/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141223.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, December 23, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 254
Headlines
ABAXIS INC: Court Awards $579,430 in Attorney's Fees and Costs
ABIOMED INC: Oral Arguments in Appeal Scheduled for January 8
ADT CORPORATION: Court Consolidates Two Class Actions
ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Bank" Suit Consolidated in TCPA Litigation
APPLE INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Rest Breaks
ATOSSA GENETICS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
BTU INTERNATIONAL: Faces Stockholder Class Action in Delaware
BUSHMASTER FIREARMS: Families of Newtown Massacre Victims Sue
CARGILL: Settles Truvia Natural Sweetener Class Action for $6.1MM
CHASE RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Court Grants Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
CHINA GREEN: Insurers Fund Full Amount of $2.5MM Settlement
CIM COMMERCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in REIT Redux Case
CLEAN HARBORS: 14 Claims v. Safety-Kleen Settled or Dismissed
CLEAN HARBORS: Attempting to Settle Fuel Surcharge Fee Class Suit
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Faces Fines in France Over Price-Fixing
COLLECTO INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
COMCAST CORP: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Wi-Fi Network
DEAN FOODS: Proceedings in Retailer Action Deferred
DEAN FOODS: Answers Surviving Claims in Indirect Purchaser Action
DJO FINANCE: Accrued $1.1MM for Settlements in Pain Pump Cases
DJO FINANCE: Reached Settlement in Cold Therapy Litigation
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces New Antitrust Action in California
DXP ENTERPRISES: "Bouchard" Suit Moved From S.D. to W.D. Texas
DYNEX CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
EBIX INC: Parties in Merger Class Action Discuss Case Scheduling
ELI LILLY: Faces "Ben" Suit Alleging Injury From Use of Cymbalta
ELI LILLY: Sued Over Personal Injury Arising From Use of Cymbalta
FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Settles Class Actions Over Tiptree Merger
FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: No Hearings Scheduled in "Mullins" Case
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Four People Indicted in Chemical Spill Case
HAMPTON CREEK: Unilever Drops "Just Mayo" False Advertising Suit
HAPPY LUCKY: Accused of Not Providing ADA-Accessible Facilities
HIRISE ENGINEERING: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Sandy Claims
HOME DEPOT: "O'Brien" Suit Transferred From Illinois to Georgia
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Roderick Revocable Living Trust Action Pending
HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Still Face Chieftain Royalty Company Action
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Response to Securities Class Action Due
INTERSECTIONS INC: 9th Circuit Upheld Class Action Dismissal
INTERSECTIONS INC: Bid to Dismiss, Strike Class Claims Okayed
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Sued Over Injury Arising from Use of Xarelto
KAISER PERMANENTE: Settles TCPA Class Action for $5.4 Million
KENNETH COLE: Interns File Labor Class Action in New York
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Continues to Face "Jansky" Action
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Continues to Face "Pepe" Action
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Continues to Face Sandusky Action
LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Bohlander" & "Andres" Complaint Amended
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Defendant in "Rabanes" & "Varsam" Suits
LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Dickerson" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Faces "Legg" Class Action
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Faces Suits by LipoScience Shareholders
LENCO MOBILE: TCPA Class Action Plaintiffs Object to Sale
LIME ENERGY: Insurance to Cover Cost of Defending Class Action
LIME ENERGY: Judge Grants Final OK of Satterfield Settlement
LIPOSCIENCE INC: "Overby" Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed
LIPOSCIENCE INC: Inks MOU to Settle Merger Class Action
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: To Defend Against Class Action Lawsuit
MANAGED FUTURES: Settlement Reached in Suit v. Morgan Stanley
MANAGED FUTURES: Settlement Reached in Suit v. MS&Co and Pinnacle
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Files Another Bid to Dismiss Class Suits
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israel Class Action Remains Stayed
MIDAMAR CORP: To Contest Beef Product False Advertising Claims
MINE SAFETY: "Word" Suit Removed to Eastern District of Arkansas
MMA CAPITAL: Expects to Settle Remaining Counts in Class Action
MOL GLOBAL: Four Law Firms File Securities Class Action
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: 14 Charged Over Meningitis Outbreak
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Two Men to Be Released in Meningitis Suit
NUTEK DISPOSABLES: Removes "Silver" Class Suit to W.D. Kentucky
OMNICELL INC: Plaintiff Fails to File Appeal by Deadline
PEREGRINE SEMICONDUCTOR: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Actions
PFIZER INC: Sued Over Injury Arising From Use of Pristiq Drug
RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Case in Early Stages of Litigation
REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SKECHERS USA: Faces 8 Suits Arising From Sale of Toning Shoes
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Voelker" Suit in Kentucky Over Toning Shoes
SONY PICTURES: Faces Class Action Over Employee Data Breach
SONY PICTURES: Faces "Corona" and "Mathis" Data Breach Action
SONY PICTURES: Faces "Dukow" and "Yaconelli" Data Breach Action
SONY PICTURES: Faces "Felix" Class Action Over Data Breach
SOTHEBY'S INC: Appeal in "Graham" Case Still Pending
SOTHEBY'S INC: Bid to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Pending
SOTHEBY'S INC: Court Rejects Preliminary Injunction Bid
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Reply in Support of Dismissal Bid
SPRINT CORP: Accused of Illegally Billing for Unwanted Services
STATE STREET: Continues to Face Actions Over Forex Trades
STATE STREET: 3 Shareholder-Related Complaints Currently Pending
TIPTREE FINANCIAL: Executed MOU to Resolve Merger Class Actions
TWITTER INC: Class Action Over Text Messages Can Proceed
WHITE COMMUNICATIONS: Removes "Usher" Suit to S.D. California
*********
ABAXIS INC: Court Awards $579,430 in Attorney's Fees and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abaxis 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 court awarded $579,430 in
attorney's fees and costs to class action plantiff's counsel,
which was paid by the Company's insurance.
The Company said, "On October 1, 2012, St. Louis Police Retirement
System, a purported shareholder of Abaxis, filed a lawsuit against
certain officers and each of the directors of the Company in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging, among other things, that the directors
violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose
material information in our 2010 proxy statement, breached their
fiduciary duties by allegedly violating the terms of our 2005
Equity Incentive Plan, and breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to disclose alleged material information in our 2012 proxy
statement regarding (1) the events leading up to our proposal to
amend the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan to eliminate the limit on the
number of shares that may be issued pursuant to restricted stock
units, and (2) the effects of the proposed amendment on certain
settled and outstanding restricted stock units. The plaintiff
seeks, among other things, damages, disgorgement and attorney's
fees. In addition, the plaintiff sought, and on October 23, 2012,
the court issued, an order preliminarily enjoining our shareholder
vote on Proposal 2 in our 2012 proxy statement, regarding an
amendment to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, until such time as
additional disclosures could be made. We filed with the SEC and
mailed to shareholders supplemental proxy materials approved by
the court, the injunction was lifted and our shareholders approved
the proposal to amend our 2005 Equity Incentive Plan. A hearing on
defendants' motion to dismiss the claims was held on May 7, 2013."
"On October 1, 2013, before the court ruled on the motions to
dismiss, the parties notified the court that they had reached a
settlement of the lawsuit. On January 16, 2014, the parties
entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, and the following day,
the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval. On April
15, 2014, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval
of the settlement. A hearing on the motion for final approval of
the settlement and the plaintiff's petition for attorney's fees
was held on June 17, 2014.
"On August 12, 2014, the Court issued a final judgment order,
among other things, approving the settlement. Pursuant to the
settlement, the parties have agreed that the claims against the
defendants will be dismissed with prejudice and will be granted
the release of certain known or unknown claims that have been or
could have been brought later in the court arising out of the same
allegations. We have also agreed that we will adopt certain
corporate governance measures, such measures to be in effect for
at least five years. The court also awarded $579,430 in attorney's
fees and costs to plantiff's counsel, which was paid by the
Company's insurance. We believe that the attorney's fees that were
awarded to the plaintiff's counsel did not have a material adverse
effect on Abaxis, our consolidated financial position or our
results of operations."
Abaxis, Inc. is a worldwide developer, manufacturer and marketer
of portable blood analysis systems that are used in a broad range
of medical specialties in human or veterinary patient care to
provide clinicians with rapid blood constituent measurements.
