say the settlement, though limited, is critical for families who worry about what happens when they get to what's called the services "cliff" -- when a young person in need "ages out" of the public school system at age 20. At the other end of the spectrum are aging parents who took care of their disabled children at home for decades, but are getting too old to do it themselves, or need a plan in place for when they themselves die. The range of services offered under the two programs in question -- known as a "comprehensive waiver" and a "support waiver" -- is broad. The home-based services benefit, or Section 21, is intended to help people stay out of institutionalized housing and remain in their family homes. It can include paying for ramps in a home, or speech therapy, or transportation and work support. The day habilitation benefit, or Section 29, is to support people during the day, mostly with independent living and help with employment. It can include payments for communication devices, job training, counseling, physical therapy or a wheelchair lift on a van. The settlement covers all people already on waiting lists or who sign up by June 30, 2015, said Gerald Petruccelli, the Portland attorney for the plaintiffs. "I think (the settlement) is very exciting news for folks who have been waiting a long time," said Cullen Ryan of Buxton, who has an autistic son and is executive director of Community Housing of Maine, which provides housing for people with special needs. As of late November, there were about 1,200 people on Maine Department of Health and Human Services waiting lists for Section 21 and Section 29 vouchers, and about 50 people have pending offers from the state. When the lawsuit was filed in early 2013, many people had been on waiting lists for years, some since 2008. The DHHS said in response to the lawsuit that there was not enough money in the budget to cover those services, so they ended up being deferred. The state's share of the cost of providing services to the people affected by the settlement is expected to be about $7 million a year. MaineCare is the state's name for Medicaid, which provides medical services for low-income residents. Funding for the program is a blend of federal and state dollars. Suellen Doggett, 67, of Waterboro said her 37-year-old son, Michael, has been on the home-based services waiting list for about five years. She and her husband have cared for him at home, and hope to continue, but they are getting older and are looking for assurances that there is a safety net in place for their son. He has gone to state-funded day habilitation services since he was 21, but the hours have been cut to half-days in recent years. Michael Doggett has a developmental disability caused by Williams disease, a genetic condition. He is very social and has done work but needs assistance, and operates at around the 12-year-old level, his mother said. He has worked through vocational rehabilitation programs and enjoyed that, but his work hours were cut. He now does unpaid volunteer work. "All these cuts. It's very discouraging," said Suellen Doggett. When asked what she would do when the state offered a voucher, she said she was unsure. "I'm going to have to see what they say," Ms. Doggett said. "I'm not just going to turn my son over to the state after all these years." Similarly, the Dions know their son would qualify for home-based services, but they are hoping to have him live at their home for as long as possible. "We like having him here, but as he gets older I know he's going to want something more. I'm just not ready for that yet," Ms. Dion said. "As families, we try to take care of everything within our own family. But with autism, you have to reach out to extended family, and you just need support and that's what I want to make sure is always there." Many families she works with through the Autism Society have already been caring for their children for decades and realize they will need additional help at some point. They don't want assistance before they need it, but they can't wait until there is a crisis, only to find out there's a years-long waiting list. "These are things families should think about now," Ms. Dion said. "They need to know that when they need that state service in the future that it will be there." A DHHS spokesman said in a statement that the department had been continually working to reduce the waiting list. "Governor LePage has allocated millions of dollars in additional financial support over the last three years to move more than 800 people with intellectual and developmental disabilities off of wait lists," David Sorensen said in an email. "His efforts and those of the department to improve the services and supports for these vulnerable Mainers well preceded this lawsuit and will remain a significant focus." Ms. Dion said that even if the state waiting list is cleared, she's worried about finding a service provider nearby, particularly if the state approves hundreds of vouchers in a short period. "It could bog down the system," she said, noting that she has already been researching service options near their home in Greene. "I don't want to ship my son to some program in Portland. That's not his community. "So we're still stuck," she said. "It's very difficult." CORIGIN HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elena Vitale, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Corigin Holdings, LLC, Family First Operations, LLC, Ryan Freedman, Angelina Freedman, and Galina Anissimova, Case No. 1:14-cv-09713 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a home health care facility located at 219 East 67th Street, FL 5, New York, New York 10065. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan Edward Richards, Esq. Marshall Benjamin Bellovin, Esq. Vano I. Haroutunian, Esq. BALLON, STOLL, BADER AND NADLER 729 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 575-7900 Facsimile: (212) 764-5060 E-mail: evanrichardsesq@gmail.com mbellovin@ballonstoll.com vharoutunian@ballonstoll.com CVI.CHE 105: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Prieto, and other similarly situated individuals v. CVI.CHE 105, Inc., Hoyos & Associates Investments, LLC, Juan Chipoco, and Luis Hoyos, Case No. 1:14-cv-24685 (S.D. Fla., December 11, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and dages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant on Miami Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com DAIMLER AG: "Barinova" Suit Removed to District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, removed the class action lawsuit titled Barinova v. Daimler AG, et al., Case No. BER-L-09841-14, from the Superior Court of Bergen County to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-07684-SRC-CLW to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts product liability claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Barry R. Eichen, Esq. EICHEN CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW & MCELROY, LLP 40 Ethel Road Edison, NJ 08817 Telephone: (732) 777-0100 E-mail: beichen@njadvocates.com Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is represented by: Austin A. Evans, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-4665 E-mail: aevans@kslaw.com The other Defendants are represented by: George C. Jones, Esq. James J. O'Hara, Esq. GRAHAM CURTIN, PA 4 Headquarters Plaza PO BOX 1991 Morristown, NJ 07962 Telephone: (973) 292-1700 Facsimile: (973) 292-1767 E-mail: gjones@GrahamCurtin.com johara@grahamcurtin.com DANVILLE, IL: Corrections Dept Wins Favorable Ruling in Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District affirmed a trial court ruling entered in WILLIAM EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.A. GODINEZ, KEITH ANGLIN, and LAMAR COLEMAN, Defendants- Appellees, NO. 4-13-0686. 2014 IL App (4th) 130686. In December 2012, William Evans, then an inmate at the Danville Correctional Center, pro se filed a second amended complaint under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Civil Rights Act) (42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (1996)) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (Religious Land Use Act) (42 U.S.C. Sections 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2000)) against defendants, S.A. Godinez (Director of the Department of Corrections) (DOC) Keith Anglin (former Danville Correctional Center warden), and Lamar Coleman (Danville Correctional Center chaplain). The underlying issue concerned Evans' request for prison space and time to conduct separate Nation of Islam study groups and prayer sessions on a weekly basis. Evans' suit alleged that by denying his request, defendants, acting under the color of state law, violated his (1) first-amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and to peaceably assemble and (2) fourteenth-amendment rights to equal protection and due process. Evans sought injunctive relief as well as monetary and punitive damages. In March 2013, defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment under section 2-1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Civil Procedure Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2012)), arguing that (1) an inmate's constitutional rights may be limited due to legitimate prison interests and (2) the doctrines of sovereign and qualified immunity shielded them from liability. Following an April 2013 hearing, the trial court later entered an order granting summary judgment in defendants' favor. Evans appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in defendants' favor. In its December 1, 2014 Opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/EJm2FBfrom Leagle.com, the Illinois Appellate Court disagreed with Evans and affirmed the Trial Court ruling. William Evans, of Chicago Heights, appellant pro se. Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General, and Mary C. LaBrec, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellees. ELI LILLY: 7th Cir. Upholds Judgments Entered in "Welch" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed judgments entered in CASSANDRA WELCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, NOS. 13-3455 & 13-3457. Over ten years ago, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Company fired Cassandra Welch, an African-American information technologist, after she doctored old e-mails relating to an internal investigation of her conduct. Welch insisted that racial discrimination was the real reason for her discharge, and she has been litigating that contention ever since. In 2006 she and three other employees sued Eli Lilly on behalf of themselves and a putative class, principally alleging that the company had discriminated against African-American employees in awarding pay increases and promotions. That lawsuit, brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2, relied on theories of both disparate impact and disparate treatment. On Eli Lilly's motion, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs could not proceed on their disparate-impact theory, which prompted them to abandon their attempt to certify a class. The four plaintiffs then proceeded against Eli Lilly in separate lawsuits claiming disparate treatment. Welch also filed a second lawsuit claiming that the company had retaliated for her first lawsuit by, among other actions, falsely maligning her when prospective employers inquired about her qualifications. Both lawsuits were resolved against Welch, and she filed separate appeals, which were consolidated for briefing and decision. According to the Seventh Circuit, Welch says nothing in her appellate brief about the retaliation suit, so the Court summarily affirms the judgment in that action. Neither does Welch say anything in her brief about the disparate-treatment theory on which her first lawsuit proceeded. Rather, on appeal she contends only that the district court erred in preventing her from pursuing the disparate-impact theory presented in the class-action complaint. The Seventh Circuit rejects that contention. Accordingly, in both appeals, the judgments are affirmed, ruled the Seventh Circuit. A copy of the Court's December 1, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/aI8QCj from Leagle.com. EMPIRE STATE: Provides Updates on Original Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------- Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on the so-called Original Class Actions. The Company said, "In March 2012, five putative class actions, or the "Original Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County by investors in certain of the existing entities (constituting the predecessor and the non-controlled entities) (the "existing entities") on March 1, 2012, March 7, 2012, March 12, 2012, March 14, 2012 and March 19, 2012. The plaintiffs asserted claims against our predecessor's management companies, Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the estate of Leona M. Helmsley, our operating partnership and us for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. They alleged, among other things, that the terms of the consolidation and the process by which it was structured (including the valuation that was employed) are unfair to the investors in the existing entities, the consolidation provides excessive benefits to Malkin Holdings LLC (now our subsidiary) and its affiliates and the then-draft prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation filed with the SEC failed to make adequate disclosure to permit a fully-informed decision about the consolidation. The complaints sought money damages and injunctive relief preventing the consolidation." "The Original Class Actions were consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel were appointed by the New York State Supreme Court by order dated June 26, 2012. Furthermore, an underlying premise of the Original Class Actions, as noted in discussions among plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel, was that the consolidation had been structured in such a manner that would cause investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. and 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. (the "subject LLCs") immediately to incur substantial tax liabilities. "The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated September 28, 2012, resolving the Original Class Actions. The Stipulation of Settlement recites that the consolidation was approved by overwhelming consent of the investors in the existing entities. The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel for the plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have received adequate access to relevant information, including the independent valuer's valuation process and methodology, that the disclosures in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, are appropriate, that the consolidation presents potential benefits, including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation, that merit the investors' serious consideration and that each of the named class representatives intends to support the consolidation as modified. The Stipulation of Settlement further states that counsel for the plaintiff class are satisfied that the claims regarding tax implications, enhanced disclosures, appraisals and exchange values of the properties that would be consolidated into our company, and the interests of the investors in the existing entities, have been addressed adequately, and they have concluded that the settlement pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement and opportunity to consider the proposed consolidation on the basis of revised consent solicitations are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the plaintiff class. "The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs. The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) a payment of $55.0 million, with a minimum of 80% in cash and maximum of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common stock and/or freely-tradable operating partnership units to be distributed, after reimbursement of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved expenses and payment of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved attorneys' fees (which are included within the $55.0 million settlement payment) and, in the case of shares of common stock and/or operating partnership units, after the termination of specified lock-up periods, to investors in the existing entities pursuant to a plan of allocation to be prepared by counsel for plaintiffs; (ii) defendants' agreement that (a) the Offering would be on the basis of a firm commitment underwriting; (b) if, during the solicitation period, any of the three subject LLCs' percentage of total exchange value is lower than what was stated in the final prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation by 10% or more, such decrease would be promptly disclosed by defendants to investors in the subject LLCs; and (c) unless total gross proceeds of $600.0 million are raised in the Offering, defendants will not proceed with the consolidation without further approval of the subject LLCs; and (iii) defendants' agreement to make additional disclosures in the prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation regarding certain matters (which are included therein). Investors in the existing entities will not be required to bear any portion of the settlement payment. The payment in settlement of the Original Class Actions will be made by the estate of Leona M. Helmsley and affiliates of Malkin Holdings LLC (provided that none of Malkin Holdings LLC's affiliates that would become our direct or indirect subsidiary in the consolidation will have any liability for such payment) and certain investors, in the existing entities who agree to contribute. We will not bear any of the settlement payment. "The settlement further provides for the certification of a class of investors in the existing entities, other than defendants and other related persons and entities, and a release of any claims of the members of the class against the defendants and related persons and entities, as well as underwriters and other advisors. The release in the settlement excludes certain claims, including but not limited to, claims arising from or related to any supplement to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that is declared effective to which the plaintiffs' counsel objects in writing, which objection will not be unreasonably made or delayed, so long as plaintiffs' counsel has had adequate opportunity to review such supplement. There was no such supplement that plaintiff's counsel objected to in writing. The settlement was subject to court approval. It is not effective until such court approval is final, including the resolution of any appeal. Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the allegations in the Original Class Actions. "On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, for permission to send notice of the settlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a final settlement hearing. On January 28, 2013, six of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. filed an objection to preliminary approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the Original Class Actions and for permission to file a separate complaint on behalf of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. On February 21, 2013, the court denied the cross motion of such objecting investors, and the court denied permission for such objecting investors to file a separate complaint as part of the Original Class Actions, but permitted them to file a brief solely to support their allegation that the buyout would deprive non- consenting investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. of "fair value" in violation of the New York Limited Liability Company Law. The court rejected the objecting investors' assertion that preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminary approval of the settlement. "Pursuant to a decision issued on April 30, 2013, the court rejected the allegation regarding the New York Limited Liability Company Law and ruled in Malkin Holdings LLC's favor, holding that such buyout provisions are legally binding and enforceable and that investors do not have the rights they claimed under the New York Limited Liability Company Law. "On May 2, 2013, the court held a hearing regarding final approval of the Original Class Actions settlement, at the conclusion of which the court stated that it intended to approve the settlement. On May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order. The court rejected the objections by all objectors and upheld the settlement in its entirety. Of the approximately 4,500 class members who are investors in all of the existing entities included in the consolidation, 12 opted out of the settlement. Those who opted out will not receive any share of the settlement proceeds, but can pursue separate claims for monetary damages. The settlement will not become final until resolution of any appeal. "Also on May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order on attorneys' fees. Class counsel applied for an award of $15.0 million in fees and $295,895 in expenses, which the court reduced to $11.59 million in fees and $265,282 in expenses (which are included within the $55.0 million settlement payment). "The investors who challenged the buyout provision filed a notice of appeal of the court's April 30, 2013 decision and moved before the appellate court for a stay of all proceedings relating to the settlement, including such a stay as immediate interim relief. On May 1, 2013, their request for immediate interim relief was denied. On May 13, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief in opposition to the motion for the stay. On June 18, 2013, the appellate court denied the motion for the stay. On July 16, 2013, these investors filed their brief and other supporting papers on their appeal of the April 30, 2013 decision, which are required to perfect the appeal. On September 4, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief on the appeal, and also moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that these investors lack standing to pursue it. Malkin Holdings LLC contended that these investors were not entitled to appraisal under the New York Limited Liability Company Law because, among other reasons (i) they are not members of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., and only members have such rights; (ii) the transaction in question is not a merger or consolidation as defined by statute, and appraisal only applies in those transactions; and (iii) when Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. was converted into a limited liability company, the parties agreed that no appraisal would apply. Moreover, Malkin Holdings LLC contended that only the 12 investors who opted out of the class action settlement could pursue appraisal, because that settlement contains a broad release of (and there is an associated bar order from the court preventing) any such claims. Malkin Holdings LLC further noted that of the six investors attempting to pursue the appeal, only two had in fact opted out of the class action settlement. "On September 13, 2013, these investors filed their reply brief on the appeal, and opposed the motion to dismiss. On September 19, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its reply brief on the motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2013, the appeals court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to address the matter directly on the appeal, effectively referring the issues raised in the motion to the panel that will hear the appeal itself. The appeals court heard argument on November 21, 2013, and in a Decision and Order dated February 25, 2014, it affirmed the trial court's ruling. "In addition, on June 20, 2013, these same investors, and one additional investor who also opposed the settlement of the Original Class Action, filed additional notices of appeal from the trial court's rulings in the Original Class Actions. These notices of appeal related to (i) the order entered February 22, 2013 granting preliminary approval of the Original Class Action settlement and setting a hearing for final approval; (ii) the order entered February 26, 2013, refusing to sign a proposed order to show cause for a preliminary injunction regarding the consolidation; (iii) an order entered April 2, 2013, denying the motion to intervene and to file a separate class action on behalf of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. investors; (iv) the order entered April 10, 2013, refusing to sign the order to show cause seeking to extend the deadline for class members to opt out of the Original Class Action settlement; (v) the Final Judgment and Order entered May 17, 2013; (vi) the order entered May 17, 2013 approving the Original Class Action settlement; and (vii) the order entered May 17, 2013 awarding class counsel attorneys' fees and costs. On January 6, 2014, Class counsel moved to dismiss these additional appeals on the grounds that they were not timely perfected by filing an appellate brief and record. On February 6, 2014, the appeals court granted the motion unless the appeals are perfected by March 17, 2014. "On March 27, 2014, the investors who challenged the buyout provision moved in the appellate court for reargument or in the alternative for leave to appeal the appeals court's ruling to the New York Court of Appeals. Opposition to the motion was filed on April 7, 2014. The appellate court denied the motion on May 22, 2014. The investors moved in the New York Court of Appeals for leave to appeal on June 26, 2014. Opposition to this motion was filed on July 11, 2014 and the court dismissed the motion by order dated September 18, 2014. On October 20, 2014, the investors moved to re-argue that dismissal. "On March 14, 2014, one of the investors who had filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's rulings in the Original Class Actions noted above perfected an appeal from the court's May 17, 2013 Final Judgment and Order and orders approving the Original Class Action Settlement and awarding class counsel attorneys' fees and costs. By stipulation of all counsel to the appeal dated September 12, 2014, the appeal was dismissed with prejudice. No other appeals were filed by the March 17, 2014 deadline set by the appeals court in its February 6, 2014 order. EMPIRE STATE: Plaintiffs in 2nd Class Actions Appeal Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in the Second Class Actions filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal. The Company said, "Commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the "Second Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched. One of the Second Class Actions named us and our operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions were consolidated on consent and co-lead class counsel was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or our operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages." On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2014. EMPIRE STATE: 12 Opt-Out Investors Seek Arbitration --------------------------------------------------- Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on or about October 14, 2014, the 12 investors (out of approximately 4,500 investors covered by the Original Class Action) who opted out of the Original Class Action filed an arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin, Thomas N. Keltner, Jr., and Malkin Holdings LLC, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and related claims in connection with the consolidation. The statement of claim in that arbitration seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief. The arbitration is in its very early stages, and, as with the prior claims challenging the consolidation and related matters, the defendants believe these allegations are entirely without merit and they intend to defend vigorously. ESTES EXPRESS: Removes "Poleon" Suit to Florida District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Poleon v. Estes Express Lines, et al., Case No. 2014-CA11566-O, was removed from the Orange County Court to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-02034-PGB-TBS to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Bolanovich, Esq. BOGIN, MUNNS & MUNNS, PA 2601 Technology Drive P.O. Box 2807 Orlando, FL 32802-2807 Telephone: (407) 578-1334 Facsimile: (407) 578-2181 E-mail: jbolanovich@boginmunns.com The Defendants are represented by: Cathy J. Beveridge, Esq. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC/Fowler White Boggs 501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 228-7411 Facsimile: (813) 229-8313 E-mail: cbeveridge@fowlerwhite.com FANDUEL INC: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ David O. Klein -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on November 20, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against FanDuel, Inc. alleging false advertising. The claim concerns FanDuel's advertised "free" "dollar for dollar" fantasy sports bonus promotion. The advertised bonus promises that FanDuel will match up to $200 "dollar for dollar" for any deposit left by a consumer. However, according to the complaint, FanDuel's advertising is deceptively inaccurate. Allegations of False Advertising by FanDuel To set up a FanDuel account, consumers are required to deposit money which can be used for entry fees into FanDuel's various daily fantasy sports games. According to the complaint, FanDuel advertises (via radio, television and the Internet) that it will "double your deposit" and "match up to 200 bucks, dollar for dollar." However, the named plaintiff alleges that consumers can only realize the $200 in matching funds by investing "over 2500% [of] the initial deposit." According to the complaint, the plaintiff opened his FanDuel account with a $25 deposit. When the plaintiff spent the entirety of the deposit, FanDuel only released $1.00 of the allegedly advertised bonus. The complaint alleges that for the plaintiff to receive FanDuel's advertised "dollar for dollar" fantasy sports match bonus, he would have had to spend a total of $625.00. Florida False Advertising Law and the Fantasy Sports Bonus Promotion The class action complaint filed against FanDuel alleges violations of Florida statutory and common law. Specifically, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") prohibits any person or business from advertising free goods or services that actually require payment to receive the subject goods or services. According to the complaint, FanDuel's services are "free" under the FDUTPA because FanDuel "offer[s] to match initial deposits, 'dollar for dollar.'" The plaintiff alleges that FanDuel's advertisement violates the FDUTPA and that its associated matching practices also constitute a breach of contract. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of "[a]ll Florida Citizens who purchased FanDuel, using a Promotion Code." Next Steps It is likely that FanDuel will move to dismiss the complaint by arguing that its services are not "free" under the FDUTPA. Should FanDuel be unable to dismiss the complaint, it will be subject to discovery, class-action certification, and ultimately a trial on the merits. In addition, although not raised in the complaint, FanDuel's alleged deceptive advertising may run afoul of the federal Truth in Advertising Act. FLUVANNA, VA: Correction Center Settles Female Inmates' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Dani Kass, writing for The Daily Progress, reports that less than a week before trial was set to begin, the Fluvanna Correction Center for Women settled a lawsuit that claimed it doesn't provide adequate medical care for inmates. The inmates alleged that their Eighth Amendment right protecting them against cruel and unusual punishment was violated, according to court documents. Five inmates filed the lawsuit in July 2012, detailing being regularly given the wrong doses of medication; having to stand in a "pill line" for more than an hour in rain, snow and excessive heat and cold at 3 to 4 a.m. to get medication; and not having requests for medical attention taken seriously, among other complaints, according to court documents. Attorneys submitted the notice of settlement on Nov. 25 to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The two-week bench trial was scheduled to begin on Dec. 1. "The Department of Corrections, as with most defendants, does not concede that they were at fault," said Mary Bauer, executive director of the Legal Aid Justice Center, who is representing the inmates. "However, you can read into the settlement that significant changes need to be made." Among those the lawsuit was filed against were Harold W. Clarke, director of the state Department of Corrections; A. David Robinson, chief of corrections operations at the department; Frederick Schilling, director of health services at the department; Phyllis A. Baskerville, the prison's warden; and Armor Correctional Health Services, a for-profit company contracted to provide all medical, dental and mental health services at the prison. On Nov. 20, U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon certified the case as a class-action lawsuit, listing all 1,200 inmates who currently reside in the prison and all women who may reside there in the future, who have or will seek medical care, as plaintiffs. The prison holds 40 percent of the state's female inmates, according to the lawsuit. "The case concerns allegations of a common course of conduct by Defendants reflecting deliberate indifference to the prisoners' serious medical needs," Judge Moon wrote in a memorandum opinion. "As a result, the principal factual and legal questions are common to the entire class, and the injuries that the named Plaintiffs claim to have suffered are typical of those suffered by the other women in the class." Then on Nov. 25 -- before the settlement was announced -- Judge Moon granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment - - where the judge decides part of the case without a trial -- finding the prison had the constitutional duty to provide adequate medical care to inmates and that the inmates' complaints are "serious medical conditions" where the prison showed "deliberate indifference." Judge Moon then denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. "The examples of alleged sub-standard care set forth in Plaintiffs' pleadings -- which are now supported by sworn declarations, deposition testimony and other competent record evidence -- are offered as corroboration for Plaintiffs' assertion that the VDOC has engaged in an ongoing and practice of wrongful, unconstitutional acts and omissions reflecting deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of the prisoners residing at FCCW," he wrote in the nearly 50-page opinion. Assistant Attorney General J. Michael Parsons, who is representing the prison, did not respond to requests for comment on Nov. 28. Larry Traylor, spokesman for the Virginia Department of Corrections, said the department doesn't comment on pending litigation. The prison will now have to bring in a court-appointed monitor, possibly for several years, to report to both parties how better medical care is being implemented and inform the court if there are problems, Ms. Bauer said. The attorneys representing the inmates and the prison have signed an agreement to each choose an expert who will meet, go over the prison's practices and determine what, if any, changes need to be made, Ms. Bauer said. The Legal Aid Justice Center appointed Bob B. Greifinger as its expert. Mr. Greifinger is an adjunct professor of health and criminal justice and distinguished research fellow at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City who has published extensively on correctional health care. The Office of the Attorney General couldn't be reached to see if it has chosen anyone yet. Ms. Bauer said she didn't know who their choice will be. The framework of the settlement is in place, Ms. Bauer said, but they still have to file a full settlement with the court and have a fairness hearing. Because it's a class-action lawsuit, the terms of the settlement will be public, she said. The women did not request any money in the lawsuit. "It was never about money for any of the women involved," Ms. Bauer said. "They were all concerned about their health and the health of all the women who are there now and will be there in the future." Ms. Bauer said they were ready for trial, but she's happy action will be taken soon. "The problem with any trial or court process is it takes a long time," she said. "We were happy about settlement because it means reforms we were pushing for can go into effect a lot more quickly. Among the complaints in the lawsuit was a woman who after having difficulty breathing and losing more than 40 pounds, was told she had early stages of menopause by Armor's doctor. Almost a year after her initial complaints, she was brought to a hospital, where oncologists determined she had sarcoidosis -- a collection of nodules within the chest that can cause respiratory failure and death -- according to the lawsuit. The same woman then experienced swelling in her legs. The prison's medical director told her and Armor's doctor that the swelling was from arthritis or birth control pills. It was later revealed to be a blood clot. After both incidents, she was not given the prescribed amount of medication by prison medical staff. Ms. Bauer said the five women who filed the lawsuit played a part in the decision to forego the trial and settle the case. "They are deeply concerned about their health care and the other women there, so for them it was really important to get change as comprehensively and as quickly as possible," she said. FRESNO BEE: Trial Scheduled for Newspaper Carriers' Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Fresno Bee reports that a trial was expected to begin on Dec. 1 in a class-action lawsuit by newspaper carriers against The Fresno Bee alleging that they were wrongfully classified as independent contractors rather than Bee employees. The suit, originally filed in 2008, is the latest in a string of lawsuits brought by a Santa Ana law firm, Callahan & Blaine, on behalf of carriers against newspapers throughout California, including The Bee's sister publication, The Sacramento Bee. While the complaint lists six carriers as plaintiffs in the case, their attorney Kathleen Dunham said that approximately 3,800 carriers are counted in the class represented in the lawsuit. The case covers carriers who delivered The Fresno Bee under contracts from December 2004 through mid-2009, Dunham said. There will be two distinct phases of the case: Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Culver-Kapetan is being asked to first determine whether the contracts carriers signed with The Bee to deliver the newspaper and other publications to homes and businesses on their routes are legally sufficient for them to be considered independent contractors instead of employees. If she rules in favor of the carriers and finds that they should be considered employees -- and thus entitled to benefits including automobile mileage reimbursements -- a second trial phase would determine the amount of mileage and expenses not included by the contracts. "The major issue is whether these carriers are employees or not," Dunham said. "If they are contractors, then they would receive none of the damages we claim they are entitled to. That's the principal hurdle we have to get over." An amended version of the lawsuit filed in 2010 alleged state Labor Code violations including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal periods, unlawful deductions from wages and failure to pay for training, as well as unfair business practices under the state's Business & Professions Code. All of those except the Business & Professions Code claims have since been dismissed, according to court documents filed by Sacramento attorney John Poulos, who represents The Bee. Mr. Poulos said in court documents that the independent-contractor agreements between the newspaper and the carriers "were drafted in accordance with regulations specifically enacted . . . to govern the working relationship between newspaper carriers and newspapers." The Bee, he added, "relied upon these regulations not only in contracting with the carriers but also in structuring its practices and business dealings with them." The contracts, Mr. Poulos wrote, provide "an absolute safe harbor defense" against the carriers' legal claims. The Bee contends in court documents that its agreements with carriers represented a "contractual promise to allow the carriers to determine the manner and means of completing the work they contracted to perform: to provide a dry, undamaged paper to each of their subscribers on time each day." But attorneys for the carriers assert in their pretrial brief that the "classification of the carriers as independent contractors was simply a subterfuge" because of the level of "pervasive control" and supervision that they say The Bee exercised over their work. Under prior case law, the carriers' attorneys stated, "they are employees, and should have received the protections provided by California law." Attorneys for The Bee, in their pretrial brief, counter that under the independent contractor agreements, the carriers "had the legal right to control the manner and means of their delivery business, including deciding how best to deliver their own routes to maximize profits," as well as to use helpers or substitutes without The Bee's approval; and to deliver other products including competing newspapers while delivering for The Bee. "The Bee contracted with, and interacted with, each plaintiff in strict accordance with California's Code of Regulations, which specifically make lawful the Bee's conduct," Mr. Poulos wrote, adding, that at all times, "The Bee relied upon the rules codified in the California Code of Regulations in structuring its relationship with its independent newspaper carriers." The contracts obligated carriers to assemble and deliver newspapers to readers by a certain time and in good condition, in exchange for compensation for each paper delivered. Bee attorneys added that contrary to the allegations in the lawsuit, "the contracts were negotiable and some carriers, in fact, negotiated the piece rate, the bond provision, the complaint charge provision and the delivery time." Through negotiation of piece rates or route allowances between The Bee and its contracted carriers, the company's attorneys wrote, carriers had the opportunity to receive "significant consideration for anticipated expenses, including the fuel costs anticipated to be incurred for the many and different routes." In court records, The Bee's attorneys said the company provide route allowances amounting to about $7 million to carriers. The law firm representing the newspaper carriers has already had a string of successes in similar complaints against other publishers in California. A lawsuit against the Orange County Register ended in 2008 with a $38 million settlement for compensation and attorney fees. A 2009 suit filed against the owners of the San Diego Union Tribune resulted in a judgment last year for a combined $10 million in damages and attorney fees, but that case is pending an appeal. And in September, a Sacramento County Superior Court judge granted employee status to about 5,000 Sacramento Bee carriers in a class-action lawsuit; a future stage will determine the amount of compensation and attorney fees due to the carriers. Earlier this year, in a 2008 lawsuit against Antelope Valley Newspapers, the California Supreme Court ruled that carriers could indeed be certified as a class for the purposes of a class-action lawsuit, reversing a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge's decision. GC SERVICES: Judge Uses Foti Decision in FDCPA Ruling ----------------------------------------------------- Patrick Lunsford, writing for InsideARM.com, reports that after a string of debt industry victories claiming violations of the FDCPA in voice messages, a collection agency in South Carolina, was handed a defeat by a federal judge for failing to properly identify itself in a voicemail. The judge used the Foti decision in her opinion on the case. In Chatman v. GC Services, the consumer plaintiff alleged that the debt collection agency violated sections 1692d(6) and 1692e(11) of the FDCPA by not disclosing that two communications were from a debt collector and for the purposes of debt collection. The plaintiff is also trying to get class action certification for the suit. In May 2013, Chatman received two voicemails on her cell phone from debt collectors working for GC Services. The two messages, while from different collectors, were remarkably similar in content: "This message is intended for Kim Chatman. My name is Olivia [last name inaudible]. It is important for you to return my call. My number is 866-862-2789." Chatman's main complaint is that she did not know who the messages were from, therefore she was not compelled to return the calls. GC Services argued that the voicemails were not communications under the FDCPA since they did not convey any information about the debt. Furthermore, the company said that the calls were for location purposes. The ARM firm offered as one precedent Zortman v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, a case that was successfully defended that saw similar language used in a voicemail. But District Judge Cameron Currie noted that the Zortman case was one of third party disclosure, since the consumers' children heard the voicemail in question. Instead, Currie relied more on Foti, writing, "This court declines to follow the minority line of cases relied on by GC and, instead, adopts the majority view, which construes the FDCPA's definition of 'communication' to encompass voicemail messages left for the consumer-debtor, even if nothing in those messages refers to a debt." Most pointedly, Currie cited a Foti-dependent Circuit Court opinion when discussing the potential for a Catch-22 in leaving voicemails for debtors. The Circuit panel in Edwards v. Niagara Credit Solutions wrote plainly that the FDCPA "does not guarantee a debt collector the right to leave answering machine messages." Judge Currie granted Chatman's motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, including the possibility of the case being certified as a class action. Briefs on that matter are due in early 2015. The Chatman decision came only a couple of weeks after a very different ruling in a very similar case. In Hagler v. Credit World Services, a district judge in Kansas ruled that a nearly identical voicemail left on a consumer's phone did not violate the FDCPA. Importantly, that case involved only one message, where Chatman involved at least two. Still, the language used in the messages were extremely similar and the judge in the Hagler case specifically ruled that the message was not a communication under the FDCPA. GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Sued Over Winter Price Increases --------------------------------------------------------- Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that IDT Energy has been sued in separate putative class action suits in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, partially related to the price increases during the winter of 2014. IDT Energy does not believe that it was at fault or acted in any way improperly with respect to the events of winter 2014. "However, we cannot predict the outcome of the regulatory or putative class action litigation or the impact on us of these or other actions, or whether there will be other impacts from the conditions that existed in winter 2014. Further, although we have taken action to insulate us and our customers from future similar events, we cannot assure that those actions will be effective," Genie Energy said. Genie owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy International Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie Retail Energy and 92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. ("GOGAS"). Genie Retail Energy owns 100% of IDT Energy. ICC/MARIE CALLENDER: Order to Show Cause in Musgrave Case Vacated ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 1, 2014, vacated an order to show cause why the complaint captioned EDWARD MUSGRAVE, Plaintiff, v. ICC/MARIE CALLENDER'S GOURMET PRODUCTS DIVISION, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02006-JST, (N.D. Cal.) should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On November 3, 2014, the Court issued the Order to Show Cause. The Court noted that notwithstanding Plaintiff's invocation of 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1332, he does not bring any federal cause of action or allege either that the parties are diverse in citizenship or that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. Mindful of the federal courts' "continuing independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists," this Court issued the Order to Show Cause and required Plaintiff Musgrave to file a response within fourteen days. Mr. Musgrave filed his response on November 17, 2014. In this response, Mr. Musgrave no longer asserts that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. He further acknowledges that he initially pled diversity jurisdiction based on the fact that he is a citizen of California and ConAgra Foods RDM, Inc. is a citizen of Nebraska, and that ConAgra has since been dismissed from the case. Nevertheless, he asserts that the Court has jurisdiction in this case under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), because (1) the aggregate amount of all class members' claims exceeds $5,000,000; (2) the national class of persons who purchased Defendant's products comprises more than 100 members; and (3) there is minimal diversity because, although Marie Callender's is based in California, the complaint proposes both a California and a national class. "[I]t appears that Musgrave has established that this Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the CAFA," ruled Judge Tigar. Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause is vacated. Defendant may re- notice the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion to Strike for hearing. The Court will decide the Motion on the currently filed papers, Judge Tigar wrote in his ruling, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/7GCHxnfrom Leagle.com. Edward Musgrave, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Ann DeSario, Scott Cole & Associates, APC, Matthew R. Bainer, Scott Cole & Associates, APC & Matthew Roland Bainer, Scott Cole & Associates, APC. ICC/Marie Callender's Gourmet Products Division, Defendant, represented by Richard Martin Williams -- rwilliams@grayduffylaw.com -- Gray Duffy, LLP & Nathan Blackthorne Lee -- nlee@grayduffylaw.com -- Gray & Duffy, LLP. ILLINOIS: ISHAA Faces Concussion Class Action --------------------------------------------- Dennis Dodd, writing for CBSSpotrs.com reports that what is being described as a first-ever, football-specific class-action concussion lawsuit on the high-school level has been filed against the Illinois State High Athletics Association. The suit was filed on Nov. 29 by Chicago attorney Joe Siprut, one of the lead attorneys in the class-action suit that successfully challenged NCAA concussion protocols. Like the so-called Adrian Arrington lawsuit led by Mr. Siprut, the high school complaint seeks changes in additions to return-to-play guidelines and a medical monitoring fund. The suit was intentionally filed in state court on Nov. 29, the same day as the Illinois high school state championship games. The class sought by the lawsuit includes every high school player in the Illinois state association from 2002 to the present. The only lead plaintiff in the class at the moment is Daniel Bukal, 29, who played at Notre Dame Prep in Niles, Ill. from 1999-2003. The lawsuit states Mr. Bukal suffered concussions in high school but there were no existing return-to-play guidelines or concussion protocols from the ISHAA. "The criteria for returning Mr. Bukal to the playing field was not consistent," the suit states. Mr. Siprut intends to file similar suits on a state-by-state basis. The National Federation of State High School Associations is not a logical target, he said, because it does not have the same overarching power as the NCAA. The Arrington lawsuit resulted in a proposed settlement that was reached with the NCAA in late July. The association agreed to set aside $70 million for a medical monitoring fund. The money would cover only diagnosis, not treatment. The structure of the settlement is still in the courts. "It's very similar [to Arrington]," Mr. Siprut said of the ISHAA suit. "I would characterize it as a high school equivalent. I say that it is essentially seeking the same thing that the Arrington suit and is now getting through the settlement. "I actually think that the high school issue is more important," Mr. Siprut said. "On some level, the issue is even more alarming at the high school level. Medically, it's established now that concussive impact to an adolescent brain is even more harmful at a young age." The suit only deals with football players. No financial terms are set forth in the complaint. IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Settlement Warrants Distributed in October ------------------------------------------------------------- Imperial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that final approval of the settlement to the class action designated Fuller v. Imperial Holdings et al. was granted on December 16, 2013, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The terms of the class action settlement included a cash payment of $12.0 million, with $11.0 million contributed by the Company's primary and excess director and officer liability insurance carriers, with such amounts paid during the nine months ended September 30, 2014. The terms of the settlement also include the issuance of warrants to purchase two million shares of the Company's stock. The warrants, which were issued into an escrow account in April 2014 and distributed in October 2014 have a five- year term from the date of their distribution and have an exercise price of $10.75. Founded in December 2006 as a Florida limited liability company, Imperial Holdings, LLC, converted into Imperial Holdings, Inc. (with its subsidiaries, the "Company" or "Imperial") on February 3, 2011, in connection with the Company's initial public offering. Incorporated in Florida, Imperial owns a portfolio of 595 life insurance policies, also referred to as life settlements, with a fair value of $350.4 million and an aggregate death benefit of approximately $2.9 billion at September 30, 2014. The Company primarily earns income on these policies from changes in their fair value and through death benefits. 452 of these policies, with an aggregate death benefit of approximately $2.3 billion, are pledged under a 15-year revolving credit agreement (the "Revolving Credit Facility") entered into by the Company's indirect subsidiary, White Eagle Asset Portfolio, LP ("White Eagle"). IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Posts $9.1MM Legal Costs for 9 Months -------------------------------------------------------- Imperial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that legal expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 were $9.1 million compared to $11.3 million for 2013. Of the legal expense, approximately $3.2 million is mainly associated with the USAO Investigation for 2014, compared to $4.6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2013. Legal expense also includes approximately $2.5 million associated with the warrants for the class action litigation for the nine months ended September 30, 2013. Founded in December 2006 as a Florida limited liability company, Imperial Holdings, LLC, converted into Imperial Holdings, Inc. (with its subsidiaries, the "Company" or "Imperial") on February 3, 2011, in connection with the Company's initial public offering. Incorporated in Florida, Imperial owns a portfolio of 595 life insurance policies, also referred to as life settlements, with a fair value of $350.4 million and an aggregate death benefit of approximately $2.9 billion at September 30, 2014. The Company primarily earns income on these policies from changes in their fair value and through death benefits. 452 of these policies, with an aggregate death benefit of approximately $2.3 billion, are pledged under a 15-year revolving credit agreement (the "Revolving Credit Facility") entered into by the Company's indirect subsidiary, White Eagle Asset Portfolio, LP ("White Eagle"). HARBORTOUCH: February 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- LEGAL NOTICE TO MERCHANTS WITH HARBORTOUCH CREDIT CARD PROCESSING SERVICE If you are a merchant that signed up for Harbortouch credit card processing services between Feb. 2009 and Oct. 2012, you may be entitled to a credit or payment from a class action settlement. A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit about fees Harbortouch charged merchants that signed up during this time. The New Jersey Superior Court authorized this notice and will hold a hearing on Feb. 20, 2015 to decide whether to approve the settlement. WHO IS INCLUDED? You are a class member and could get benefits if you are a merchant that signed up between Feb. 1, 2009 and Oct. 31, 2012 and paid Harbortouch an Annual Fee (but did not get a free terminal), UBC Gateway Fee, IMS Reporting Fee, IRS Processing Validation Fee, or PCI Annual Fee on your monthly statement. WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT? The lawsuit claims Harbortouch charged fees that its contracts with merchants did not authorize. Harbortouch says its contracts with merchants permitted it charge these fees and denies it did anything wrong. The Court did not decide which side is right, but both sides agreed to resolve the case and get benefits to merchants. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Current Harbortouch merchants that are class members and send in valid claim forms can get $200 credits, on average, for fees paid Nov. 2011 or later (or $120 credits, on average, for fees paid between Feb. 2009 and Oct. 2011) toward the purchase of 12 Harbortouch products and services including: new terminals that comply with EMV (Europay, Mastercard, and Visa) security standards for secure payments coming in Oct. 2015, read cards with embedded chips, and accept mobile payments; gift cards; printers; pinpads; scales; cash drawers and tills; and electronic cash registers. Former Harbortouch merchants that are class members and send in valid claim forms can also get $200 or $120 credits, on average, toward purchase of the 12 products and services to use with their current credit card processors or checks for $60 (if they paid one of the fees in Nov. 2011 or later) or $40(if they paid the fees only from Feb. 2009 to Oct. 2011), on average, instead. HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A PAYMENT? If the Court approves the settlement, a claim form will be sent to all class members with addresses in Harbortouch's records two or three months after Feb. 20, 2015 (or later if there is an appeal). It will contain everything you need. If Harbortouch has your address, you should have received a detailed notice about the settlement in the U.S. mail, by e-mail, or both by the end of November 2014. If you didn't get that notice, call the settlement administrator at 1-877-317-4198, as for it, and ask to be put on the mailing list for the claim form. WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS? If you don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude by yourself by Jan. 23, 2015 or you won't be able to sue, or continue to sue, Harbortouch about the legal claims in this case. If you exclude yourself, you can't get benefits from this settlement. If you stay in the settlement you will give up your rights to sue Harbortouch and First National Bank of Omaha for all claims you may have about dues, assessments, discounts, fees, or charges of any kind paid in Feb. 2009 or later. If you stay in the settlement, you may object to it by Jan. 23, 2015. The detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object. The Court will hold a hearing in this case, Roma Pizzeria v. Harbortouch, Case No. HNT-L-637-12, on Feb. 20, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2 of the Somerset County Courthouse, 20 N. Bridge St., Somerville, NJ 08876 to consider whether to approve the settlement and a request by the layers representing all class members (LiteDePalma Greenberg, LLC of Newark, NJ and Chimicles & Tikellis LLP of Haverford, PA) for $940,000 in attorneys' fees and costs for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement, and $2,000 for Plaintiff Roma Pizzeria for pursuing the case. The fees and costs won't reduce class members' benefits. You may ask to appear at the hearing but you don't have to. HOW CAN YOU GET MORE INFORMATION? Call toll free 1-877-317-4198 or write to Merchant Settlement c/o Angeion Group, 1801 Market Street, Suite 660 Philadelphia, PA 19103 HOME DEPOT: "Riveron" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Riveron, et al. v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-81175, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-03943-TWT to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT. The litigation arose from the security breach in Home Depot's data network in late April or early May 2014. The data network contained the personal financial information of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of consumers. The data breach was first reported on September 2, 2014, by a computer security blogger. The Defendant is represented by: Alfred J. Saikali, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-5171 E-mail: asaikali@shb.com HSBC BANK: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Madoffs Fraud --------------------------------------------------------- Stephen and Leyla Hill and Paul Shapiro v. HSBC Bank, PLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-09745 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants knowingly participated in Madoffs and/or Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS") fraud, serving as the sponsor and outward custodian, manager, and administrator of the Feeder Funds, thereby providing the funds with an appearance of legitimacy, increasing their level of investment as a result of marketing with the HSBC brand, and providing the infrastructure for more than a billion dollars in investments into BLMIS, agreed to serve as a mere facade for the Feeder Funds, and agreed to and implemented irregular procedures that were tailored to accommodate Madoffs suspicious methods. HSBC Bank, PLC is a banking institution incorporated under the laws of England and Wales with a principal place of business at 8Canada Square, London El4 SHQ, United Kingdom. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason A. Zweig, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Telephone: (212) 856-7227 Facsimile: (917)210-3980 E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510)725-3000 Facsimile: (510)725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com HURONIA REGIONAL: Deadline to File Settlement Claims Passes ----------------------------------------------------------- Paola Loriggio, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that former residents of three Ontario institutions for the developmentally disabled had until Nov. 30 to file claims for compensation under the settlements reached last year in two separate class-action suits. The residents, many of whom are now elderly, alleged they were abused and neglected while living at the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia, the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls and the Southwestern Regional Centre near Chatham. All three institutions shut down between 2008 and 2009. A $35-million settlement in the Huronia case was reached in September 2013 and approved by the court in December of that year; a $32.7-million settlement in the Rideau and Southwestern suit was reached that same month and approved in February. The Huronia settlement led Premier Kathleen Wynne to apologize in the Ontario legislature for the suffering residents experienced there. The agreements have also forced the province to release more than 65,000 documents about operations at all three institutions. "These cases concern abuse that happened decades ago when many of the former residents were children and young adults," said Kirk Baert, who represents the plaintiffs. "I am happy that we are approaching a final resolution of these cases and that the former residents will be able to receive what is long overdue compensation." Former residents have been able to request records of their stay as they prepared to apply for compensation. While the records aren't required to file a claim, the agreement said more money would be awarded to those who provided more detailed accounts of what they endured. So far, more than one million pages of resident records have been released, lawyers said. The claim deadline for Huronia was initially set for August, but was pushed back after some residents said they were facing delays in obtaining their files. Lawyers said earlier this month that the backlog had been dealt with. They couldn't say how many claims had been filed because many were expected to come in over the weekend. The lawsuits alleged many suffered physical and sexual abuse at the overcrowded and understaffed prisonlike institutions. KCG HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Awaits Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- KCG Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint related to the August 1, 2012 Technology Issue is before the court for decision. On October 26, 2012, Knight, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Thomas M. Joyce, and its Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Steven Bisgay, were named as defendants in an action entitled Fernandez v. Knight Capital Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:12-cv-06760. Generally, this putative class action complaint alleged that the defendants made material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related to the events of August 1, 2012. The plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that he and a purported class of Knight's stockholders who purchased Knight's Class A Common Stock between January 19, 2012 and August 1, 2012 paid an inflated price. Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 14, 2013, alleging generally that the defendants made material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related to the events of August 1, 2012. The plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that it and a purported class of Knight's stockholders who purchased Knight's securities between November 30, 2011 and August 1, 2012 paid an inflated price. On May 13, 2013, Knight filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was fully briefed as of August 2013. Before the court rendered a decision on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on December 20, 2013, alleging generally that the defendants made material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related to the events of August 1, 2012. More specifically, the plaintiff referred to KCA's October 2013 settlement with the SEC and alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements concerning Knight's risk management procedures and protocols, available cash and liquidity, Value at Risk and internal controls over financial reporting. The plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that it and a purported class of Knight's stockholders who purchased Knight's securities between May 10, 2011 and August 1, 2012 paid an inflated price. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on February 18, 2014. The motion was fully briefed as of June 5, 2014, and is before the court for decision. KCG HOLDINGS: NY Plaintiff Files Stipulation of Discontinuance -------------------------------------------------------------- KCG Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiff in the New York shareholder action filed a Stipulation of Discontinuance with Prejudice, and the plaintiffs in the New Jersey shareholder actions filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice in the New Jersey Court. On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Ann Jimenez McMillan v. Thomas M. Joyce, et al., Case No. 8163-VCP. The complaint names as defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the Individual Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite material conflicts of interest, and agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight. The complaint also alleges that Knight, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Chrislaine Dominique v. Thomas M. Joyce, et al., Case No. 8159-VCP. The complaint names as defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the Individual Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite material conflicts of interest, including that they were appointed by an investor group that included GETCO, and agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices, which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight. The complaint also alleges that Knight and GETCO aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 31, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated for all purposes the McMillan and Dominique actions into a single action captioned In re Knight Capital Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8159-VCP. On March 5, 2013, the co-lead plaintiffs in the Delaware Consolidated Action filed an amended complaint and motions for expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction. In addition to the allegations in the initial complaints, the Delaware amended complaint contains allegations that the Knight Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties by providing stockholders with allegedly deficient disclosures about the proposed transaction in the Company's Preliminary Form S-4, filed with the SEC on February 13, 2013 (the "Preliminary Proxy"). On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned Charles Bryan v. Knight Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-001-13. The complaint names as defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings LLC, Stifel Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC, GETCO Holding Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger price, agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight and approving the transaction despite material conflicts of interest, including that they were appointed by an investor group that included GETCO. The complaint further alleges that the entity defendants (except for Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged fiduciary duties in connection with the Individual Defendants' approval of the Mergers. The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned James Ward v. Knight Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-0003-13. The complaint names as defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings LLC, Stifel Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC, GETCO Holding Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger price, agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight and approving the transaction despite material conflicts of interest, including that they were appointed by an investor group that included GETCO. The complaint further alleges that the entity defendants (except for Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged fiduciary duties in connection with the Individual Defendants' approval of the Mergers. The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 20, 2013, Knight moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the New Jersey actions in deference to the first-filed Delaware actions. The New Jersey court granted the motion on March 28, 2013, and ordered that the New Jersey actions be stayed for all purposes in deference to the first-filed Delaware actions. On January 15, 2013, Knight, the Individual Defendants, GETCO, GA- GTCO, LLC and General Atlantic were named as defendants in an action entitled Joel Rosenfeld v. Thomas M. Joyce, et al., Case No. 6540147/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (New York County). The plaintiff, Joel Rosenfeld, is one of the stockholders mentioned above who previously sent Knight a derivative demand letter. Generally, this complaint asserts both derivative and class action claims. First, it purports to assert derivative claims, which allege, among other things, that the seven Knight directors who were serving as of August 1, 2012 breached their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets by failing to erect and oversee effective safeguards to prevent against technology issues, such as the one that occurred on August 1, 2012, for which Knight incurred a realized pre-tax loss of approximately $457.6 million. Second, it asserts putative class action claims resulting from the proposed Mergers for (1) breach of fiduciary duty against the Individual Defendants; and (2) aiding and abetting the purported breach of fiduciary duty against GETCO, GA-GTCO, LLC, and General Atlantic. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Mergers at an inadequate price, agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight, and that certain of Knight's directors have conflicts of interest in connection with the transaction, including that certain directors sought to enter into the transaction to avoid potential liability relating to the derivative claims asserted in the complaint. With respect to the merger claims, the plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the proposed Mergers, rescission of the proposed Mergers (to the extent they have already been consummated) and attorneys' fees. With respect to the derivative claims, the plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order requiring the Knight directors who were serving as of August 1, 2012 to pay restitution and/or compensatory damages in favor of Knight and/or the proposed class of Knight stockholders. On March 14, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which, in addition to the allegations in the initial complaint, contains allegations that the Knight Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties by providing stockholders with allegedly deficient disclosures about the proposed transaction in the Preliminary Proxy. On March 21, 2013, the plaintiff moved by order to show cause for expedited discovery in support of his claims. The New York court issued an order on March 25, 2013, setting a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for April 4, 2013. On March 28, 2013, the parties in the New York action reached an agreement with respect to the matters raised in the plaintiff's motion and other aspects of the action, and as a result, on March 29, 2013, the plaintiff withdrew his motion for expedited discovery. On April 9, 2013, the New York court granted permission for the plaintiff to withdraw his motion. On June 10, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware shareholder actions and New York shareholder action regarding the settlement of those actions. In connection with the settlement, Knight and GETCO agreed to make supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 28, 2013 (the "Proxy Statement"). In addition, Knight and GETCO agreed to make certain revisions to Knight's risk committee charter, as well as to KCG's risk committee charter. The memorandum of understanding contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Knight's former stockholders. It also contemplated that in the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing would be scheduled at which the Delaware Court of Chancery would consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it would resolve and release all claims that were brought or could have been brought in the Delaware, New York, and New Jersey shareholder actions, including claims challenging any aspect of the Mergers, the Merger Agreement, or any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to Knight's former stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplated that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Delaware Court of Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by KCG. On June 5, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release (the "Stipulation"). As contemplated in the memorandum of understanding, the Stipulation provides, among other things, that in exchange for the supplemental disclosures and changes to Knight's and KCG's risk committee charters discussed above, and upon final approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Delaware and New York stockholder plaintiffs, and a class of former Knight stockholders that includes such plaintiffs, will finally and fully resolve and release all claims that were brought or could have been brought in the Delaware, New York, and New Jersey shareholder actions, including claims challenging any aspect of the Mergers, the Merger Agreement, or any disclosure made in connection therewith. The Stipulation further provides that counsel for the Delaware and New York shareholder plaintiffs will seek, and the defendants will not oppose, court approval of an award of attorneys' fees and costs in an amount not to exceed $490,000. The Stipulation and the settlement it contemplates, is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any of the defendants. Nonetheless, the defendants entered into the settlement to avoid the risk of the stockholder actions delaying or adversely affecting the Mergers, to minimize the substantial expense, burden, distraction and inconvenience of continued litigation, and to fully and finally resolve the claims in the stockholder actions. On June 9, 2014, the parties to the Stipulation filed the Stipulation and associated exhibits with the Delaware Court of Chancery, seeking among other things, preliminary approval of the settlement, conditional certification of a non-opt-out class of former Knight stockholders for settlement purposes only, and the scheduling of a final settlement hearing. On June 17, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement as set forth in the Stipulation, conditionally certifying a non-opt-out class of former Knight stockholders for settlement purposes only pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2), and scheduling a final settlement hearing to be held on September 26, 2014. The Court's preliminary order provided that at the final settlement hearing, the Court would, among other things, determine whether to finally certify the non-opt-out class of former Knight stockholders, determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class and should be approved by the Court, determine whether to enter a final order and judgment dismissing the action with prejudice, consider the application for attorneys' fees and costs by counsel for the Delaware and New York shareholder plaintiffs, and rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. The Court's preliminary order further provided that members of the conditionally-certified class would receive notice of the settlement hearing at least 45 days prior to the hearing, which notice would describe, among other things, the material terms of the settlement and the procedures for class members to follow if they wished to object to the settlement and/or be heard at the final hearing. On September 26, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery held a settlement hearing to determine, among other things, whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class. Following the hearing, the Delaware Court issued a final order and judgment that, among other things, (a) determined that the defendants had complied with the notice requirements under Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23; (b) certified a non-opt-out class action pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (b)(2); (c) found the proposed settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the class, and approved it pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23(e); (d) released the defendants from any claims that were brought, or could have been brought, by the plaintiffs in the Delaware or New York shareholder actions as well as from claims that could have been brought by the shareholders who sent demand letters to the Company described in the previous section; and (e) granted an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to attorneys for plaintiffs in the Delaware and New York shareholder actions in the amount of $425,000. Pursuant to the order and final judgment, the Delaware shareholder action was dismissed with prejudice. As contemplated by the settlement, on October 9, 2014, the plaintiff in the New York shareholder action filed a Stipulation of Discontinuance with Prejudice. In addition, on September 2, 2014, the plaintiffs in the New Jersey shareholder actions filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice in the New Jersey Court. KCG HOLDINGS: Removed as Defendant in Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------- KCG Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that KCG and 40 other market participants were named on April 18, 2014, as defendants in a purported class action complaint entitled City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc. et al., 14-cv-2811, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of public stockholders who purchased and/or sold stock in the United States during the period from on and after April 18, 2009 on a U.S.-based public stock exchange or alternative trading venue. Generally, the complaint alleges that defendants engaged in manipulative, self- dealing and deceptive conduct in connection with the trading of securities. The claims against KCG are made pursuant to Sections 10b and 20A and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks, among other things, equitable and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement. Between May 2, 2014 and June 13, 2014, three other groups of plaintiffs filed similar complaints in the same court under the following captions: American European Insurance Co. v. BATS Global Markets, Inc. et al., 14-cv-3133; Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. v. BATS Global Markets, Inc. et al., 14-cv-3608; and Flynn et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al., 14-cv-4321. On July 2, 2014, the court consolidated the four actions and appointed the original plaintiffs - primarily institutional investors - lead plaintiffs and their chosen counsel as lead counsel. On September 2, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint which did not name the Company as a defendant, thus removing the Company from the action. KENTUCKY: Jan. 27 Settlement Conference Set in Deaf Inmates' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a settlement conference has been scheduled in a lawsuit brought by a pair of deaf and hearing- impaired inmates in Kentucky who are seeking to force the Department of Corrections to provide interpreter services for medical visits, video phones that allow deaf callers to see sign language and other hearing devices. The conference is scheduled for Jan. 27 at the Kentucky State Reformatory in LaGrange. Inmates Oscar Adams and Michael Knights are seeking class-action status to represent all hearing-impaired inmates in the state system. There are no solid statistics on how many inmates in Kentucky are hearing impaired or deaf. About one percent of the general population is estimated to have a significant hearing loss, but no one tracks nationally the number of people in prison who have the issue. LGLC ENTERPRISES: "Meyo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Meyo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Jennifer Kang, Lawrence Badstein, L.G.L.C. Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Heather Mac Clean Cleaners, and John Does #1-10, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-09806 (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours premiums, and statutory penalties for notice-and recordkeeping violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a dry-cleaning company located at 129 West 72nd Street, New York, New York 10023. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Nathan Dictor, Esq. EISNER & MIRER, P.C. 113 University Place New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 473-8700 Facsimile: (212) 473-8705 E-mail: ben@eisnerassociates.com LIGHT UP: Faces "Baldares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Balderas, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Light Up Your Holidays, Inc., and Kelly Fitzsimmons, Case No. 1:14-cv-09906 (N.D. Ill., December 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Light Up Your Holidays, Inc. provides the highest quality professional holiday lighting services to Chicago, IL and the surrounding areas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1263 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com LIN MEDIA: Continues to Face Sciabacucchi Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ LIN Media LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company continues to face the Sciabacucchi class action complaint. The Company said, "Following the announcement on March 21, 2014 of the execution of the Merger Agreement, three complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the proposed acquisition of LIN LLC: Sciabacucchi v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No. 9530) (the "Sciabacucchi Action"), International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Pension Fund v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No.9538) (the "Pension Fund Action"), and Pryor v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No. 9577) (the "Pryor Action"). The litigations are putative class actions filed on behalf of the public stockholders of LIN LLC and name as defendants LIN LLC, our directors, Media General, New Holdco, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 and HM Capital Partners LLC and several of its alleged affiliates (Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund III, L.P.; HM3 Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund IV, L.P.; Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Private Equity Fund IV, L.P.; HM4EQ Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse & Co. Partners, L.P.; Muse Family Enterprises, Ltd.; and JRM Interim Investors, L.P. (together with HM Capital Partners LLC and individual director defendant John R. Muse, which we collectively refer to as "HMC"))." "On April 18, 2014, the plaintiff in the Pension Fund Action voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice and, on April 21, 2014, the Court approved the dismissal. "On April 25, 2014, the plaintiff in the Sciabacucchi Action filed an amended complaint, and the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and Pryor Actions each filed a motion for an expedited hearing on the plaintiff's (yet-to-be filed) motion for a permanent injunction to enjoin the Merger, requesting, among other things, that the Court set a permanent injunction hearing for September 2014. On April 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and Pryor Actions filed a stipulation to consolidate the two actions, which was approved by the Court on May 1, 2014. "The operative complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger, that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches and that individual director defendant Royal W. Carson III and HMC breached their fiduciary duties as controlling shareholders of LIN LLC by causing LIN LLC to enter into the Merger, which plaintiffs allege will provide disparate consideration to HMC. The complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the Merger. "On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated action sent a letter to the Court withdrawing the pending motion to expedite. The outcome of the lawsuit is uncertain and cannot be predicted with any certainty. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on our operations and liquidity. An adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger." MAJESTIC SEALS: "Fields" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Glen Fields and Ron Scott v. Majestic Seals & Stripes, Inc., Linda D. Davis and Dan Davis, Case No. 8:14-cv-03071 (M.D. Fla., December 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a company provides parking lot striping, seal coating, asphalt overlay, curb installation, and concrete repair. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd W. Shulby, Esq. TODD W. SHULBY, PA 2800 Weston Rd, Ste 101 Weston, FL 33331 Telephone: (954) 530-2236 Facsimile: (954) 530-6628 E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Infuse --------------------------------------------------------- Jane Mundy, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that Allen, a Medtronic Infuse bone graft victim, is reading with great interest a Medtronic class-action lawsuit filed by its investors, claiming that Medtronic intentionally misled them and charging the CEO in a cover-up. Medtronic Meddling Leads to Class-Action Lawsuit The outcome of this lawsuit may be good news for Allen and thousands of other Medtronic claimants. If a jury decides that Medtronic officials were fraudulent about Infuse's problems, more people suffering from Medtronic injuries could sue the company. However, shareholders who sued Medtronic over Infuse in 2008 received an $85 million settlement in 2012, but Medtronic admitted no wrongdoing. According to the Star Tribune (October 12, 2014), if Medtronic settles this current class action without admitting wrongdoing, experts say the chances of injured Infuse patients proving fraud diminish. Allen, age 46, underwent two surgeries, one five years ago and the other three years ago, involving a Medtronic Infuse bone graft, for the same problem. Now he has bone growing outside of the graft in his neck. "I feel worse now than I did before this Medtronic fusion," says Allen. "The surgeon cut through the front of my neck and I can't see the new bone growth but inside it constantly hurts. It's like I have a constant spasm in my neck and sometimes when I try to swallow, my throat forgets how to swallow. If I drink or eat, it is stuck in my throat and finally I get it down, but that is really scary because I can't breathe. I am scared to have this Medtronic device taken out because it might be even more dangerous." Allen hasn't told his surgeon about the swallowing issue because he is afraid that his surgeon will advise yet another fusion. Meanwhile, Allen's Medtronic attorney is getting all of his medical records from the surgeon. "My attorney said that I might have to wait up to six weeks to determine whether my claim will go forward, so this latest lawsuit against Medtronic might have some bearing . . ." Allen had no idea that Medtronic had been sued by thousands of people like him until he saw a commercial on television. "The commercial said time may be running out to make a claim so I called an attorney, and then I read online about people's complaints that sound just like me," he says. "I have been in and out of hospital with staph infections from these surgeries and that pretty much messed up my life. If this Medtronic claim is all I have left, then I won't let it pass me by. I also want to add that my neck surgeon is a great doctor. I read that these complaints are not against the doctor, they are against Medtronic." A federal judge in Minneapolis will let lawyers for Medtronic investors investigate the purported cover-up of Infuse's dangerous side effects by Medtronic officials and doctors the company paid to do research, reported the Star Tribune. As for the former Medtronic CEO William Hawkins, he has been accused of manipulating scientific research to cover up Infuse problems. Further, he allegedly made misstatements to stock analysts to hide the fact that the FDA had refused to approve the next iteration of Infuse, a product called Amplify. The shareholders' class-action suit claims that Medtronic intentionally misled investors by shaping Infuse research done by doctors to whom the company paid $210 million from 1996 to 2010. And in some instances, Medtronic edited results of studies to overstate the usefulness of Infuse in patients recovering from spinal surgery while downplaying harmful side effects, including abnormal bone growth into nerves, male impotence and risks of cancer. MELOHN PROPERTIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Sefket Redzepagic, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Robert Hammer, Melohn Properties Inc., The Melohn Group LLC, L 4750, LLC, A 4750, LLC, 4750 Bedford L.L.C, Leon Melohn, and John Does #1-10, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14- cv-09808 (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and statutory penalties for notice-and- recordkeeping violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate dozens of residential and commercial buildings in the New York metropolitan area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin N. Dictor EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C 113 University Place New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212)473-8700 Facsimile: (212)473-8705 E-mail: ben@eisnerassociates.