ABIOMED INC: Oral Arguments in Appeal Scheduled for January 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abiomed, 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 appeal process
related to a class action lawsuit remains ongoing with oral
arguments scheduled for January 8, 2015.
On November 16 and 19, 2012, two purported class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the
District Court, by alleged purchasers of its common stock, on
behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired common stock of the Company between August 5, 2011 and
October 31, 2012. The complaints alleged that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws in connection with
disclosures related to the Company's marketing and labeling of the
Impella 2.5 product and seek damages in an unspecified amount. The
District Court consolidated these complaints and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on May 20, 2013. On
July 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action. Oral arguments on the Company's motion
to dismiss were conducted before the District Court on September
18, 2013. On April 10, 2014, the District Court entered an order
granting the Company's motion and dismissed the consolidated and
amended complaint. On May 9, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal, and subsequently filed their appellate brief with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the First Circuit,
on July 16, 2014. The appeal process remains ongoing with oral
arguments scheduled for January 8, 2015.
Abiomed, Inc. is a provider of mechanical circulatory support
devices and offers a continuum of care to heart failure patients.
ADT CORPORATION: Court Consolidates Two Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
The ADT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2014, that the Court entered
an order consolidating two class actions under the caption
Henningsen v. The ADT Corporation, Case No. 14-80566-CIV-
DIMITROULEAS, and appointing IBEW Local 595 Pension and Money
Purchase Pension Plans, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System
and KBC Asset Management NV as Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated
action.
The Company said, "On April 28, 2014, we and certain of our
current and former officers and directors were named as defendants
in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks
monetary damages, including interest, and class action status on
behalf of all plaintiffs who purchased our common stock during the
period between November 27, 2012 and January 29, 2014, inclusive.
The claims focus primarily on our statements concerning our
financial condition and future business prospects for fiscal 2013
and the first quarter of fiscal 2014, our stock repurchase program
in 2012 and 2013 and the buyback of stock from Corvex Management
LP ("Corvex") in November 2013. On June 27, 2014, another
plaintiff filed a similar action in the same court."
"On July 14, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the
two actions under the caption Henningsen v. The ADT Corporation,
Case No. 14-80566-CIV-DIMITROULEAS, and appointing IBEW Local 595
Pension and Money Purchase Pension Plans, Macomb County Employees'
Retirement System and KBC Asset Management NV as Lead Plaintiffs
in the consolidated action. In addition to ADT, the defendants
named in the action are Naren Gursahaney, Kathryn A. Mikells,
Michael S. Geltzeiler, Keith A. Meister, and Corvex.
"We intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this
action and are currently unable to predict the outcome or if legal
damages will be awarded."
ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Bank" Suit Consolidated in TCPA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Bank v. Alliance Security Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-04410, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
(Clarksburg). The West Virginia District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-00215-IMK to the proceeding.
The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Monitronics International, Inc., Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation, MDL No. 1:13-md-2493-IMK-JSK.
The case is assigned to Judge Irene M. Keeley.
The litigation arose from alleged unsolicited telephone calls made
in violation of the TCPA.
Defendant Monitronics International, Inc. is represented by:
Richard Benjamin Harper, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Telephone: (212) 408-2675
Facsimile: (212) 259-2675
E-mail: richard.harper@bakerbotts.com
APPLE INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Rest Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Poeter, writing for PCMag, reports that Apple has been
denied its appeal to toss out a class-action lawsuit brought by
current and former California-based Apple Store and corporate
employees who claim the consumer electronics giant denied them
legally required breaks during work.
The suit, filed in December 2011 by Brandon Felczer and other
former Apple Store workers, was certified as a class-action suit
in July. Apple sought to appeal that ruling but a three-judge
panel in California's Superior Court denied the tech giant's
motion for dismissal on Nov. 26, PCMag has learned.
"The petition for writ of mandate, informal response, and reply
have been read and considered by Justices Nares, McDonald, and
O'Rourke. The petition is denied," stated a filing from the
Superior Court of Appeal in San Diego.
Mr. Felczer and his attorneys claim he and others are owed unpaid
back wages from the company.
Other plaintiffs named in the complaint against Apple are former
Apple Store employees Ryan Goldman, Ramsey Hawkins, and Joseph
Lane Carco.
"Apple now faces claims of meal period, rest period, and final pay
violations affecting almost 21,000 current and former Apple
employees," San Diego attorney Tyler Belong said when the class-
action suit was approved in the summer.
In addition to the claim that Apple failed to provide Apple Store
employees with rest breaks as required by law, the complaint
alleges a "failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements"
by the company.
An earlier, similar suit brought against Apple, filed in 2009 by
former Genius Bar employee Steve Camuti, also claimed the company
failed to provide employees with breaks in violation of California
Labor Code.
The Camuti suit was not certified as a class-action proceeding but
that may have been due to its timing, Belong told PCMag. A
California Superior Court ruling in a landmark case involving
restaurant workers and rest breaks, made after the Camuti suit,
"opened the door" for class actions like the one being spearheaded
by Mr. Felczer, the lawyer said.
The Camuti suit claimed that from 2004 onwards, Apple "has enjoyed
an advantage over its competition and imposes a resultant
disadvantage on its 'Genius' employees by failing to authorize,
permit, and provide statutorily mandated rest breaks as required
by law."
ATOSSA GENETICS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Atossa Genetics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs have
appealed the court's dismissal order of the securities class
action complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a putative securities
class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc.,
et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington against us,
certain of the Company's directors and officers and the
underwriters of the Company November 2012 initial public offering.
The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Sections 11 and
12(a)(2), and that the Company and certain of its directors and
officers violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making
material false and misleading statements and omissions in the
offering's registration statement, and that we and certain of our
directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration
statement and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC
filings with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our
ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT device. This action
seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between
November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an
unspecific amount."
"On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi,
Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi
Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-
lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the
caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed
on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. The plaintiffs
filed briefs in opposition to these motions on July 11, 2014. The
Company replied to the opposition brief on August 11, 2014.
"On October 6, 2014 the Court granted defendants' motion
dismissing all claims against Atossa and all other defendants. The
Court's order provided plaintiffs with a deadline of October 26,
2014 to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint and the
plaintiffs did not file such a motion by that date. On October 30,
2014, the Court entered a final order of dismissal. On November 3,
2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court and have
appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit."
BTU INTERNATIONAL: Faces Stockholder Class Action in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
BTU International, 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
learned that a putative stockholder class action complaint was
filed, purportedly on behalf of BTU's public stockholders, in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the members of
the BTU Board, Amtech Systems, Inc. and Merger Sub.
On October 21, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Amtech Systems, Inc.
("Amtech") and BTU Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Amtech ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides that, upon
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the
"Merger"), with the Company continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Amtech.
Shortly after the Company entered into the Merger Agreement with
Amtech, the Company learned that a putative stockholder class
action complaint was filed, purportedly on behalf of BTU's public
stockholders, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against the members of the BTU Board, Amtech and Merger Sub. To
the best of the Company's knowledge, the complaint has not yet
been served. The complaint generally alleges, among other things,
that the members of the BTU Board breached their fiduciary duties
owed to BTU's public stockholders by causing BTU to enter into the
Merger Agreement and approving the merger, and that Amtech and
Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. In
addition, the complaint alleges that the Merger Agreement
improperly favors Amtech and unduly restricts BTU's ability to
negotiate with other potential bidders. The complaint generally
seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief
concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief
prohibiting defendants from consummating the Merger, other forms
of equitable relief, and compensatory damages. The Company
believes that the claims are without merit and, if the complaint
is served, it intends to defend against the litigation vigorously
on behalf of the BTU Board.
BUSHMASTER FIREARMS: Families of Newtown Massacre Victims Sue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Eaton-Robb and Dave Collins, writing for The Associated Press,
report that the families of nine people killed in the Newtown
school massacre filed a lawsuit against the maker and sellers of
the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, saying the gun
should not have been sold for civilian use because of its
overwhelming firepower.
The lawsuit alleging wrongful death and negligence was filed in
state court and announced on Dec. 15 -- the day after the second
anniversary of the shooting, which left 20 children and six
educators dead and became a rallying point for gun-control
efforts.
In addition to Bushmaster Firearms International, the defendants
are Camfour, a firearm distributor, and Riverview Gun Sales, the
now-closed East Windsor store where the gunman's mother purchased
the Bushmaster rifle in 2010. Messages seeking comment from the
defendants were not immediately returned.
The complaint says the gun allows shooters to inflict
"unparalleled civilian carnage."
"In order to continue profiting from the sale of AR-15s,
defendants chose to disregard the unreasonable risks the rifle
posed outside of specialized, highly regulated institutions like
the armed forces and law enforcement," the plaintiffs wrote in the
complaint.
The so-called AR-15 rifle was first built by Armalite for military
use, but the design was later acquired by Colt, which in the early
1960s began marketing the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle as the
civilian version of its fully automatic M-16.
Many other companies have since begun manufacturing and selling
AR-15-type rifles. The weapons are popular in shooting
competitions due to the light weight of the gun and ammunition and
the weapon's accuracy.
Bill Sherlach, whose wife, Mary, was killed in the shooting, said
he believes in the Second Amendment but also that the gun industry
needs to be held to "standard business practices" when it comes to
assuming the risk for producing, making and selling a product.
"These companies assume no responsibility for marketing and
selling a product to the general population who are not trained to
use it nor even understand the power of it," he said.
A 2005 law shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over
criminal use of their products, but it does include an exception
for cases where companies should know a weapon is likely to be
used in a way that risks injury to others. A lawyer for the
Newtown families, Katie Mesner-Hage, said the lawsuit appears to
be the first of its kind against a manufacturer to claim that
exception.
"I think it has the potential to have wide-ranging effect with
respect to this particular gun," Ms. Mesner-Hage said of the AR-
15.
Marc Bern, a New York City attorney, represents many victims of
the 2012 mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado,
where 12 people were killed and 70 injured. He said the 2005 law
was a barrier to legal action for his clients, and he believes the
Newtown families will have a difficult case to prove.
"There's no way that they can anticipate something like this can
happen," Mr. Bern said about Bushmaster.
The plaintiffs in the case stemming from the Sandy Hook Elementary
School massacre include the families of Sherlach, Vicki Soto,
Dylan Hockley, Noah Pozner, Lauren Rousseau, Benjamin Wheeler,
Jesse Lewis, Daniel Barden, Rachel D'Avino and a teacher, Natalie
Hammond, who was injured and survived.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages.
Nicole Hockley, the mother of 6-year-old Dylan, and Mark Barden,
the father of 7-year-old Daniel, appeared at a news conference on
Dec. 15 with U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy. They
declined to comment on the lawsuit as they pushed for new laws to
restrict access to weapons and improve mental health treatment.
"My little Daniel's death was preventable," Mr. Barden said.
"Dylan Hockley's death was preventable."
The Newtown gunman, Adam Lanza, shot and killed his mother, Nancy
Lanza, on the morning of Dec. 14, 2012, before carrying out the
rampage at the school. He committed suicide as police approached.
CARGILL: Settles Truvia Natural Sweetener Class Action for $6.1MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the maker of Truvia Natural
Sweetener will pay $6.1 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
initiated by a Hawaii woman.
Kailua-Kona resident Denise Howerton was the first to sue Cargill,
which manufactures the product sold nationwide. Her lawsuit filed
last year said the company made misleading statements about Truvia
being a natural sweetener.
According to the lawsuit, Truvia is marketed as a natural sugar
substitute primarily made from the stevia plant. But the plant
makes up only 1 per cent of Truvia, the suit said.
Ms. Howerton and the four others in Florida, Minnesota and
California who filed similar lawsuits will receive $2,000 each
from the settlement. Ms. Howerton's attorney Lawrence Cohn said
on Dec. 5 the remainder will go to attorneys' fees and to those
who bought the product between July 2008 and July 2014.
The settlement approved by a federal judge in Honolulu in November
says attorneys will receive $1.8 million. Class members can
receive a $45 cash refund or a $90 voucher for another Truvia
product, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported.
Other settlement terms include Cargill agreeing to make changes to
its labeling within 90 days and provide more information about
Truvia's ingredients.
"Those products are made from natural ingredients, and the
labeling meets all applicable legal and regulatory guidelines," a
Cargill spokesman said in a statement.
Ms. Howerton bought Truvia at a Kona Walmart in March 2013
thinking it was natural, Mr. Cohn said. She discovered online
that it was artificial.
"She thought it wasn't right and wanted to do something that would
be a benefit to the public," he said.
The case was settled but is being appealed by a class member
seeking more money from the settlement, Mr. Cohn said.
CHASE RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yosef Kenzer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Chase Receivables, a Professional Collection Agency,
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-07795-AET-DEA (D.N.J.,
December 15, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS LAW LLC
1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 660-8169
E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com
CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Court Grants Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
China Automotive Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court
entered an ordeer granting dismissal of a class action against the
Company and its current and former officers and directors.
On October 25, 2011, a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities
between March 25, 2010 and March 17, 2011. On February 24, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, changing the purported
class period to between May 12, 2009 and March 17, 2011. The
amended complaint alleged that the Company, certain of its present
officers and directors, and the Company's former independent
accounting firm violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the rules promulgated
thereunder, and sought unspecified damages. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court denied on
August 8, 2012. On September 4, 2012, the Company filed an answer
to the amended complaint.
On January 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
purported class, which the court denied on May 31, 2013. On July
17, 2013, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the
order denying class certification, and, on August 1, 2013, the
Company filed an answer in opposition to the petition. On October
23, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied
plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal. On December 6,
2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement with the Company's former independent accounting firm
and certification of a proposed settlement class, which the
district court denied on January 15, 2014.
On March 28, 2014, the Company and plaintiffs entered into a
settlement agreement. As part of the settlement, on April 29,
2014, the Company and plaintiffs filed a stipulation dismissing
all claims by plaintiffs against the Company and its current and
former officers and directors, with no admission of any wrongdoing
or liability. On April 29, 2014, the court entered an order
granting the dismissal. The settlement had no material effect on
the condensed unaudited consolidated financial statements for the
three months and nine months ended September 30, 2014.
CHINA GREEN: Insurers Fund Full Amount of $2.5MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
China Green Agriculture, Inc.'s insurers funded the full amount of
the settlement of $2.5 million in a class action lawsuit, the
Company 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.
On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the
"Nevada Federal Court") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between November 12, 2009 and September 1, 2010. The
last version of the complaint alleges that the Company and certain
current and former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by
making material misstatements and omissions in the Company's
financial statements, securities offering documents, and related
disclosures during the class period.
On October 7, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint and to strike portions of it. On November 2, 2012, the
Court issued an order dismissing the claims for violation of
sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 as to
all defendants and dismissing two individual defendants from the
complaint but allowing the claims for violations of section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to continue with
respect to the Company and the remaining of the individual
defendants. The Nevada Federal Court also denied the defendants'
motion to strike.
The parties to the securities class action held mediation on March
7, 2013, which led to an agreement in principle to settle the case
for a payment of $ 2.5 million by the Company's insurers in
exchange for a release of all claims against all defendants. On
August 12, 2014, the Nevada Federal Court entered an order and
final judgment granting final approval to the settlement and
dismissing all claims in accordance with the settlement agreement.
The Company's insurers funded the full amount of the settlement of
$2.5 million.
CIM COMMERCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in REIT Redux Case
------------------------------------------------------------
CIM Commercial Trust 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
settlement in the case REIT Redux, L.P. et al v. CIM Commercial,
et al. has been approved by the Court.
On October 9, 2013, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit
was filed in the Dallas County Court at Law No. 5 in Dallas
County, Texas against and purportedly on behalf of CIM Commercial.
The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the CIM
Commercial board breached its fiduciary duties by approving and
recommending the merger to the shareholders, failing to maximize
value for the shareholders, engaging in bad faith and self-dealing
by preferring transactions that further enriched the trust
managers at the expense of the shareholders and conspiring to
deprive the shareholders of their voting power and prerogatives.
The complaint alleged that CIM Urban REIT aided, abetted and
induced those breaches of fiduciary duty.
CIM Commercial and CIM Urban REIT entered into various agreements
with the plaintiffs to settle their claims, which agreements were
effective as of January 28, 2014 and were approved by the court on
April 4, 2014 (the "Settlement Agreement"). Under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, the Manager entered into a trading plan (the
"Trading Plan") designed to comply with Rule 10b5-1 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide for the purchase of up
to 550,000 shares of CIM Commercial Common Stock at prices up to
$25.00 per share. The Trading Plan commenced on March 12, 2014 and
expired on August 10, 2014. Pursuant to the Trading Plan, the
Manager acquired approximately 254,000 shares of Common Stock.