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Hanis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ John Hanis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No. 4:14-cv- 01107 (W.D. Mo., December 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a national insurance company with its principal place of business in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Lee Dameron,Esq. Eric L. Dirks, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 Facsimile: (816) 221-8763 E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com dirks@williamsdirks.com - and - Christie Jess, Esq. John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq. Mark A. Jess, Esq. EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM, LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. JESS, LLC 1600 Genessee, Suite 842 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 474-4600 E-mail: christie.jess@employeerightslawfirm.com john.z@employeerightslawfirm.com mark.jess@employeerightslawfirm.com - and - Michael A. Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 6 NW Main St Lee's Summit, MO 64063 Telephone: (913) 890-3529 E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com MMI VENTURES: "Sustaita" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Sandie Sustaita and Elio Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated v. MMI Ventures, LLC d/b/a Maria Mia Mexican Bistro, Edelmiro Rodriguez, Jr., Mario Rodriguez, and Iddie De Leon, Case No. 5:14-cv-01084 (W.D. Tex., December 11, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lakshmi Ramakrishnan, Esq. TEXAS RIO GRANDE LEGAL AID, Inc. 300 South Texas Blvd. Weslaco, TX 78596 Telephone: (956) 447-4850 Facsimile: (956) 968-8823 E-mail: lramakrishnan@trla.org MOBILEREV LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid and Withheld Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Edgardo Argueta Herrera v. MobileRev LLC, Paul Zsebedics, Sam Bahreini and Amir Bahreini, Case No. 8:14-cv-03857-MAB (D. Md., December 11, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid, illegally withheld, overtime compensation and commissions earned, liquidated damages and interest, and attorneys' fees and litigation costs, for the Defendants' alleged willful failure to pay the Plaintiff adequate wages, including overtime, for all hours he worked. MobileRev LLC is a limited liability company that owns and operates approximately 11 Sprint cellular telephone stores, including six in Maryland, four in Virginia and one in the District of Columbia. The Company sells and repairs Sprint mobile phones, equipment and plans. Paul Zsebedics is an owner and the Resident Agent of MobileRev. Sam Bahreini and Amir Bahreini are actual or de facto managers at MobileRev. The Plaintiff is represented by: Omar Vincent Melehy, Esq. Robert Porter, Esq. MELEHY & ASSOCIATES LLC 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 610 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-6364 Facsimile: (301) 587-6308 E-mail: ovmelehy@melehylaw.com rporter@melehylaw.com - and - Joseph Espo, Esq. Brooke E. Lierman, Esq. BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP 120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 962-1030 Facsimile: (410) 385-0869 E-mail: jbe@browngold.com blierman@browngold.com MOL GLOBAL: Law Firms Mull Class Actions Over IPO ------------------------------------------------- IFR Asia reports that the fate of Malaysia's first US listing went from bad to worse as MOL Global was hit with a trading halt and potential lawsuits after losing more than half its market value in a single day. Already well below their offer price, MOL shares tumbled 54% on November 21 after the company said its CFO had resigned and delayed publication of its third-quarter results. In a rare move, Nasdaq sought a trading halt in the online payment company on November 24 while it requested "additional information". Law firms are moving fast to launch lawsuits against MOL, which made its trading debut on the US second board as recently as October 9. At least seven law firms have announced investigations into whether or not MOL misled investors in its IPO, and investors that suffered losses have been invited to join class action suits. Timed to take advantage of investors' enthusiasm for the Asian internet sector, following Alibaba's record IPO, MOL's listing has instead rekindled concerns over corporate governance and transparency in Asian equity offerings. MOL priced the US$168.75 million IPO at the bottom of its US$12.50-$14.50 target range after slashing the number of shares on offer by 30%, only for the stock to fall 35% to US$8.14 on its debut. Its opening-day performance was the worst on any US IPO over US$50 million since the 1980s. The IPO had valued MOL at a 2015 price-to-earnings multiple of 34.7 -- far above the 25 at Alibaba's IPO price. Doubts quickly set in, however, about the sustainability of the company's growth and if the high valuation was justified. Resignation Those concerns intensified when MOL announced on November 20 that the company's CFO Allan Wong, who had joined the company as recently as August, resigned citing personal reasons. On the same day, the company also said it would postpone the release of its third-quarter earnings results to December 1 from November 21. On the news, the shares of MOL plummeted 54% to US$4.09 on November 21. MOL was not the only one under fire. Deutsche Bank, a joint bookrunner on MOL's IPO, has drawn flak for advising "caution" on the stock on November 21, a day after having initiated coverage with a buy call and a US$12 price target. The bank further suspended its rating and estimates on MOL until the company provided further clarity over the delayed third- quarter earnings and the CFO's resignation, Reuters reported. Malaysian businessman Vincent Tan owns 69.3% of MOL Global, while the Sultan of Johor owns 14.7%. In the six months to June 30, the company's revenue came to M$105 million (US$31 million) and net profit stood at M$15.5 million, according to the IPO prospectus. Citigroup, Deutsche Bank and UBS were joint bookrunners on the IPO. CIMB Securities was co-manager. Credit Suisse was earlier attached to the transaction, but dropped out before bookbuilding began. The firm's primary product is MOLPoints, which consumers use to pay for digital products, including Facebook games. MOLPoints are sold through channels including 7-Eleven convenience stores. NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Accused of Illegally Confiscating Firearms ------------------------------------------------------------- Marc W. Weinstein v. Thomas C. Krumpter, Acting Police Commissioner, Nassau County, New York; Steven E. Skrynecki, Chief of Department, Nassau County Police Department; Daniel P. Flanagan, Commanding Officer, First Precinct, Nassau County Police Department; James B. Malone, Police Officer, First Precinct, Nassau County Police Department; John Does I-IV, Police Officers, First Precinct, Nassau Police Department; Paul Cappy, Police Officer and Investigator, Nassau County Police Department, Pistol License Section; and Nassau County Police Department, Case No. 1:14-cv-07210 (E.D.N.Y., December 10, 2014) accuses the Defendants of depriving the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated persons' constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, illegal search, seizure, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional conversion of property and the depravation of his rights to keep and bear arms. The claims include the alleged illegal confiscation of the Plaintiff's firearms by members of the Nassau County Police Department and a conspiracy on the part of those persons to prevent the return of said legally owned firearms to the Plaintiff. Nassau County Police Department is a law enforcement entity, existing under and pursuant to the laws of the state of New York, and the rules, regulations, statutes and ordinances of the county of Nassau. The state of New York created and operated the Police Department for the public benefit and protection of its citizens. The Individual Defendants are police officers of the Police Department. The identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert T. Bean, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT T. BEAN 3033 Brighton 3rd Street Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 616-1414 E-mail: RBeanlaw@aol.com NEW HORIZONS: "Rosales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Santos Rosales v. New Horizons of The Palm Beaches, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-81531 (S.D. Fla., December 10, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. New Horizons of The Palm Beaches, Inc. owns and operates a landscaping business and maintains a corporate office in Greenacres, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq, CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. 2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100 Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 921-9994 Facsimile: (305) 574-0132 E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com NEW YORK CITY, NY: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------ Camella Pinkney-Price v. The City of New York, The Office of the Bronx Borough President, Ruben Diaz, Jr., Individually and as Bronx Borough President, Paul Delduca, Individually and as Chief of Staff of the Office of the Bronx Borough President, and Raymond Sanchez, Individually and as General Counsel of the Office of the Bronx Borough President, Case No. 1:14-cv-09738-SAS (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2014) seeks to remedy alleged violations of the rights of the Plaintiff, to recover monetary and affirmative relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiff is a female resident of the County of Bronx, New York. She is a dark skinned African-American woman, born on March 9, 1962. She accuses the Defendants of discrimination and retaliation. The City of New York is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York. The Office of the Bronx Borough President is a subdivision of the City of New York, with a principal place of business in Bronx. The Individual Defendants are officers or employees of the Bronx Borough. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. McCarthy, Esq. MCMAHON & MCCARTHY 25 East 233rd Street Bronx, NY 10470 Telephone: (718)324-8900 Facsimile: (718) 324-2614 E-mail: atyktm@optonline.net NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Sluvie Spielman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 07246 (E.D.N.Y., December 11, 2014) accuses the Company of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com OFFICE CARE: "Amaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Santos F. Amaya, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Office Care, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-03854 (D. Md., December 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Office Care, Inc. owns and operates a cleaning service company located in Laurel, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvaro Augusto Llosa, Esq. Roberto N. Allen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN LLC 11002 Veirs Mill Rd., Ste 700 Wheaton, MD 20902 Telephone: (301) 861-0202 Facsimile: (410) 864-8895 E-mail: allosa@robertoallenlaw.com rallen@robertoallenlaw.com OVASCIENCE INC: Answer to Amended Complaint Due ----------------------------------------------- Ovascience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company's answer to the plaintiff's amended complaint was due by December 16, 2014. The Company said, "On September 16, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, styled Meriam Ratner v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming us and certain of our officers as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that we made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the qualification of the AUGMENT treatment as a 361 HCT/P in our public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through September 10, 2013, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 2, 2014, we and certain of our officers, as defendants, filed a motion to dismiss with the District Court. On February 3, 2014, plaintiff Meriam Ratner voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice." "On June 6, 2014, this purported shareholder class action was re- filed by the plaintiff in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming us and certain of our officers as defendants. The lawsuit includes the same allegations as were included in the action filed on September 16, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 31, 2014. As amended, the complaint seeks certification of a class of purchasers of our stock during the period February 25, 2013 through September 10, 2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. Our answer to the plaintiff's amended complaint is due by December 16, 2014. We believe that this action is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be material to us." OvaScience is a global life sciences company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of new fertility treatments. PACIFIC COAST: Faces Class Action by Thomas Welch ------------------------------------------------- Pacific Coast Oil Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed on July 1, 2014, a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others. The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court may deem just and proper. The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the litigation contemplated by the complaints. Nevertheless, the Trust may incur expenses in connection with the litigation. The Trust will estimate and provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation to the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment will be required in making any such estimates and any actual liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different than any such estimates. The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in connection with the putative class actions described above, and has not established any reserves relating to the litigation. The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to cover future costs associated with the litigation if determined necessary at any time. Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the "Trust") is a Delaware statutory trust formed in January 2012 under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a Trust Agreement among Pacific Coast Energy Company LP ("PCEC"), as trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee (the "Trustee"), and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Delaware Trustee (the "Delaware Trustee"). The Trust Agreement was amended and restated by PCEC, the Trustee and the Delaware Trustee on May 8, 2012. References in this report to the "Trust Agreement" are to the amended and restated trust agreement. The Trust was created to acquire and hold net profits and royalty interests in certain oil and natural gas properties located in California (the "Conveyed Interests") for the benefit of the Trust unitholders pursuant to an agreement among PCEC, the Trustee and the Delaware Trustee. The Conveyed Interests represent undivided interests in underlying properties consisting of PCEC's interests in its oil and natural gas properties located onshore in California (the "Underlying Properties"). The Conveyed Interests were conveyed by PCEC to the Trust concurrent with the initial public offering ("IPO") of the Trust's common units in May 2012. PACIFIC COAST: Faces Class action by Ralph Berliner --------------------------------------------------- Pacific Coast Oil Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed on October 16, 2014, a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are made in the Welch complaint. The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the litigation contemplated by the complaints. Nevertheless, the Trust may incur expenses in connection with the litigation. The Trust will estimate and provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation to the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment will be required in making any such estimates and any actual liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different than any such estimates. The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in connection with the putative class actions described above, and has not established any reserves relating to the litigation. The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to cover future costs associated with the litigation if determined necessary at any time. Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the "Trust") is a Delaware statutory trust formed in January 2012 under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a Trust Agreement among Pacific Coast Energy Company LP ("PCEC"), as trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee (the "Trustee"), and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Delaware Trustee (the "Delaware Trustee"). The Trust Agreement was amended and restated by PCEC, the Trustee and the Delaware Trustee on May 8, 2012. References in this report to the "Trust Agreement" are to the amended and restated trust agreement. The Trust was created to acquire and hold net profits and royalty interests in certain oil and natural gas properties located in California (the "Conveyed Interests") for the benefit of the Trust unitholders pursuant to an agreement among PCEC, the Trustee and the Delaware Trustee. The Conveyed Interests represent undivided interests in underlying properties consisting of PCEC's interests in its oil and natural gas properties located onshore in California (the "Underlying Properties"). The Conveyed Interests were conveyed by PCEC to the Trust concurrent with the initial public offering ("IPO") of the Trust's common units in May 2012. PENTHOUSE EXECUTIVE: Judge Approves $1.125MM Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, reports that fourteen dancers at the Penthouse Executive Club snatched a $1.125 million payday -- after wisely bailing on an earlier settlement because they knew they could get more cash. The sum approved by Manhattan Federal Court Judge Kimba Wood stands as a savvy legal victory for the former strippers, who withdrew from the earlier class action case that handed just $8 million to 1,230 eligible entertainers. It's unclear how much each stripper scores -- the final amount is determined by their work history -- but attorneys in the new case said there's no question their clients raked in more cash. "(They) got a big multiple of what they would have gotten if they'd stayed in (the class action)," said attorney Bill Cafaro, who represented dancer Marsha Chalmers, who got the biggest payout: $125,000. The remaining $1 million will be divvied among the 13 others, documents show. The class-action settlement, on the other hand, typically yielded payments in the range of $1,250 to $5,000 to dancers. Frank Schirripa, attorney for the 13 big winners -- many of whom were longtime employees -- said his clients recognized they could get much more money by opting out, and had the paperwork to prove it. "They had (more) losses and sufficient documentation," said Mr. Schirripa, who also handled the class-action suit. The plaintiffs argued they were improperly classified as independent contractors, even though the club made them buy their own outfits and micromanaged their behavior and interactions with customers. The entertainers claimed the club took a 20% "service charge" from their earnings and also stiffed them on overtime -- a violation of federal labor laws. "Everyone is entitled to the same labor rights as everyone else, even those engaged in occupations frowned upon by some segments of society," Mr. Cafaro said. No plaintiffs would comment, but court documents told their stories. Leslie Liwanag, who worked at the club from 2005 to 2009, said in court papers that she was "subject to strict uniform policies" that would "require her to purchase new pieces at her own expense" when the club was "unsatisfied with Ms. Liwanag's choice of clothing." The Penthouse lawsuit is reminiscent of one brought against another jiggle joint, Rick's Cabaret. That Midtown mammary mecca settled a $10.8 million class-action suit last month involving as many as 1,900 entertainers, according to documents. A lawyer for the Penthouse Executive Club did not respond to a request for comment. PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Sued in S.D.N.Y Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Ngo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras, Case No. 1:14- cv-09760 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendant made materially false and misleading statements, specifically by misrepresenting facts and failing to disclose a multi-year, multi- billion dollar money-laundering and bribery scheme. Petroleo Brasileiro SA - Petrobras is an integrated oil and gas company that is the largest corporation in Brazil, in terms of revenue. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com POLAR CARGO: Jan. 30 Hearing to Approve C$425,000 Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ A settlement has been reached in the Canadian air cargo pricing- fixing class actions with Polar Air Cargo LLC, which required the Company to pay C$425,000 and cooperate in the ongoing litigation. The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by Polar Air. The settlement requires court approval in Ontario and Quebec. A joint approval hearing is set for Jan. 30, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Settlement class member may express their views about the proposed settlement to the Court before Jan. 20, 2015. More information regarding the settlement is available at http://is.gd/FpMG7Nor by emailing at aircargo@siskinds.com QR ENERGY: Tentative Deal Reached to Settle Merger Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- QR Energy, LP said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that QR Energy, LP, ("QRE" or the "Partnership"), QRE GP, LLC ("QRE GP"), Breitburn Energy Partners L.P. ("Breitburn"), Breitburn GP, LLC ("Breitburn GP") and Boom Merger Sub, LLC ("Merger Sub") reached on November 10, 2014, an agreement in principle to settle a consolidated unitholder class action lawsuit on behalf of QRE common unitholders filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Consolidated Unitholder Action") on the terms and conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding. The Consolidated Unitholder Action, captioned In re QR Energy LP Unitholder Litigation, No. 4:14-cv-02195, names as defendants QRE, QRE GP, the members of the QRE GP board of directors, Breitburn, Breitburn GP and Merger Sub. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Unitholder Action each allege that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, and independence owed to the QRE unitholders by allegedly approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated July 24, 2014, by and among QRE, Breitburn and Merger Sub, at an unfair price and through an unfair process. The settlement will not affect the timing of the special meeting of the QRE unitholders, which is scheduled to be held on November 18, 2014, or the amount of the consideration to be paid to QRE unitholders in connection with the proposed transaction. The settlement is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant. The defendants continue to believe that the Consolidated Unitholder Action is without merit and vigorously deny the allegations contained therein. Likewise, defendants do not believe that any disclosures regarding the merger are required under applicable laws other than that which has already been provided in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Furthermore, nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K (this "Report") or any settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth in this Report. However, to avoid the risk of the Consolidated Unitholder Action delaying or adversely affecting the merger, to minimize the substantial expense, burden, distraction and inconvenience of continued litigation and to fully and finally resolve the claims, QRE, Breitburn and Merger Sub have agreed to make these amended and supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation"). The memorandum of understanding further provides that, among other things, (1) the parties will submit the Stipulation to the Delaware court for review and approval; (2) the Stipulation will provide for dismissal with prejudice of the Consolidated Unitholder Action; (3) all proceedings in the Consolidated Unitholder Action, except for those related to the settlement, shall be stayed and the plaintiffs agree to stay and not to initiate any other proceedings other than those incident to the settlement itself; (4) the Stipulation will include a general release of defendants of all claims relating to the merger and related transactions and (5) the proposed settlement is conditioned on, among other things, consummation of the merger, class certification and final approval of the settlement. In connection with the settlement of the Consolidated Unitholder Action, QRE and Breitburn have agreed to make the following amended and supplemental disclosures (the "Amended and Supplemental Disclosures") to the definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2014 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"). The Amended and Supplemental Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which should be read in its entirety. Defined terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. RAYONIER INC: "Brown" Suit Transferred From New York to Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Brown v. Rayonier, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-08986, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01474-TJC- JRK to the proceeding. Plaintiff Will Brown accuses the Defendants of violating securities laws. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Koon-Pon Chan, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: kchan@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com - and - Phillip C. Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. 350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Charles M. Trippe, Jr., Esq. Joni Alexis Poitier, Esq. MOSELEY, PRICHARD, PARRISH, KNIGHT & JONES 501 W Bay St., Suite 200 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 356-1306 Facsimile: (904) 354-0194 E-mail: cmtrippe@mppkj.com JAPoitier@mppkj.com - and - Samidh Jalem Guha, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP (NYC) One Bryant Park New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 872-1015 Facsimile: (212) 872-1002 REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Securities Class Action Filed in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Regional Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on May 30, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former directors, executive officers, and shareholders. The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities in the September 2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings. The Company expects that lead plaintiffs will file an amended complaint later this year, after which the Company has two months to respond. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and intends to defend against the litigation vigorously. The Company was incorporated and began operations in 1987. The Company is engaged in the consumer finance business, offering small installment loans, large installment loans, automobile purchase loans, retail purchase loans, and related credit insurance. REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Morris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Morris, and all similarly situated individuals v. Republic Services of Florida, LP a Florida Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv- 62797 (S.D. Fla., December 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Republic Services of Florida, LP is a waste service company, providing collection, recycling, and disposal services to residential, commercial and industrial customers throughout the The Plaintiff is represented by: Micah J. Longo, Esq. THE LONGO FIRM, P.A. 12555 Orange Drive, Suite 233 Davie, FL 33330 Telephone: (954) 862-3608 Facsimile: (954) 944-1916 E-mail: micahlongo@gmail.com SAN FRANCISCO: Obtains Favorable Judgment in "Kirola" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ivana Kirola, a mobility-impaired individual, brings a disability access class action on behalf of herself and similarly-situated individuals against Defendants City and County of San Francisco, the Mayor of San Francisco, and members of the Board of Supervisors (collectively "the City"). She alleges that the City discriminates against mobility-impaired persons by failing to eliminate all access barriers from or otherwise ensure accessibility to the City's libraries, swimming pools, parks, and public rights-of-way (i.e., the City's network of sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and other outdoor pedestrian walkways). She also complains that the City's policies and practices for ensuring access, removing access barriers, and handling public access complaints are deficient. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at trial, the Court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility, and the legal arguments presented by counsel, District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong held that the Court is sensitive to the plight of mobility-impaired and other disabled individuals. The testimony of Kirola, class members, and mothers of class members effectively established the daily challenges confronting disabled individuals. Both federal and state law afford disabled individuals, including Kirola and members of the class, the right to meaningfully access the programs, activities and services provided by a public entity. At the same time, Article III of the United States Constitution requires that Kirola prove that she has standing to pursue claims on behalf of the class -- which she has failed to do. Nevertheless, even if Kirola had satisfied that threshold burden, the record does not support her contention that the City has failed to comply with its obligations under Title II of the ADA and related federal and state statutes. To the contrary, the trial record establishes that the City is complying with its obligation to provide meaningful access, including program access, to its public right-of-way, libraries, swimming pools, and parks and recreational facilities. Accordingly, final judgment will be entered in favor of the City. The Court directed the Clerk of court to close the file and terminate any pending matters. A copy of the court's November 26, 2014 findings of fact and conclusions of law is available at http://is.gd/EAN0UW from Leagle.com. The case is IVANA KIROLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants, CASE NO: C 07-3685 SBA, (N.D. Cal.). Ivana Kirola, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Paul Lee -- alee@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, David M. Poore -- dpoore@bplegalgroup.com -- Brown Poore LLP, Guy Burton Wallace -- gwallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, James C. Sturdevant -- jsturdevant@sturdevantlaw.com -- The Sturdevant Law Firm, Kiran Prasad, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, Mark T. Johnson -- mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, Monique Olivier -- monique@dplolaw.com -- Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP & Scott A. Brown -- sbrown@bplegalgroup.com -- Kahn Brown & Poore LLP. Elizabeth Elftman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, David M. Poore, Brown Poore LLP, Guy Burton Wallace, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, James C. Sturdevant, The Sturdevant Law Firm, Kiran Prasad, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, Mark T. Johnson, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, Monique Olivier, Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP & Scott A. Brown, Kahn Brown & Poore LLP. The City & County of San Francisco, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office, Christine Van Aken, Office of the City Attorney, Danny Yeh Chou, City Attorney's Office, Elaine Mary O'Neil, San Francisco City Attorney's Office, Kristine Ann Poplawski, Office of the City Attorney of San Francisco, Martin H. Orlick, Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP & Owen J. Clements, City Attorney's Office. Gavin Newsom, in his official capacity as Mayor, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office. Aaron Peskin, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office. Jake McGoldrick, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office. Michela Alioto-Pier, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office. Ed Jew, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office. Chris Daly, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office. Sean Elsbernd, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office. Bevan Dufty, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office. Tom Ammiano, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office. Sophie Maxwell, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office. Ross Mirkarimi, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office. Gerardo Sandoval, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office. Craig Yates, Interested Party, represented by Timothy Squire Thimesch -- tim@thimeschlaw.com -- Thimesch Law Offices & Gene A. Farber -- genefarber@hotmail.com -- Law Offices of Gene A. Farber. Joanna Fraguli, Witness, represented by Geoffrey Gordon-Creed -- geoffgc@gkhs.com -- Gordon-Creed Kelley Holl & Sugerman, LLP & Jeremy Joseph Sugerman -- sugerman@gkhs.com -- Gordon-Creed Kelley Holl & Sugerman, LLP. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Specialty Graphics, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01960 (C.D. Cal., December 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Specialty Graphics, Inc. is an advertising specialty supplier doing business in the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC 324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com SWEDBANK ROBUR: 2,000+ People to Join Closet Indexing Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Pearce, writing for Financial News, reports that the Swedish Shareholders' Association -- the largest network of retail investors in the world -- has seen more than 2,000 people sign up to a class action against Swedbank Robur, one of Scandinavia's largest mutual fund managers for alleged closet indexing. SWISHER HYGIENE: North Carolina Court Approves Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Western District of North Carolina approved the Settlement of securities class actions, and issued an Order and Final Judgment that, among other things, dismissed the securities class actions with prejudice and provided for full and complete releases to defendants. The derivative actions are still pending. On March 30, 2012, a purported Company stockholder commenced a putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the former President and Chief Executive Officer ("former CEO"), and the former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ("former CFO"). The plaintiff asserted claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on alleged false and misleading disclosures in the Company's public filings. In April and May 2012, four more putative securities class actions were filed by purported Company stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against the same set of defendants. The plaintiffs in these cases have asserted claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on alleged false and misleading disclosures in the Company's public filings. In each of the putative securities class actions, the plaintiffs seek damages for losses suffered by the putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock. On May 21, 2012, a stockholder derivative action was brought against the Company's former CEO and former CFO and the Company's then directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by another purported Company stockholder in the Southern District of New York. In this derivative action, the plaintiff seeks to recover for the Company damages arising out of the then possible restatement of the Company's financial statements. On May 30, 2012, the Company, its former CEO and former CFO filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") to centralize all of the cases in the Western District of North Carolina by requesting that the actions filed in the Southern District of New York be transferred to the Western District of North Carolina. In light of the motion to centralize the cases in the Western District of North Carolina, the Company, its former CEO and former CFO requested from both courts a stay of all proceedings pending the MDL Panel's ruling. On June 4, 2012, the Southern District of New York adjourned all pending dates in the cases in light of the motion to transfer filed before the MDL Panel. On June 13, 2012, the Western District of North Carolina issued a stay of proceedings pending a ruling by the MDL Panel. On August 13, 2012, the MDL Panel granted the motion to centralize transferring the actions filed in the Southern District of New York to the Western District of North Carolina as part of MDL No. 2384, captioned In re Swisher Hygiene, Inc. Securities and Derivative Litigation. In response, on August 21, 2012, the Western District of North Carolina issued an order governing the practice and procedure in the actions transferred to the Western District of North Carolina as well as the actions originally filed there. On October 18, 2012, the Western District of North Carolina held an Initial Pretrial Conference at which it appointed lead counsel and lead plaintiffs for the securities class actions, and set a schedule for the filing of a consolidated class action complaint and defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated class action complaint. The Western District of North Carolina stayed the derivative action, captioned Arsenault v. Berrard, et al., 1:12-cv-4028, pending the outcome of the securities class actions. On April 24, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated class action complaint (the "Class Action Complaint") asserting similar claims as those previously alleged as well as additional allegations stemming from the Company's restated financial statements. The Class Action Complaint also named the Company's former Senior Vice President and Treasurer as an additional defendant who has since been dismissed from the case. On June 24, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss the Class Action Complaint. Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on August 9, 2013. On June 11, 2013, an individual action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned Miller, et al. v. Swisher Hygiene, Inc., et al., No. 0:13-CV- 61292-JAL, against the Company, its former CEO and former CFO, and a former Company director, bringing state and federal claims founded on the allegations that in deciding to sell their company to the Company, plaintiffs relied on defendants' statements about such things as the Company's accounting and internal controls, which, in light of the Company's restatement of its financial statements, were false. On July 17, 2013, the Company notified the MDL Panel of this action, and requested that it be transferred and centralized in the Western District of North Carolina with the other actions pending there. On July 23, 2013, the MDL Panel issued a Conditional Transfer Order (the "Miller CTO"), conditionally transferring the case to the Western District of North Carolina. On July 29, 2013, plaintiffs notified the MDL Panel that they would seek to vacate the Miller CTO. In light of the proceedings in the MDL Panel, defendants requested that the Southern District of Florida stay all proceedings pending the MDL Panel's ruling. On August 6, 2013, the Southern District of Florida issued a stay of all proceedings pending a ruling by the MDL Panel. On October 2, 2013, following briefing on the issue of whether the Miller CTO should be vacated, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring the action to the Western District of North Carolina. The Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on March 20, 2014. Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on May 12, 2014. On June 2, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Western District of North Carolina seeking a suggestion for remand from that Court to the MDL Panel. Briefing on that motion was completed on June 26, 2014. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss and motion for suggestion for remand were heard on July 22, 2014. On August 5, 2014, the Western District of North Carolina denied plaintiffs' motion for suggestion for remand. On October 22, 2014, the Company filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint in this matter. On November 4, 2014, plaintiffs filed a response to the notice of supplemental authority. On July 11, 2013, a purported stockholder filed a derivative action on behalf of the Company in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in the State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, captioned Borthwick v. Berrard, et. al., No. 13-CVS-12397. The action asserts claims against the Company as a nominal defendant, its former CEO and former CFO, and certain former and current Company directors for breaches of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and aiding and abetting thereof in connection with the Company's restatement of its financial statements. Among other things, the action seeks damages on behalf of the Company and an order directing the Company to implement corporate governance reforms. On August 7, 2013, the Company filed a notice to remove the action from the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in the State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County to the Western District of North Carolina. On August 30, 2013, the Company moved to consolidate this action with the actions previously consolidated before the Western District of North Carolina, and to stay the action. On September 25, 2013, the Western District of North Carolina granted the Company's motion to consolidate and stay the action. On October 23, 2014, following its approval of a settlement of the securities class actions, the Western District of North Carolina set a briefing schedule whereby the Company, as nominal defendant, filed a motion to dismiss the derivative action on November 4, 2014. Pursuant to the schedule, the remaining defendants do not need to file any motions to dismiss until after the Court rules on the Company's motion. Briefing on the Company's motion will be completed by December 19, 2014. Although the Company believed it had meritorious defenses to the asserted claims in the securities class actions in the United States, the defendants and plaintiffs agreed to the terms of a settlement and on February 5, 2014 executed a settlement agreement that, following approval by the Western District of North Carolina, would resolve all claims in the securities class actions pending there (the "Settlement"). The Settlement provided that the defendants would make a set cash payment totaling $5,500,000, all from insurance proceeds, to settle all of the securities class actions, and full and complete releases would be provided to defendants. On March 11, 2014, the Western District of North Carolina issued a preliminary order approving the Settlement, and scheduled a hearing for August 6, 2014. That same day, the Western District of North Carolina also issued an order terminating defendants' pending motions to dismiss the Class Action Complaint as moot in light of the Settlement. On August 6, 2014, following a hearing, the Western District of North Carolina approved the Settlement, and issued an Order and Final Judgment that, among other things, dismissed the securities class actions with prejudice and provided for full and complete releases to defendants. The derivative actions are still pending. Swisher Hygiene currently operates in one business segment, Hygiene, which encompasses providing essential hygiene and sanitizing service solutions to customers in a wide range of end- markets, including foodservice, hospitality, retail and healthcare industries. SWISHER HYGIENE: Fresh Statement of Claim Filed in Ontario Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a purported stockholder commenced on December 17, 2013, a putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, captioned Edwards v. Swisher Hygiene, Inc., et al., CV 13-20282 CP, against the Company, the former CEO and former CFO. The action alleges claims under Canadian law for alleged misrepresentations of the Company's financial position relating to its business acquisitions. On February 13, 2014, a Fresh Statement of Claim and Fresh Notice of Action were filed, adding an additional named plaintiff. Swisher Hygiene currently operates in one business segment, Hygiene, which encompasses providing essential hygiene and sanitizing service solutions to customers in a wide range of end- markets, including foodservice, hospitality, retail and healthcare industries. SWISHER HYGIENE: Stockholder Suit Filed in Ontario Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a purported stockholder commenced on March 28, 2014, a putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, captioned Phillips v. Swisher Hygiene, Inc., et al., CV 14-00501096-0000, against the Company, the former CEO, the former CFO and the Company's former Senior Vice President and Treasurer. The action alleges claims under Canadian law stemming from the Company's restatement. Swisher Hygiene currently operates in one business segment, Hygiene, which encompasses providing essential hygiene and sanitizing service solutions to customers in a wide range of end- markets, including foodservice, hospitality, retail and healthcare industries. TESCO PLC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- Chester County Employees Retirement Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tesco PLC, Philip Clarke, Laurie Mcilwee, Sir Richard Broadbent, and Chris Bush, Case No. 1:14-cv-09757 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Tesco PLC is a multinational grocery and general merchandise retailer headquartered in Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, England, U.K. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Tesco PLC. The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Josefson, Esq. Gerald H. Silk, Esq. Michael Dains Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 554-1493 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com jerry@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com TEXTURA CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Securities Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Textura Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed on October 7, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its executive officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the Company and its executive officers for making allegedly materially false and misleading statements and by failing to disclose allegedly material facts regarding its business and operations between August 7, 2013 and September 29, 2014. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Textura Corporation is a provider of on-demand business collaboration software to the commercial construction industry. TOYOTA MOTOR: "Emerson" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Annita Emerson v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02842, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-09493-CAS-AJW to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts fraud-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 233-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore Walter Maya, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com Petitioner Juan Carlos Rivera is represented by: Jack Samuel Feltscher, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JACK S. FELTSCHER 243 S. Escondido Boulevard, Suite 512 Escondido, CA 92025 Telephone: (760) 580-1877 Facsimile: (760) 291-1033 The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Chorba, Esq. Chelsea Victoria Norell, Esq. Timothy William Loose, Esq. GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com cnorell@gibsondunn.com tloose@gibsondunn.com TRULAND GROUP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss WARN Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Daniel J. Sernovitz, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports that a federal bankruptcy judge in Alexandria won't throw out a class-action suit by former Truland Group Inc. employees, setting the stage for a potentially significant ruling that could benefit the former employees. At issue is whether Truland's former employees should be recognized as a class and given priority over unsecured creditors because the Reston-based electrical contractor did not give its workers prior notice before shutting down, a requirement of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The shutdown impacted nearly 1,000 full- and part-time employees and stalled dozens of high-profile projects across the D.C. region. Truland's trustee, Klinette Kindred, had sought to dismiss the case brought by two former Truland employees on several grounds, including that it was filed after Truland was forced to close its doors and that the case should have been filed in federal District Court rather than bankruptcy court. But Judge Brian Kenney found there was enough reason to allow the case to continue and ruled Nov. 26 to reject Kindred's motion to have the case dismissed. Jason Gold -- jgold@wileyrein.com -- an attorney with Wiley Rein LLP representing the trustee, said he was disappointed in Judge Kenney's ruling but stressed that it only dismissed Kindred's motion to have the case thrown out. The judge has not ruled on the merits of the case yet or granted the class with secured- creditor status. "There's no question that it's an important decision, but it remains to be seen how significant it is," Mr. Gold said. "I think it was a well-reasoned decision, but we disagree with it. There are many other defenses that can and will be asserted." Former Truland employees Summer James and Satina Matthews filed their suit in U.S. Bankruptcy Court July 30, about a week after Truland abruptly shut down. The suit was filed separately from Truland's own bankruptcy proceedings. Ms. Matthews and Ms. James argued that Truland violated the federal WARN Act by failing to give 60 days notice before a mass layoff or plant closure. They are seeking the wages and other benefits they would have earned during that period and have asked to be given an administrative- expense priority claim that would put them ahead of other unsecured creditors. Case law in similar bankruptcies has been mixed. A federal judge in Manhattan ruled in April that law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf violated the same federal WARN Act by not giving its employees enough notice before shutting down. A big difference is that Dewey filed for Chapter 11 to restructure its debts while Truland filed to liquidate under Chapter 7. Truland also employed more than 700 staffers when it shut down, compared with less than 500 for Dewey. Judge Kenney concluded it's plausible Truland was liable for misconduct by violating the WARN Act, making the relief sought by the former employees plausible. The WARN Act, Judge Kenney noted, was established to give employees enough prior notice of a plant closure or mass layoff and that employees are entitled to back pay and benefits if a company violates the law. Kindred had argued that designating the former workers as a class was unnecessary because federal bankruptcy rules set up the framework for Truland's ex-employees to recover lost wages. Judge Kenney disagreed. Class-action status "will be the superior method for the determination of the employees' claims under the WARN Act," the judge ruled. TURTLE BEACH: Seeks Review of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------- Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company and VTB Holdings, Inc. ("VTBH") are currently seeking review of the ruling that denied their motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit from the Nevada Supreme Court. On August 5, 2013, VTBH and the Company (f/k/a Parametric) announced that they had entered into the Merger Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately 80% ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain an approximately 20% ownership interest in the combined company. Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class action lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by agreeing to a Merger that allegedly undervalued the Company. VTBH and the Company were named as a defendant in these lawsuits under the theory that they had aided and abetted Company's Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which by agreement was heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and seeks monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger. The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as prior complaints and seeks monetary damages. On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. VTBH and the Company are currently seeking review of that decision from the Nevada Supreme Court. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims against it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation. As of September 30, 2014, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in regards to this matter; therefore, no litigation reserve has been recorded in the consolidated financial statements. Turtle Beach Corporation is a premier audio innovation company with deep expertise and relevant experience in developing, commercializing and marketing audio technologies across a range of large addressable markets under the Turtle Beach and HyperSound brands. TURTLE BEACH: "Vasek" Class Action Dismissed Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the class action by Shana Vasek was dismissed without prejudice due to failure of service by the plaintiff. On November 20, 2013, Shana Vasek, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, under the caption Vasek v. Parametric Sound Corp., Case No.2:13-cv-02148-JAD-GWF, naming the same defendants, asserting substantially the same allegations and seeking substantially the same relief as named, asserted and sought in the consolidated action pending in Nevada state court. In addition to asserting substantially the same claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting as asserted in the consolidated action pending in Nevada state court, the plaintiff in the federal court action asserted a claim for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9. The federal court action was dismissed without prejudice on April 29, 2014 due to failure of service by the plaintiff. Turtle Beach Corporation is a premier audio innovation company with deep expertise and relevant experience in developing, commercializing and marketing audio technologies across a range of large addressable markets under the Turtle Beach and HyperSound brands. TWITTER INC: "Nunes" Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vince Chhabria denied on November 26, 2014, a motion to dismiss the case captioned BEVERLY NUNES, Plaintiff, v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02843-VC, (N.D. Cal.). Beverly Nunes filed her putative class action against Twitter, alleging that Twitter has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by using an automatic telephone dialing system to send text messages en masse to cell phones without the consent of the recipients. Nunes alleges that she and some of her fellow potential class members possess "recycled numbers" that previously belonged to people who consented to receive the texts, and that Twitter knew or should have known that the numbers had been transferred to people who had not given their consent. She alleges that other potential class members originally consented to receive texts and then attempted to withdraw that consent, only to be ignored by Twitter. Twitter has moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Nunes has failed to state a claim. Judge Chhabria denied the request, saying Twitter's argument fails for all the reasons provided by Judge Easterbrook in Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, 679 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2012). A copy of the court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/5tL6nI from Leagle.com. Beverly Nunes, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Farley Keller -- jfkeller@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP, Bryan G. Kolton -- bgkolton@thejacobslawfirm.com -- The Jacobs Law Firm, Chtd., Carey Gavin Been -- cbeen@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP, David Schachman, Law Offices of David Schachman, P.C., John G. Jacobs -- jgjacobs@jacobskolton.com -- Jacobs Kolton, Chtd. & Sarah R. Holloway -- sholloway@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP. Twitter, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Kramer -- dkramer@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Brian M. Willen -- bwillen@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini & Tonia Ouellette Klausner -- tklausner@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati. * * * Emily Field, David Siegal and Bibeka Shrestha, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge has nixed Twitter Inc.'s attempt to escape a $5 million proposed class action alleging the social media giant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages, saying that the equipment Twitter uses to make calls is considered an automatic dialing system. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said on Nov. 26 that the Federal Communications Commission has interpreted the TCPA to cover equipment with the ability to generate and dial numbers automatically, regardless of whether the called numbers are randomly generated or come from a database of stored numbers. The judge sided with plaintiff Beverly Nunes's argument that barred automatic dialing systems comprise a wide spectrum of evolving technology, including technology that can dial from lists or databases without requiring human intervention. "Although this language is not crystal clear, it appears to encompass any equipment that stores telephone numbers in a database and dials them without human intervention," the judge said. "This appears to be the way predictive dialers worked -- the technology at issue in the FCC orders -- and it is the way Nunes alleges that Twitter's equipment works in this case." The judge's ruling keeps Ms. Nunes' claims that Twitter violated the TCPA by sending her texts via accounts linked to the previous owner of her phone number alive. Judge Chhabria rejected Twitter's argument that Ms. Nunes wrongly alleged that its equipment is able to generate numbers randomly and sequentially, rather than just using numbers from a database. "Twitter argues that this allegation is wrong and that Twitter's equipment would need to be dramatically reconfigured to meet the narrower definition of an automatic telephone dialing system, but that is not apparent from the allegations in [the complaint], and it is therefore an evidentiary matter that cannot be resolved at the pleading stage," the judge said. The judge also rejected Twitter's argument that it had Ms. Nunes's consent to text her, since the person who used to have her phone number gave Twitter permission to text. Twitter's argument failed for the same reasons given in the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co. LLC, which held that the TCPA requires consent from current cellphone owners before they can be robo-called, even if the previous owners gave permission, the judge said. Ms. Nunes filed suit in June, alleging that after obtaining a new phone number, she began receiving text messages from Twitter via accounts associated with the prior owner of the telephone number. Ms. Nunes replied in an attempt to stop the communications, but since she did not use a valid "STOP" command Twitter's system would recognize, her responses were instead posted online as tweets from the Twitter account associated with the cellphone number, according to a motion to dismiss filed by Twitter in September. Ms. Nunes accuses the San Francisco-based company of collecting and storing user data, including user cellphone numbers, for the purpose of sending automated mass text messages on its and the users' behalf. UBER TECH: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Kim Lyons and Mila Sanina, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, report that some Uber drivers have started noticing that various fees the company tacks on are cutting into their income, says Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan. She has filed a class-action lawsuit against Uber for what she terms unfair labor practices. The suit states that drivers have been "misclassified as independent contractors and are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses that Uber should have to pay, like for gas and vehicle maintenance." Uber says the median income for an UberX driver in New York City is $90,000 a year, and about $74,000 per year in San Francisco. The company takes 20 percent of each fare. Liss-Riordan said she has heard from Uber drivers who say even if they work full time, in some cities, the number of drivers makes it difficult to make the income they were expecting. "They can only drive so many customers a day," she said. "Even if they work full time, they can't have a customer in their car at all times." Uber recently rolled out a new rewards program for drivers called Momentum. It includes discounts at car repair chains such as Jiffy Lube and discounts on phone plans. It also includes a partnership with health care plan "recommendation engine" Stride Health to help drivers find health care plans in the health insurance marketplace. At a recent dinner with reporters in New York, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick called the Affordable Care Act "huge" for companies like Uber. "The democratization of those types of benefits allow people to have more flexible ways to make a living," Mr. Kalanick said at the dinner, according to a report published on BuzzFeed News. "They don't have to be working for The Man." Mr. Braidic said he is "less enamored" with Uber than when he first started driving for the company, and noticed a glut of new drivers on the system once the company received conditional approval from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. "You'll wait longer for a fare now than you used to," he said. Still, Mr. Braidic plans to continue driving for Uber, even if he lands another full-time job. "I think I would keep doing it because it's so easy to just turn on the app and make some money," he said. "And, it is fun to be part of a transportation revolution." UBS AG: Accused of Participating in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Hill, Leyla Hill and Paul Shapiro v. UBS AG, UBS (Luxembourg) SA, UBS Fund Services (Luxembourg) SA and UBS Third Party Management Company SA, Case No. (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2014) 1:14-cv-09744-JSR is brought on behalf of similarly situated customers of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC arising from the Defendants' alleged participation in Mr. Madoff's fraud. The Plaintiffs allege that the UBS Defendants enabled Mr. Madoff's Ponzi scheme through numerous international feeder funds, including Luxalpha SICAV and Groupement Financier Ltd. The Plaintiffs contend that the UBS Defendants made at least $80 million in fees from the Madoff Ponzi scheme, which the UBS Defendants facilitated in the face of clear knowledge of Mr. Madoff's fraud. UBS AG is a public company incorporated in Switzerland and headquartered in Zurich and Basel, Switzerland. UBS SA, a wholly- owned subsidiary ofUBS AG, is a societe anonyme (public limited company), organized under the laws of Luxembourg and has its registered office in Luxembourg. UBS AG, together with UBS SA, sponsored the formation of Luxalpha. UBSFSL, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UBS AG, is a societe anonyme, organized under the laws of Luxembourg. UBSFSL served as the administrator for both Luxalpha and Groupement Financier, charged, among other things, with the calculation of "net asset value." UBSTPM, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UBS AG, is a societe anonyme organized in Luxembourg. The Chairman of UBSTPM's board of directors was a managing director of UBS AG, and the remainder of its board was comprised of UBS AG and UBSFSL directors. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. Arthur V. Nealon, Esq. Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com vcappucci@entwistle-law.com anealon@entwistle-law.com rcappucci@entwistle-law.com - and - Jason A. Zweig, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 856-7227 Facsimile: (917)210-3980 E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510)725-3000 Facsimile: (510)725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com UNIVERSAL ALLOY: Court Enters Judgment in "Gonzalez" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to the court's November 10, 2014 order granting final approval of class action settlement and approval of attorney's fees, costs & class incentive payments in FABIO GONZALEZ, MATIAS MADERA, ORALIA BANDA, as individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSAL ALLOY CORPORATION, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, CASE NO. SACV 13-00807 JVS (MRWX), (C.D. Cal.), District Judge James V. Selna ruled that: 1. Plaintiffs Fabio Gonzalez and Oralia Banda will each be paid an Incentive Payment of $5,000, out of the settlement fund, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. Plaintiff Matias Madera will be paid an Incentive Payment of $7,500 out of the settlement fund, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 3. The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency will be paid 75% of the PAGA Penalties in a total amount of $7,500 out of the settlement fund, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 4. The individual settlement payments will be paid to the Settlement Class Members out of the settlement fund, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 5. Class Counsel will be paid $1,187,500 in attorney's fees and distributed in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 6. Class Counsel's litigation costs of $41,351.71 will be paid out of the settlement fund in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement as follows: GrahamHollis APC will be paid $15,901.70; Baltodano & Baltodono will be paid $4,013.90; Boren, Osher & Luftman will be paid $21, 436.11. 7. The settlement administrator, CPT Group, Inc., will be paid for its fees and expenses in connection with the administration of the Settlement Agreement out of the settlement fund, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, but in an amount not to exceed $20,000. 8. Except as to class members who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the Settlement pertaining to the California statutory claims, this action is dismissed with prejudice. 9. All parties will bear their own fees and costs except as set forth, and in prior orders of the court. A copy of the court's November 30, 2014 judgment is available at http://is.gd/HdF6PDfrom Leagle.com. Graham S.P. Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com -- Kristina De La Rosa -- kdelarosa@grahamhollis.com -- GRAHAMHOLLIS APC, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class Members. Hernaldo J. Baltodano -- hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com -- BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP, Attorneys for Class Representative Fabio Gonzalez. Paul K. Haines -- phaines@bollaw.com -- BOREN, OSHER, & LUFTMAN LLP, Attorneys for Class Representative, Fabio Gonzalez and Class Members. Scott C. Lacunza -- LacunzaS@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS PC, Attorneys for Defendant, Universal Alloy Corporation. USA TRUCK: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro C. Martinez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. USA Truck Parts & Accessories, Inc. and Alejandro Montesino, Case No. 1:14-cv-24684 (S.D. Fla., December 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a company that sells replacement parts and vehicle accessories for cars, trucks and motorcycles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Law Firms Mull Shareholder Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- Joe Carlson, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Howard Root had 30 minutes to pitch his Maple Grove company, Vascular Solutions Inc., at a widely followed New York med-tech conference earlier in November. But before he could tout a decade of revenue growth and a potentially lucrative new contract to develop freeze- dried plasma for the battlefield, he had to address the matter of a federal indictment. "All I can say is, the allegations are false and the truth will come out," Mr. Root told the Nov. 20 investors forum, using up a third of his time to rebut felony conspiracy charges lodged a week earlier against him and his company for allegedly selling varicose-vein surgery kits for unauthorized use. "These are serious charges; you take it seriously. But you need to go forward and run the company while you fight." That could be easier said than done. A trial could be a year away, and observers expect the distractions and legal pressure will grow at Vascular Solutions as Mr. Root pursues a rare business strategy of running a publicly traded firm while under indictment for alleged crimes stemming directly from his management. Already, the indictment has cost the company an $800,000 state subsidy tied to an expansion of its Maple Grove facilities and slammed the brakes on its stock price, paring some $80 million off its market valuation. At least nine law firms have said they're pursuing possible class-action shareholder litigation, and one of the key questions is whether the board is showing enough independence from its co-founder. Mr. Root, 53, a former Dorsey & Whitney attorney, has been CEO since he co-founded Vascular Solutions in 1997. On Nov. 13, a San Antonio grand jury indicted Mr. Root and Vascular Solutions corporation on eight misdemeanor charges of illegally promoting a varicose-vein laser kit and a ninth felony charge of conspiring to commit, and then cover up, the illegal conduct. The 25-page indictment draws heavily on internal company e-mails and sales presentations that prosecutors allege show that Root and company officials were aware the Food and Drug Administration never granted the sweeping approval suggested to doctors in sales pitches for the Vari-Lase "short kit." Approved to treat veins near the skin in June 2007, regulators specifically told the company it could not sell the device to treat veins deeper in the body because of safety concerns. The company did so anyway, prosecutors say. Stakes are high for Root and the company. Each could be barred from doing business with Medicare if convicted of felony health care fraud, and the government would have the option of moving for exclusion with a misdemeanor conviction, the company has told investors in securities filings. The criminal case is based on allegations in a 2010 whistleblower lawsuit filed by a former sales representative. The company in July paid $520,000 to resolve that case without admitting wrongdoing. Vascular Solutions responded in a prepared statement that it "vehemently" disagreed with the charges included in the indictment. "We did not engage in any illegal off-label promotion," the statement said. "Nor did we engage in any false or misleading conduct." Further, the company promised to release what it said is "astonishing" information that would undermine the charges. And, most notably, its CEO remained in firm control. The response is unusual, observers say, raising questions about whether the Vascular Solutions board of directors is showing enough independence from Mr. Root, who was been CEO since co- founding the company. "It would be more prudent to place him on paid leave," said Lewis Morris, a health care compliance attorney and former chief counsel to the inspector general of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. "Their CEO is under indictment. I don't know how you could possibly argue that he represents the integrity and the tone at the top that the company aspires to." Three health care lawyers interviewed for this story agreed that the Vascular Solutions board of directors should have commissioned an independent analysis of the CEO's assertions of innocence -- particularly since the indictment quotes directly from internal company documents. "If the board has done its investigation and it is confident that the CEO managed and oversaw the company properly, I wouldn't be surprised to see them keep him in place while the company and he fight the case," said Bret Puls, a litigator with Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly in Minneapolis. "It all turns on whether the board has conducted a thorough, independent investigation of the allegations of criminal activity." A Vascular Solutions spokesman declined to elaborate on homework the board may have done before allowing Root to remain at the helm, deferring to this previous prepared statement: "I have led the independent members of the board of directors in providing active direction to and oversight of the company's response to this investigation," board Chairman John Erb said in the Nov. 13 statement, minutes after the indictment was announced. "The board of directors unanimously supports management's handling of this matter and the company's defense against these unwarranted charges." Root is a well-known figure in the Minnesota medical device industry who has a reputation for being outspoken. This past April, he inflamed passions when he accused the University of Minnesota of not adequately preparing undergrads for the modern workforce. "He has a strong voice and strong opinions," said Ryan Baird, spokesman for Minnesota's medical device trade group LifeScience Alley. "Not everyone loves that. But in the past we have asked him to lend his voice to discussions, and he has." At the Nov. 20 meeting in New York, called the Canaccord Genuity Medical Technologies and Diagnostics Forum, Mr. Root asserted that the allegations against him and his company were "baseless"; that no patients were harmed in testing; and that the product itself, which uses laser energy to zap away diseased superficial veins, was discontinued because it was "insignificant" to the company's bottom line. Vascular Solutions, primarily known for its surgical catheters and anti-bleeding products, saw sales top $110 million in 2013, up 12 percent over the previous year. Sales are on pace to rise another 14 percent this year. Investors took flight the day after the Nov. 13 indictment, sending Vascular Solutions shares down nearly 25 percent, to $23.74 per share, despite a $20 million stock buyback plan rolled out by the company. Since then, shares have ticked up to around $26. "We believe that VASC will weather this tempest in a teapot, and stock valuation will be unaffected . . . in the long term," Piper Jaffray stock analyst Thomas Gunderson wrote in a Nov. 13 investors' note, using Vascular Solutions' stock exchange abbreviation. He recommended investors continue to buy the stock. In an interview, Mr. Gunderson said part of his rationale in judging the stock a "buy" was an independent review of the allegations conducted by the board of directors. But in follow-up comments, Gunderson clarified that the board has not said directly that it did an independent review of the indictment before deciding to keep Mr. Root in place. "I think the board is waiting for vindication from the judge or the jury," he said. WASHINGTON: Two Cities Sued Over Indigent Misdemeanor Treatment --------------------------------------------------------------- John R. Emshwiller and Gary Fields, writing for The Wall Street Journal, report that in Washington state, the American Civil Liberties Union and others sued the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington in 2011 for their treatment of indigent misdemeanor defendants. Like many municipalities, the cities contract with private lawyers. The federal judge handling the case said evidence showed individual lawyer caseloads in those towns ran as high as 1,000 annually -- more than twice the maximum recommended by the American Bar Association and others. In a declaration filed in the case, Angela Montague, an Afghanistan war veteran and one of the named plaintiffs, said the lawyers she was provided, Richard Sybrandy and Morgan Witt, didn't respond to her efforts to discuss the various misdemeanor charges against her, including driving under the influence. "It wasn't until I became a plaintiff in this class-action lawsuit that Mr. Witt finally contacted me," Ms. Montague said in her declaration. Messrs. Sybrandy and Witt, through their own lawyer, declined to comment. In court filings, they disputed the plaintiffs' claims about them. Mr. Sybrandy said in one filing he did what was "necessary to obtain a just and acceptable result for the defendant" and used "every opportunity to speak with" his clients. Last December, federal judge Robert Lasnik ruled against the two towns. His decision said misdemeanor defendants had been "systematically deprived" of their rights because the cities hired too few lawyers. The defense services "amounted to little more than a 'meet and plead' system" where "actual innocence could conceivably go unnoticed and unchampioned," he wrote. The lawsuit, coupled with a new state standard limiting the number of cases a lawyer doing indigent-defense work can handle, hit Burlington and Mount Vernon, which didn't appeal the judge's decision. The cities' mayors said their indigent defense budgets have roughly tripled. W. Scott Snyder, a Seattle lawyer representing those cities and others, said towns around the state are facing similar cost increases. WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Arace" Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Arace, Barbara Arace, John Battie, Caroline Smith and Sharon Mack, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc., Case No. 2:14- cv-07013-PD (E.D. Pa., December 11, 2014) is a Torts to Land case brought as a proposed class action. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin S. Riechelson, Esq. KAMENSKY COHEN & RIECHELSON 194 South Broad Street Trenton, NJ 08608 Telephone: (215) 337-4915 Facsimile: (609) 394-8620 WELLS FARGO: Sued in New York by Investors in Two RMBS Trusts ------------------------------------------------------------- Royal Park Investments SA/NV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, Case No. 1:14-cv-09764-UA (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2014) is brought on behalf of a class of all residential mortgage-backed securities investors in these two substantially similar RMBS trusts for which Wells Fargo serves as Trustee: (1) ABFC 2006-OPT1 Trust; and (2) Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Loan Trust. Alternatively, the Plaintiff brings the action derivatively in the right and for the benefit of the Covered Trusts against Wells Fargo. The Plaintiff sues Wells Fargo for breach of contract and for breach of Wells Fargo's common law duty of trust in connection with the Covered Trusts. RPI is a limited liability company incorporated in Belgium and headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. RPI has acquired RMBS in the Covered Trusts. Wells Fargo is a national association with its main office in South Dakota and its principal place of business in California. Wells Fargo serves as trustee for hundreds of RMBS trusts formed under the laws of the state of New York, including the Covered Trusts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Arthur C. Leahy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 921 01-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: artl@rgrdlaw.com WRIGHT NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over FEMA Program Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ Legal Newsline reports that two victims of Hurricane Sandy recently filed a class action lawsuit against an insurance company and several associates, claiming they schemed to manipulate a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) program for profit. The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of Deborah Ramsey and Robert Kaible, alleges that Florida-based Wright National Flood Insurance profited by denying claims to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is managed by FEMA. The other defendants -- which include Louisiana-based U.S. Forensic LLC, Florida-based Colonial Claims Corporation and individual employees and contractors -- are alleged to have gone along with the scheme to ensure continued work provided by Wright National Flood Insurance. Other defendants listed include U.S. Forensic partners Gary L. Bell and Michael P. Garove, engineer Harry George Hernemar and individual adjuster David Maxime. The lawsuit claims the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Wright National Flood Insurance allegedly profited by increasing claim handling expenses -- including amounts paid to U.S. Forensic and Colonial Claims -- and in turn received more money from FEMA and the NFIP for administering the program. Ms. Ramsey and Mr. Kaible, owners of a rental property in Long Beach, N.Y., claim that Mr. Maxime inspected their property on Nov. 17, 2012, and found it unsafe to live in because of damage suffered during Hurricane Sandy. Mr. Maxime allegedly observed uneven flooring, five-inch differentials in ceiling height and out-of-line foundation framing in the home during his inspection. Rather than authorize payment of the full policy benefit purchased, Mr. Maxime instead requested an engineering analysis in conjunction with his employer -- Colonial Claims -- to satisfy the desire of Wright National Flood Insurance to reduce payments on covered losses, the suit says. Not doing so, the suit claims, would result in a loss of future claims assignments. The suit further claims that U.S. Forensic altered those engineering reports, which are relied on to process insurance payments under NFIP, and that Colonial Claims and Mr. Maxime accepted U.S. Forensic's altered reports. Wright National Flood Insurance either encouraged the fraud or looked the other way, the lawsuit alleges. As a result, the plaintiffs received only $80,000 of their $250,000 insurance coverage and were unable to continue renting the property, they claim. With no rental income, the plaintiffs sold the property for the price of the lot, and the home was condemned and demolished by the city of Long Beach. The class action suit is open to individuals insured by Wright National Flood Insurance whose claims were denied in whole or part based on an allegedly altered engineering report by U.S. Forensic after the inspecting engineer's report was submitted to U.S. Forensic for review. Attorneys Steve Mostyn, of the Mostyn Law Firm, and Denis G. Kelly, of Denis G. Kelly & Associates, are representing the plaintiffs. Mr. Mostyn's principal offices are in Houston and Beaumont, Texas. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York case number 2:14-cv-06861. ZOETIS INC: Nine Actions Over Roxarsone Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- Zoetis Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that the Company dismissed all nine actions with prejudice related to Roxarsone(R)(3-Nitro). The Company is a defendant in nine actions involving approximately 140 plaintiffs that allege that the distribution of the medicated feed additive Roxarsone(R)(3-Nitro) allegedly caused various diseases in the plaintiffs, including cancers and neurological diseases. Other defendants, including various poultry companies, are also named in these lawsuits. Compensatory and punitive damages are sought in unspecified amounts. In September 2006, the Circuit Court of Washington County returned a defense verdict in one of the lawsuits, Mary Green, et al. v. Alpharma, Inc. et al. In 2008, this verdict was appealed and affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Certain summary judgments favoring the poultry company co-defendants in Mary Green, et al. v. Alpharma, Inc. et al. were reversed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2008. These claims were retried in 2009 and that trial also resulted in a defense verdict, which was affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in April 2011. In October 2012, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve these cases, subject to the execution of full releases or dismissals with prejudice by all of the claimants. The Company received full releases from all claimants, and as a result, on January 23, 2014, the Court dismissed all nine actions with prejudice. "In June 2011, we announced that we would suspend sales in the United States of Roxarsone (3-Nitro) in response to a request by the U.S. FDA and subsequently stopped sales in several international markets," the Company said. "Following our decision to suspend sales of Roxarsone (3-Nitro) in June 2011, Zhejiang Rongyao Chemical Co., Ltd., the supplier of certain materials used in the production of Roxarsone (3-Nitro), filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that we are liable for damages it suffered as a result of the decision to suspend sales. In October 2013, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the matter, and the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. In December 2013, the parties finalized and executed the settlement agreement." ZOETIS INC: Received 240 Claims in Europe and NZ Over PregSure -------------------------------------------------------------- Zoetis Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that the Company has received in total approximately 240 claims in Europe and New Zealand seeking damages related to calves claimed to have died of Bovine Neonatal Pancytopenia (BNP) on farms where PregSure(R) BVD, a vaccine against Bovine Virus Diarrhea (BVD) was used. The Company said, "BNP is a rare syndrome that first emerged in cattle in Europe in 2006. Studies of BNP suggest a potential association between the administration of PregSure and the development of BNP, although no causal connection has been established. The cause of BNP is not known." "In 2010, we voluntarily stopped sales of PregSure BVD in Europe, and recalled the product at wholesalers while investigations into possible causes of BNP continue. In 2011, after incidences of BNP were reported in New Zealand, we voluntarily withdrew the marketing authorization for PregSure throughout the world. We have settled approximately 128 of these claims for amounts that are not material individually or in the aggregate. Investigations into possible causes of BNP continue and these settlements may not be representative of any future claims resolutions." * Judges Grant Most Class Action Payouts ---------------------------------------- Darren McKinney, Director of Communications at American Tort Reform Association, in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, says satisfied and loyal Toyota customer Jonathan Sourbeer rightly sees the absurdity of the tiny sum he received as a class member, in largely meritless litigation against the car maker, when it's compared with the economy-undermining quarter-billion-dollar wealth transfer from future auto-buyers to plaintiffs lawyers in the case. "But he's wrong to assume that "juries . . . are granting [such] payouts, seemingly thinking that the money will be deducted from a CEO's paycheck or otherwise conjured without consequences for anyone outside the corporate suite," Mr. McKinney said. "In fact, it is only very rarely that a jury plays any role in a class-action lawsuit. That's because once plaintiffs lawyers convince judges to certify their class actions, very few corporate defendants are willing to risk potentially catastrophic trial verdicts and instead seek negotiated settlements. "Occasionally, however, when a courageous defendant decides to fight a preposterous class action all the way to trial, common- sense jurors will reward that courage. For instance, in October federal jurors in Ohio took less than three hours to return a defense verdict for Whirlpool in a class action claiming that poorly maintained front-loader washing machines could develop musty odors and thus weren't quite worth what millions of happy consumers had paid for them. With a Midwestern appreciation for the importance of a thriving manufacturing sector, perhaps, the jury laudably refused to make multimillionaires out of the parasitic lawyers who'd concocted the case. In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has raised the bar for certification of class actions, but insurrectionist lower courts continue to ignore those precedents. So until the high court more aggressively and explicitly asserts itself, lower-court judges, more so than juries, will likely keep letting class-action lawyers get rich at everyone else's expense." * Shareholder Class Suit Fears Deter Boards From Profit Guidance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Boreham, writing for The Australian, reports that a fear of shareholder activism is deterring blue-chip boards from offering earnings guidance, with only one in five of those that do meeting or exceeding expectations over the last two years. According to corporate adviser McGrathNicol's inaugural earnings guidance report, directors are well aware of the growth in litigation funding available to aggrieved investors mulling a class action. In May this year, Leighton Holdings agreed to settle a class action that claimed the contractor failed properly to disclose problems with key projects ahead of a profit downgrade in 2011. "In our experience, this has led to boards being more cautious in the guidance they have issued, or deciding against earnings guidance altogether," the report says. Based on a sample of 77 blue chips, only 56 per cent of these entities (43) were willing to provide guidance in 2013-14, compared with 59 per cent the previous year. Of the "guiding" companies, 57 per cent met or exceeded their initial guidance. Over the two years, however, only 20 per cent were able to do so in both years. "Even at the big end of town not many companies are giving guidance and this proportion is shrinking," said Jason Preston, who co-authored the report with fellow partner Jason Ireland. The sample firms were drawn from the construction/engineering, retail, media/leisure, building products and utility sectors, which Mr. Ireland described as the "engine room of the economy". The media and leisure sector was the least willing to paint itself into a profit corner, with only 31 per cent of companies providing guidance. Of these, half reported earnings in line with or above guidance. "The pressure on traditional sources of revenue, coupled with softer consumer confidence, led companies to increase their focus on managing costs to maintain earnings," the report says. "It appears that this change in the underlying business model has made media organizations less willing to issue earnings guidance." Skittish consumer sentiment meant that only 44 per cent of the surveyed retail stocks were willing to give guidance in 2013-14. Of these, 57 per cent posted results below expectations, compared with 20 per cent the year before. "There were only two companies . . . that met or exceeded guidance in both 2013 and 2014: JB Hi-Fi and Nick Scali," the report says. "(This) highlights the difficulties involved in both setting and achieving earnings targets.'' In the construction sector, 52 per cent of companies released guidance this year, compared with 74 per cent the year before. However, 33 per cent delivered actual results better than or in line with guidance. The number of entities revising guidance during the year also declined. Transfield Services, Watpac and Mastermyne Group were able to at least meet expectations over both years. "Evident in these companies was a reported focus on project governance and controls and an understanding of how strategic and restructuring initiatives translated into revenue and earnings.'' In the usually earnings-reliable utility sector, 75 per cent of companies braved guidance. Despite plunging energy demand and regulatory changes, 89 per cent met or exceeded forecasts. AGL, Duet and Envestra exceeded targets over three successive years. According to the ASX's continuous disclosure rules, earnings guidance "must have a reasonable basis in fact or else it will be deemed to be misleading". ********* 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 * * *