Additionally, CIM Commercial agreed to be responsible for
providing and administering notice of the class action settlement
to the members of the settlement class and pay for all reasonable
costs incurred in providing such notice. As a result of the
settlement, CIM Commercial agreed to payment of attorney's fees
and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel of $772,000. In addition,
pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Manager
purchased 100,000 shares of Common Stock owned by REIT Redux and
its other "reporting persons" at a price of $25.00 per share in
August 2014.
CIM Commercial Trust primarily acquires, owns, and operates Class
A and creative office properties in vibrant and improving urban
communities throughout the U.S.
CLEAN HARBORS: 14 Claims v. Safety-Kleen Settled or Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, 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 14 product
liability claims related to Safety-Kleen were settled or
dismissed.
On December 28, 2012, the Company acquired Safety-Kleen and
thereby became subject to the legal proceedings in which Safety-
Kleen was a party on that date.
Safety-Kleen is named as a defendant in various lawsuits that are
currently pending in various courts and jurisdictions throughout
the United States, including approximately 58 proceedings
(excluding cases which have been settled but not formally
dismissed) as of September 30, 2014, wherein persons claim
personal injury resulting from the use of Safety-Kleen's parts
cleaning equipment or cleaning products. These proceedings
typically involve allegations that the solvent used in Safety-
Kleen's parts cleaning equipment contains contaminants and/or that
Safety-Kleen's recycling process does not effectively remove the
contaminants that become entrained in the solvent during their
use. In addition, certain claimants assert that Safety-Kleen
failed to warn adequately the product user of potential risks,
including an historic failure to warn that solvent contains trace
amounts of toxic or hazardous substances such as benzene. Safety-
Kleen maintains insurance that it believes will provide coverage
for these claims (over amounts accrued for self-insured retentions
and deductibles in certain limited cases), except for punitive
damages to the extent not insurable under state law or excluded
from insurance coverage. Safety-Kleen believes that these claims
lack merit and has historically vigorously defended, and intends
to continue to vigorously defend, itself and the safety of its
products against all of these claims. Such matters are subject to
many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with
assurance. Consequently, Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain the
ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial
impact with respect to these matters as of September 30, 2014.
From December 31, 2013 to September 30, 2014, 14 product liability
claims were settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of these
claims and the related insurance, the Company did not incur any
expense as Safety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full for
all such claims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar, additional
lawsuits in the future, including claims for which insurance
coverage may not be available.
CLEAN HARBORS: Attempting to Settle Fuel Surcharge Fee Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, 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 parties in the
fee class action lawsuits are attempting to resolve the matter
through negotiations.
In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of
Alabama, alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel
surcharges and extended area service fees. In 2012, similar
lawsuits were filed by the same law firm in California and
Missouri. It is Safety-Kleen's position that it had the right to
assess fuel surcharges, that the customers were contractually
obligated or otherwise consented to the charges, and that the
surcharges were voluntarily paid by the customers when presented
with an invoice. A class has not been certified in any of these
cases, and the parties are attempting to resolve the matter
through negotiations.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Faces Fines in France Over Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Jamey Keaten, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
penalizing a dirty business involving cleaning products, French
regulators fined 13 consumer-products makers about 950 million
euros ($1.2 billion) for price fixing on goods like shampoos,
detergents and toothpaste.
France's competition authority said on Dec. 18 that the companies
sought to maintain "artificially high" prices in negotiations with
supermarkets which filtered down to consumers -- and ultimately
impacted the French economy.
Among those implicated were household names like U.S.-based
Colgate-Palmolive, Procter & Gamble, and Sara Lee and Anglo-Dutch
firm Unilever. The sanctions came in two segments -- cleaning and
hygiene products. The cleaning products included Vanish stain
remover, Palmolive liquid detergent, and Ajax and Mr. Clean.
Hygiene items included Head & Shoulders shampoo, and Signal and
Colgate toothpaste.
In a statement, the agency said the collusion dated back to
2003-2006 and involved regular meetings to set prices and
coordinate price hikes -- at times secretly at restaurants or via
correspondence to private homes. One 2006 raid by investigators
at a Paris restaurant caught colluding executives "in the act," it
said.
The fixing caused "certain harm to the economy," the authority
said.
Some companies negotiated settlements or did not challenge the
findings, but could contest the fine amounts. The authority
allowed some leniency, depending on the companies' level of
involvement and cooperation with investigators.
Six companies were targeted for both cleaning and hygiene
products: Colgate-Palmolive, Henkel, Unilever, Procter & Gamble,
Reckitt Benckiser and Sara Lee. SC Johnson and Bolton Solitaire
were penalized in the cleaning products area. Laboratoires
Vendome, Gillette, L'Oreal, Beiersdorf and Vania were sanctioned
over hygiene products price-fixing.
The single biggest fine was leveled against France's own L'Oreal:
nearly 189.5 million euros.
French authorities also sanctioned Unilever, Procter & Gamble,
Henkel and Colgate Palmolive for price-fixing linked to laundry
detergent in 2011.
COLLECTO INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Damaris Miller, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Collecto Inc. d/b/a Collection Company of
America, Case No. 1:14-cv-07302 (E.D.N.Y., December 15, 2014)
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
FAGENSON & PUGLISI
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3302
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 268-2128
Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 5 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Cobalt International Energy, Inc. and certain of
its officers. The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas, and docketed under 14-cv-03488,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Cobalt securities between February 21, 2012 and
August 4, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Cobalt securities during
the Class Period, you have until February 2, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.
Cobalt is an independent, oil-focused exploration and production
company with operations offshore Angola and Gabon in West Africa.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company conducted certain business activities in its Angolan
operations in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and
(2) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On August 5, 2014, Cobalt disclosed in a filing with the SEC Form
8-K that it had received a notice from the Securities and Exchange
Commission indicating the agency will bring an enforcement action
against the Company over its Angolan operations.
On the news, shares in Cobalt fell $1.75 per share, or 10.96%, to
close at $14.22 on August 5, 2014 on extremely heavy trading
volume.
With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.
COMCAST CORP: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Wi-Fi Network
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that Comcast Corp. was
slammed with a putative class action in California federal court
on Dec. 4, alleging the company's new public Wi-Fi network
violates competition fraud laws by forcing customers to use more
expensive routers that are potentially vulnerable to increased
security risks.
The suit claims Comcast's Xfinity Wi-Fi hotspot network hopes to
compete with cellular carriers by creating a nationwide network
that allows users Wi-Fi access for a fee. But without a host of
cellular towers, Comcast allegedly began issuing new routers to
its home Internet customers that broadcasts two signals: a
personal Wi-Fi network and another that's accessible to the
public. Comcast plans to enable 8 million hotspots by the end of
the year, according to the suit.
Plaintiffs Toyer Grear and Joycelyn Harris alleged the new
routers, which Comcast did not seek authorization to use, drain
more electricity, degrade performance of their home network and
subjects them to possible security risks by enabling strangers to
use their household router.
"Without obtaining its customers' authorization for this
additional use of their equipment and resources, over which the
customer has no control, Comcast has externalized the costs of its
national Wi-Fi network onto its customers," the plaintiffs said.
According to the complaint, outside engineers have determined that
when fully deployed, customers will collectively pay tens of
millions of dollars per month for Comcast's new network. Even
idle, the new routers use as much energy as older routers when at
peak power, according to the suit. Individual customers will pay
at least $20 more per year in electricity costs.
The plaintiffs further claim they were never told about the new
hotspot network. Only one agreement document even mentions the
home network, but only in passing, and doesn't disclose that
Comcast will use the Comcast-provided routers to broadcast public
Wi-Fi networks.
"Comcast's contract with its customers is so vague that it is
unclear as to whether Comcast even addresses this practice at all,
much less adequately enough to be said to have obtained its
customers' authorization of this practice," the plaintiffs said.
The service agreements are significantly different than those
given to small businesses that will also use the Xfinity Wi-Fi
hotspots, which require explicit authorization and defines the two
types of networks along with who will use each of them. That
express permission is needed because small businesses that agree
to the run the new routers must also agree to not compete by
offering free Wi-Fi access to its own customers and must advertise
the Xfinity hotspots.
"With regard to its residential customers, where its financial
incentives are different, Comcast has instead elected to use those
unsuspecting customers' homes as public Wi-Fi hotspots without
obtaining the customers' authorization."
The suit claims Comcast violated the Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act,
the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and
California's Business & Professions Code.
The plaintiffs are represented by Gillian L. Wage and Sara D.
Avila of Milstein Adelman LLP; Hank Bates, Allen Carney and David
F. Slade of Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC; and M. Ryan Kasey of Ku &
Mussman PA.
The case is Toyer Grear et al. v. Comcast Corp., case number 4:14-
cv-05333, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
DEAN FOODS: Proceedings in Retailer Action Deferred
---------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company 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 parties in an
antitrust retailer class action have agreed to defer further
proceedings in the trial court until there is a determination by
the Supreme Court whether to review the decision of the Court of
Appeals.
A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer
action") was filed on August 9, 2007 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The Company said,
"Plaintiffs allege generally that we, either acting alone or in
conjunction with others in the milk industry who are also
defendants in the retailer action, lessened competition in the
Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A
milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the
defendants' conduct also artificially inflated wholesale prices
for direct milk purchasers."
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was
granted in part and denied in part in August 2010. Defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration, and renewed their request for
summary judgment in September 2010. In March 2012, the Court
granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all
remaining counts and entered judgment in favor of all defendants,
including the Company. Plaintiffs appealed the court's decision in
April 2012. Briefing on the appeal was completed in April 2013,
and oral argument occurred in July 2013.
In January 2014, the appeals court reversed the judgment for the
defendants, including the Company, on one of the original five
counts in the Tennessee retailer action. In February 2014, the
Company requested that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consider
its decision en banc; the Sixth Circuit declined to do so. The
Sixth Circuit returned the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.
The Company filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review
of the case on August 1, 2014. The parties have agreed to defer
further proceedings in the trial court until there is a
determination by the Supreme Court whether to review the decision
of the Court of Appeals.
Dean Foods is a food and beverage company and processor and
direct-to-store distributor of fluid milk and other dairy and
dairy case products in the United States.
DEAN FOODS: Answers Surviving Claims in Indirect Purchaser Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company 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 filed
its answer to the surviving claims in the class action lawsuit on
behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk.
On June 29, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of
indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "indirect
purchaser action"). The allegations in this complaint are similar
to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve state law
claims. Because the allegations in the indirect purchaser action
substantially overlap with the allegations in the retailer action,
the Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay all
proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the outcome
of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action.
On August 16, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their lawsuit. On January 17, 2013, these same
plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit in the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of a putative class of
indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "2013
indirect purchaser action"). The allegations are similar to those
in the voluntarily dismissed indirect purchaser action, but
involve only claims arising under Tennessee law.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2013. On June
14, 2013, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs responded to the
Company's motion to dismiss and filed an amended complaint.
On July 1, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on
August 15, 2013. On September 11, 2014, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Court granted the
motion to dismiss the non-Tennessee plaintiffs' claims. The
Company filed its answer to the surviving claims on October 15,
2014.
Dean Foods is a food and beverage company and processor and
direct-to-store distributor of fluid milk and other dairy and
dairy case products in the United States.
DJO FINANCE: Accrued $1.1MM for Settlements in Pain Pump Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that the Company as of
September 27, 2014, accrued $1.1 million for unpaid settlements in
16 Pain Pump cases.
The Company said, "Over the past 6 years, we have been named in
numerous product liability lawsuits involving our prior
distribution of a disposable drug infusion pump product (pain
pump) manufactured by two third-party manufacturers that was
distributed through our Bracing and Vascular segment. We currently
are a defendant in four U.S. cases and a lawsuit in Canada which
has been granted class action status for a class of approximately
45 claimants. We discontinued our sale of these products in the
second quarter of 2009. These cases have been brought against the
manufacturers and certain distributors of these pumps. All of
these lawsuits allege that the use of these pumps with certain
anesthetics for prolonged periods after certain shoulder surgeries
or, less commonly, knee surgeries, has resulted in cartilage
damage to the plaintiffs. In the past three years, we have entered
into settlements with plaintiffs in approximately 130 pain pump
lawsuits. Except for the payment by the Company of policy
deductibles or self-insured retentions, our products liability
carriers in three policy periods have paid the defense costs and
settlements related to these claims, subject to reservation of
rights to deny coverage for customary matters, including punitive
damages and off-label promotion. The range of potential loss for
these claims is not estimable, although we believe we have
adequate insurance coverage for such claims."
"As of September 27, 2014, we have accrued $1.1 million for unpaid
settlements in 16 cases, and a corresponding receivable as all of
the settlements will be paid by our product liability carriers."
DJO FINANCE: Reached Settlement in Cold Therapy Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that the Company
reached a settlement agreement with plaintiffs' counsel that
effectively resolves all of the claims in the Cold Therapy
Litigation.
DJO was named in nine multi-plaintiff lawsuits involving a total
of 172 plaintiffs which alleged that the plaintiffs had been
injured following use of certain cold therapy products
manufactured by DJO. The complaints alleged various product
liability theories, including inadequate warnings regarding the
risks associated with the use of cold therapy and failure to
incorporate certain safety features into the design. No specific
dollar amounts of damages were alleged in the complaints. These
cases were included in a coordinated proceeding in San Diego
Superior Court with a similar number of cases filed against one of
our competitors. The first of these cases was tried and ended with
a deadlocked jury, resulting in no verdict and a declaration of a
mistrial; therefore, the range of potential loss for these claims
was not estimable at that time. In October 2014, the company
reached a settlement agreement with plaintiffs' counsel that
effectively resolves all of the claims.
"The settlement amount will be paid by our product liability
carriers," the Company said.
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces New Antitrust Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that with one
now-consolidated lawsuit already before the courts, it looks like
the burgeoning legal battle over alleged secret wage-fixing and
anti-poaching deals among animation studios has another front on
which to fight. On November 20, former DreamWorks Animation
layout artist Van Phan filed a class action complaint of his own
against Disney, DWA, Sony Pictures Animation, Digital Domain,
Imageworks, Pixar and Lucasfilm in federal court in Northern
California. Like the other complaints, he is naming names and
pointing to a conspiracy of systematic behavior on the part of the
'toon studios to hurt the people in their own companies in the
wallet.
"As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class
Members were injured in that their compensation was lowered and
they were deprived of free and fair competition in the market for
their services, which allowed Defendants to unlawfully retain
money that otherwise would have been paid to Plaintiff and other
Class Members," says the complaint, which cites violates of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, the Sherman Act and the
Cartwright Act as past ongoing suits on the topic have. Besides
seeking classification to include all those who worked at the
studios since 2004, the complaint filed late last month wants an
injunction to stop the behavior, damages to be determined at trial
and tripled and an "incentive award to compensate Plaintiff Van
Phan for his efforts in pursuit of this litigation," among its
requests. If the past three lawsuits and rumblings this summer on
the matter from the Animation Guild are any precedent, Mr. Phan's
action won't be the last we'll see on this sprawling matter --
though his claims have a some new details worth distinctly noting.
"The non-solicitation and compensation-suppressing agreements were
kept secret from Defendants' employees and other industry
players," claims the 25-page jury trial seeking filing, for
instance. "Only Defendants' top executives and recruiting and
human resources personnel were involved in the conspiracy. These
top executives and personnel only communicated about the
conspiracy orally or in emails among themselves and stressed that
the agreements not be put into writing."
Like the class actions filed by individually by digital artists
Robert Nitsch Jr. David Wentworth, and Georgia Cano earlier this
year, this one by the Madagascar and Ice Age: Dawn Of The
Dinosaurs animator cites that these agreements were started in the
1980s by Pixar and Lucasfilm and then grew to actively include the
others over the last decade. The now not-so-secret deals among
the animation studios were first revealed during the discovery
process of a Department of Justice investigation of similar
actions among technology companies like Apple, Google and Intel
that later turn into a class action suit of its own.
"At least once a year, Defendants met to set the guidelines and
criterion of a compensation survey called the Croner Animation and
Visual Effects Survey," notes the filing by a team of attorneys
from Bay Area firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Minneapolis
firms Gustafson Gluek PLLC and Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.
"This survey reflected wage and salary ranges for the Defendants'
artistic and technical employees, which was further delineated by
position and experience level. Defendant Digital Domain referred
to this assembly as the "salary council," because it was attended
by executives and senior human resources and recruiting personnel
from DreamWorks, Pixar, Lucasfilm, Disney, Digital Domain,
ImageMovers Digital, and Sony Defendants. Defendants met outside
of the official Croner Survey meetings to exchange information
regarding employee compensation and to fix the salary ranges of
their employees."
A proposed $325 million settlement of theHigh-Tech Employee
Antitrust Litigation case was judge lucy koh 2rejected earlier
this year by presiding Judge Lucy Koh as too little and is being
appealed by the tech giants. As that continues, Judge Koh has
taken over the previous lawsuits in this 'toon matter and the now
recently filed consolidated amended complaint. Mr. Phan's case
has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins, whose
chambers are in the same San Jose courthouse as Koh's. If past
cases in this matter are any indication, Mr. Phan's filing could
end up in front of her too.
DXP ENTERPRISES: "Bouchard" Suit Moved From S.D. to W.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Bouchard v. DXP Enterprises, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00413, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas. The Western District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-01089 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit seeks damages against the Defendant for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay Safety
Technicians, including him, and other workers overtime for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
DXP is a Texas corporation. DXP provides well-site and safety
services to oil companies.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq.
THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
San Antonio, TX 78205
Telephone: (210) 225-0811
Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
ahartry@themoralesfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Carter Crow, Esq.
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 651-5218
Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
E-mail: carter.crow@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Mario Alberto Barrera, Esq.
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
300 Convent Street, Suite 2100
San Antonio, TX 78205
Telephone: (210) 224-5575
Facsimile: (210) 270-7205
E-mail: mario.barrera@nortonrosefulbright.com
DYNEX CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, 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 with respect to
the putative class action lawsuit that was filed in June 2012 in
the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the
"Court"), and to which GLS Capital, Inc. and the Company are named
defendants, on June 30, 2014, the Court dismissed with prejudice
the plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs have
appealed.
EBIX INC: Parties in Merger Class Action Discuss Case Scheduling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, 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 parties in a class
action related to a merger agreement are presently discussing
future case scheduling.
The Company said, "Following our announcement on May 1, 2013 of
the Company's execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of
Goldman Sachs & Co., twelve putative class action complaints
challenging the proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery. These complaints name as Defendants some combination
of the Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co. and affiliated
entities. On June 10, 2013, the twelve complaints were
consolidated by the Delaware Court of Chancery, now captioned In
re Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCN.
On June 19, 2013, the Company announced that the merger agreement
had been terminated pursuant to a Termination and Settlement
Agreement. After Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
proceeding, Lead Plaintiffs amended their operative complaint to
drop their claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. and focus their
allegations on an Acquisition Bonus Agreement ("ABA") between the
Company and Robin Raina. On September 26, 2013, Defendants moved
to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint.
On July 24, 2014, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion. The
only surviving counts are as follows: (i) Counts II and IV, but
only to the extent the Plaintiffs seek non-monetary relief for
alleged material misstatements related to the ABA base price in
the 2010 Proxy Statement; (ii) Count II, but only to the extent it
challenges the continued existence of the ABA as an alleged
unreasonable anti-takeover device; and, (iii) Count V, but only to
the extent that it relates to the compensation the Board received
under the Company's 2010 Stock Incentive Plan.
On September 15, 2014, the Court entered an Order implementing its
Memorandum Opinion. The parties are presently discussing future
case scheduling. The Company denies any liability and intends to
defend the action vigorously.
Ebix, Inc. and subsidiaries is an international supplier of on-
demand software and e-commerce solutions to the insurance
industry.
ELI LILLY: Faces "Ben" Suit Alleging Injury From Use of Cymbalta
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Anne Ben; Libby Diane Hollinger; Jessica Tipton; Kenneth
Ray Price; Danny Ray Trosper; Vicki And Robert Craven; Katherine
Jane Bentley; Jamie Nell Hunt; Devon Roberts; Wa'zette McKelvin;
and Lawrence Virgil Curtis v. Eli Lilly and Company, an Indiana
corporation, Case No. 2:14-at-01587 (E.D. Cal., December 15, 2014)
alleges personal injuries and damages that the Plaintiffs suffered
as a result of Lilly's alleged failure to provide adequate
instructions for stopping Cymbalta.
Cymbalta (generically known as duloxetine) is a prescription
antidepressant manufactured, marketed and sold by Lilly.
Eli Lilly and Company is an Indiana corporation with its
headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana. Lilly is a pharmaceutical
company involved in the research, development, testing,
manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and
sale of numerous pharmaceutical products, including Cymbalta.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael L. Baum, Esq.
R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-3233
Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
ELI LILLY: Sued Over Personal Injury Arising From Use of Cymbalta
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Anne Ben; Libby Diane Hollinger; Jessica Tipton; Kenneth
Ray Price; Danny Ray Trosper; Vicki And Robert Craven; Katherine
Jane Bentley; Jamie Nell Hunt; Devon Roberts; Wa'zette Mckelvin;
and Lawrence Virgil Curtis v. Eli Lilly and Company, an Indiana
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02914-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.,
December 15, 2014) alleges personal injuries and damages the
Plaintiffs suffered as a result of Lilly's alleged failure to
provide adequate instructions for stopping Cymbalta and an
adequate warning that fully and accurately informed the Plaintiff
about the frequency, severity, and duration of symptoms associated
with Cymbalta withdrawal.
Cymbalta (generically known as duloxetine) is a prescription
antidepressant manufactured, marketed and sold by Lilly.
Eli Lilly and Company is an Indiana corporation with its
headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana. Lilly is a pharmaceutical
company involved in the research, development, testing,
manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and
sale of numerous pharmaceutical products, including Cymbalta.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael L. Baum, Esq.
R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-3233
Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Settles Class Actions Over Tiptree Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fortegra Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company and attorneys for both Stein and Hickey executed a
memorandum of understanding that provides for a settlement of the
litigation relating to the proposed merger with Tiptree Financial
Inc.
On August 11, 2014, Fortegra entered into an agreement and plan of
merger to be acquired by subsidiaries of Tiptree.
On August 18, 2014, a purported class action, entitled Stein v.
Fortegra Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-2014-CA-
005825-XXXX-MA, was filed against the Company, the members of its
Board of Directors, Parent, Holdings and Merger Sub in the Circuit
Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County,
State of Florida (the "Florida Court"). On September 18, 2014, an
amended complaint was filed against the same parties. The amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all the Company's
stockholders (excluding the defendants and their affiliates). The
amended complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration is
inadequate, that the members of the Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary obligations to the Company's stockholders by
approving the Merger Agreement and related agreements, engaging in
an unfair sales process and failing to make adequate disclosures
to the Company's stockholders, and that the other named defendants
aided and abetted the breach of those duties. The amended
complaint seeks various forms of relief, including injunctive
relief that would, if granted, prevent or delay the completion of
the Merger and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.
On September 15, 2014, a purported class action, entitled Hickey
v. Fortegra Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-2014-CA-
006485-XXXX-MA, was filed against the Company in the Florida Court
containing substantially the same allegations as the Stein case.
On October 24, 2014, the Florida Court consolidated the Stein and
Hickey actions.
On October 13, 2014, the Company and attorneys for both Stein and
Hickey executed a memorandum of understanding that provides for a
settlement. The terms of the memorandum of understanding did not
require any change to the merger agreement, but did require the
Company to provide stockholders with supplemental disclosures
about the merger, which the Company completed. Before the
settlement is finalized it must be approved by the Florida Court.
FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: No Hearings Scheduled in "Mullins" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fortegra Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that no
hearings are currently scheduled and no trial date has been set
related to the case Mullins v. Southern Financial Life Insurance
Co.
The Company is currently a defendant in Mullins v. Southern
Financial Life Insurance Co., which was filed on February 2, 2006,
in the Pike Circuit Court, in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. A
class was certified on June 25, 2010. At issue is the duration or
term of coverage under certain policies. The action alleges
violations of the Consumer Protection Act and certain insurance
statutes, as well as common law fraud. The action seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and interest.
The parties are currently involved in the merits discovery phase
and discovery disputes have arisen. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Sanctions on April 5, 2012 in connection with the Company's
efforts to locate and gather certificates and other documents from
the Company's agents. While the court did not award sanctions, it
did order the Company to subpoena certain records from its agents.
In an effort to prevent the trial court from enforcing the order,
the Company filed a Writ of Prohibition, which the Kentucky Court
of Appeals denied on August 31, 2012. In response, the Company
filed a motion for discretionary review of the Writ of
Prohibition. The Company also filed a direct appeal of the same
order, on the grounds that the order could be construed as a
finding of contempt on the part of the Company. The Court of
Appeals dismissed the direct appeal on September 13, 2013, which
prompted the Company to file a motion for discretionary review of
the direct appeal.
The Kentucky Supreme Court denied the Writ of Prohibition on
November 21, 2013, and subsequently denied the direct appeal in
April 2014. No hearings are currently scheduled and no trial date
has been set.
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Four People Indicted in Chemical Spill Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Raby, Pam Ramsey and Jonathan Mattise, writing for The
Associated Press, report that four former chemical company
executives and two lower-level employees have been charged in a
January spill that contaminated a river and left 300,000 residents
around West Virginia's capital without usable water for drinking
and bathing for days.
A federal indictment unsealed on Dec. 17 charged ex-Freedom
Industries presidents Gary Southern and Dennis P. Farrell and two
others with failing to ensure that the company operated in a
reasonable and environmentally sound manner the steel tank that
leaked the coal-cleaning chemical.
Southern also faces federal fraud charges related to the company's
bankruptcy case. Freedom filed for the protection eight days
after the Jan. 9 leak into the Elk River in Charleston. West
Virginia American Water uses the river for its water supply less
than 2 miles downstream.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement that the
tank conditions at Freedom Industries "were not only grievously
unacceptable, but unlawful. They put an entire population
needlessly at risk. As these actions make clear, such conduct
cannot, and will not, be tolerated."
The others charged are William E. Tis and Charles E. Herzing, who
along with Farrell owned Freedom until December 2013. They sold
it to Pennsylvania-based Chemstream Holdings for $20 million,
after which Southern became president.
Mr. Farrell, 58, was Freedom's president from October 2001 until
the sale, after which he continued to work at the terminal in a
management role. Mr. Herzing, 63, also was Freedom's vice
president and Tis, 60, was secretary. All four are accused of
violating the federal Clean Water Act.
In addition, U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin said the company, Freedom
environmental consultant Robert J. Reynolds and tank farm plant
manager Michael E. Burdette were charged in federal information
with Clean Water Act violations. A federal information typically
signals a defendant's willingness to cooperate in the
investigation.
"It's hard to overstate the disruption that results when 300,000
people suddenly lose clean water," Mr. Goodwin said at a news
conference. "This is exactly the kind of scenario that the Clean
Water Act is designed to prevent.
"This spill was completely preventable. And this spill happened
to take place in my district, but it could have happened anywhere.
If we don't want it to happen again, then we have to make it
crystal clear that those who will commit violations like this are
held accountable."
During their time as Freedom corporate officers, Farrell, Tis,
Herzing and Southern "approved funding only for those projects
that would result in increased business revenue for Freedom or
that were necessary to make immediate repairs to equipment that
was broken or about to break," the indictment said.
The men ignored or failed to fund other projects to repair,
maintain and improve equipment and systems needed for compliance
with environmental regulations, including addressing drainage
problems in the containment area.
Southern's attorney, Robert Allen, said Wednesday that his client
plans to plead not guilty and "vigorously fight the charges."
Steve Jory, an attorney for Messrs. Tis and Herzing, said the
indictment is "an example of faulty legal conclusions" and the
charges against his clients are "baseless."
Mr. Farrell referred questions to his attorney, who didn't
immediately return a telephone message.
More than a dozen aboveground storage tanks at the facility were
removed. The World War II-era tank that leaked had two holes,
just a few millimeters each, and had subpar last-resort
containment walls.
According to health officials, after the spill, more than 400
people were treated at hospitals for symptoms that patients said
came from exposure to the chemical, known as MCHM. Despite
lifting the ban on drinking tap water days later, people still
said they could smell the slightly sweet, slightly bitter odor of
the chemical.
"It's hard not to have hard feelings against these people,"
Rebecca McComas of Marmet said as she shopped at a mall a few
blocks from the water plant's intake.
Southern, 53, was arrested last week, accused in a criminal
complaint of lying about his role with the company in bankruptcy
court hearings and meetings to protect his personal wealth of
nearly $8 million from lawsuits. Mr. Goodwin said those charges
of bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud and lying under oath were included
in the indictment.
If convicted of all charges, Southern faces up to 68 years in
prison, Farrell, Herzing and Tis face up to three years apiece and
Burdette and Reynolds would face up to a year each. Freedom could
face unspecified fines if convicted.
"We're sending a strong message here that if you cut corners at
the expense of the health of American communities, you will be
held accountable," said Cynthia Giles, the EPA's assistant
administrator for enforcement and compliance.
HAMPTON CREEK: Unilever Drops "Just Mayo" False Advertising Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Skidmore Sell and Tali Arbel, writing for The Associated
Press, report that Hellmann's mayonnaise maker Unilever has
withdrawn its lawsuit against the maker of "Just Mayo."
Unilever filed suit against Hampton Creek earlier this year
claiming the name of the small California company's product
amounted to false advertising.
The consumer-products giant, whose U.S. arm is based in Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, had said that "Just Mayo" has no eggs and
therefore doesn't meet the definition of mayonnaise. It argued
that the word "mayo" implies that the product is mayonnaise, and
that Hampton Creek was stealing market share from Hellmann's.
Hampton Creek has said that it marketed its product as "mayo"
rather than mayonnaise specifically to meet labeling regulations.
Unilever said on Dec. 18 that it decided to withdraw the lawsuit
so that Hampton Creek can address its label directly with industry
groups and regulatory authorities.
Hampton Creek has had "positive conversations" with industry
groups and government officials, said the San Francisco-based
company's CEO, Josh Tetrick. He said that Hampton Creek may make
the word "just" larger on the label but has no plans to change the
product's name or its labeling.
Just Mayo's label states that it doesn't contain eggs. The label
features a white egg with a plant growing in front, which
Mr. Tetrick has said is the company's way of showing that they use
plants instead of chicken eggs.
Unilever, which also sells the Best Foods brand, holds the biggest
share of the U.S. mayonnaise market, estimated to be worth $2
billion annually, according to market-research firm Euromonitor.
But some of its products aren't exactly mayonnaise either. Shortly
after filing the lawsuit it tweaked references on its websites to
products to refer to them as "mayonnaise dressing" rather than
mayonnaise.
Mr. Tetrick said that the lawsuit has been a boon to Hampton
Creek, boosting sales of Just Mayo and giving the company "the
opportunity to tell our story to millions of people." He
commended Unilever for dropping the lawsuit, saying the company is
"a classy bunch of people who realized that this isn't aligned
with their corporate ethos."
HAPPY LUCKY: Accused of Not Providing ADA-Accessible Facilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. Happy Lucky Restaurant Inc., a
New York for profit corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-09884 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 15, 2014) accuses the Defendant of continuing to
discriminate against the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
disabled individuals by failing to provide accessible facilities,
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff suffers from a relatively rare genetic developmental
congenital disorder that he contracted at birth -- spina bifida
cystica with myelomeningocele, which causes severe and
debilitating paralysis. He is permanently disabled and confined
to a wheelchair as there is no known, affordable cure available to
him.
Happy Lucky Restaurant Inc. is the operator of a bar and dining
establishment located at 96 Bowery Street, in New York County, New
York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tara Demetriades, Esq.
ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES
2076 Wolver Hollow Road
Oyster Bay, NY 11771
Telephone: (516) 595-5009
E-mail: TDemetriades@Aol.com
HIRISE ENGINEERING: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Sandy Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ryan, writing for Newsday, reports that a Brooklyn couple has
filed a class-action lawsuit accusing a Uniondale engineering firm
of falsifying flood-insurance documents, marking the second case
alleging a broad conspiracy to deny superstorm Sandy claims.
The suit, filed on Dec. 5 in federal court in Brooklyn, accuses
HiRise Engineering of colluding with adjustors and lawyers to
blame damage to the couple's house on pre-existing defects, rather
than flooding.
HOME DEPOT: "O'Brien" Suit Transferred From Illinois to Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled O'Brien v. Home Depot, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-06975, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Georgia
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-03962-TWT to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges breach of contract claims.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory W. Jones, Esq.
Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq.
SIPRUT, PC
17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 236-0000
Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
E-mail: gjones@siprut.com
jsiprut@siprut.com
gbarbakoff@siprut.com
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Roderick Revocable Living Trust Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy Inc., continues to face the class action, styled
Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy
Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas, Hugoton
Royalty 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.
In September 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et al.
v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas.
XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita, Kansas.
The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken post-
production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from wells
located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado. The plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify the class, including only Kansas and Oklahoma
wells not part of the Fankhouser matter. After filing the motion
to certify, but prior to the class certification hearing, the
plaintiff filed a motion to sever the Oklahoma portion of the case
so it could be transferred and consolidated with a newly filed
class action in Oklahoma styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO
Energy Inc. This motion was granted. The Roderick case now
comprises only Kansas wells not previously included in the
Fankhouser matter. The case was certified as a class action in
March 2012. XTO Energy filed an appeal of the class certification
to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 11, 2012 which was
granted on June 26, 2012. The court reversed the certification of
the class and remanded the case back to the trial court for
further proceedings. In its pleadings, the plaintiff has alleged
damages in excess of $42.5 million.
HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Still Face Chieftain Royalty Company Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy Inc., continues to face the class action, styled
Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal County
District Court, Oklahoma, Hugoton Royalty 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.
In December 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal
County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case to
federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs
allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from royalty
payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts to
secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and its
constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether they
have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests. The case
expressly excludes those claims and wells prosecuted in the
Fankhouser case. The severed Roderick case claims related to the
Oklahoma portion of the case were consolidated into Chieftain. The
case was certified as a class action in April 2012. XTO Energy
filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012 which was granted on June 26,
2012. The court reversed the certification of the class and
remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Response to Securities Class Action Due
-----------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company's
response to the Federal Securities Litigation was due Dec. 11.
The Company said, "Between May 15 and May 19, 2014, two complaints
(captioned Larson v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-
01043-GMS) and (Li vs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No 14-cv-
01077-DGC) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona, or Arizona District Court, against us and certain of
our current officers. The complaints were brought as purported
class actions, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock. In
general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making intentionally false and
misleading statements regarding our business and operations,
therefore artificially inflating the price of our common stock.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief."
On July 14, 2014, several purported shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the two cases, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint
lead counsel. On August 29, 2014, the Arizona District Court
issued an order consolidating the action, appointing Hongwei Li as
lead plaintiff, and appointing the lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs
complaint was filed on October 27, 2014.
INTERSECTIONS INC: 9th Circuit Upheld Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Intersections Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a
class action complaint against Intersections Insurance Services
Inc.
On May 21, 2012, Intersections Insurance Services Inc. was served
with a putative class action complaint (filed on May 14, 2012)
against Intersections Insurance Services Inc. and Bank of America
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint alleges various claims based on the sale
of an accidental death and disability program. Intersections
Insurance Services Inc. and Bank of America moved to dismiss the
claims and to transfer the action to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The motion to
transfer to the Central District was granted, and Intersections
Insurance Services Inc. and Bank of America then moved to dismiss
the claims. The motions to dismiss were granted with prejudice on
October 1, 2012. The plaintiffs appealed, and on June 24, 2014,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld
the dismissal.
INTERSECTIONS INC: Bid to Dismiss, Strike Class Claims Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intersections Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a Motion to
Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations was granted in part, and
denied in part in a class action lawsuit filed in Illinois in Cook
County Circuit Court.
In September 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
Illinois in Cook County Circuit Court against Intersections Inc.,
Intersections Insurance Services Inc., and Ocwen Financial
Corporation, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The case was removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On
October 30, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation voluntarily
dismissing, without prejudice, Intersections Inc. from the case.
On November 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against Intersections Insurance Services Inc. and Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC. On November 27, 2013, Intersections Insurance
Services Inc. and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC jointly filed a Motion
to Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations. On March 5, 2014, the
motion was granted in part, and denied in part.
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Sued Over Injury Arising from Use of Xarelto
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Senter v. Janssen Research & Development, LLC f/k/a
Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceuticals Research and Development LLC;
Johnson & Johnson Company; Janssen Ortho, LLC; Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., f/k/a Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; Bayer Corporation; Bayer AG; Bayer Healthcare LLC; and Bayer
Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-07051-PD (E.D.
Pa., December 12, 2014) arises from the alleged injuries of the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the pharmaceutical
product Xarelto(R), also known as rivaroxaban.
Janssen Research & Development, LLC, formerly known as Johnson and
Johnson Pharmaceuticals Research and Development LLC, is a New
Jersey limited liability company headquartered in Raritan, New
Jersey. Janssen R & D's sole principal or member is Centocor
Research Development, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation based in
Malvern, Pennsylvania. Centocor is a subsidiary or division of
Johnson & Johnson, and at all times relevant, engaged in the
research, design, marketing, sale, and distribution of Xarelto(R).
Johnson & Johnson Company is a New Jersey corporation
headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Johnson & Johnson was
engaged in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distributing, labeling,
and selling Xarelto(R).
The Defendants were engaged in the business of developing,
designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling,
marketing, and or introducing into interstate commerce throughout
the United States, and in the state of Arizona, either directly or
indirectly, through third-parties, subsidiaries and related
entities, the anti-coagulant pharmaceuticals Xarelto(R).
Xarelto(R) as an anti-coagulant is primarily used to reduce the
risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular
atrial fibrillation, to treat deep vein thrombosis, to treat
pulmonary embolisms, and to reduce the risk of recurrence of DVT
or PE.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Sindhu S. Daniel, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 564-2300
Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
cseeger@seegerweiss.com
sdaniel@seegerweiss.com
KAISER PERMANENTE: Settles TCPA Class Action for $5.4 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that Kaiser
Permanente will pay $5.35 million to settle a class action
accusing the health care organization of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited prerecorded
messages to former customers' cellphones, according to an order
signed by a California federal judge on Dec. 4.
In his preliminary approval order, U.S. District Judge John A.
Houston also certified a nationwide class of Kaiser's former
customers, who had canceled their health insurance coverage and
subsequently received unwanted calls to their cellphones using an
artificial or prerecorded voice that encouraged them to reapply
for Kaiser coverage anytime after April 24, 2009. The class
period terminated on Dec. 4.
The more than 864,000 members of the settlement class can expect
to receive a pro rata share of the settlement proceeds under the
unopposed deal after attorneys' fees, costs and incentive awards
have been deducted. If all class members file a claim, each will
receive approximately $4, according to court documents.
"The court preliminarily finds that the settlement of the lawsuit
. . . is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate
and in the best interests of the class members, taking into
consideration the benefits to class members; the strength and
weaknesses of plaintiff's case; the complexity, expense and
probable duration of further litigation; and the risk and delay
inherent in possible appeals," the judge wrote.
Judge Houston noted in the order that if 1,000 or more class
members opt out of the settlement agreement, Kaiser will have the
right to terminate the agreement.
Attorneys' fees will account for no more than 25 percent of the
settlement fund, and lead plaintiff David Sherman will receive up
to $1,500 as class representative, according to Sherman's October
settlement motion. Class members will be contacted by mail, or
they can submit their claims through a settlement website or a
call center. The settlement will also be announced through
nationwide publication.
Mr. Sherman said in his motion requesting approval of the
settlement that while he was confident of a favorable
determination in the suit, he had opted to settle given the
"sharply" contested issues involved.
His April 2013 complaint had sought $500 in damages for each
negligent violation of the TCPA and $1,500 in damages for each
knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA for each class
member.
The complaint alleged that Kaiser first contacted Sherman on his
cellphone in April 2013 using an automated dialing system, which
is prohibited by the TCPA. The complaint said that the call
invited Sherman, who had canceled his health insurance under
Kaiser three months prior, to renew his plan.
But when Mr. Sherman terminated his coverage, he revoked consent
for the company to call him, according to the suit.
Mr. Sherman's attorney, Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group
APC said on Dec. 5 that he was pleased the settlement had been
approved.
Mr. Sherman is represented by Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart
and Abbas Kazerounian and Jason A. Ibey of Kazerouni Law Group
APC.
Kaiser Foundation is represented by Abraham J. Colman --
acolman@reedsmith.com -- Felicia Y. Yu -- fyu@reedsmith.com -- and
Janet M. Lee -- jmlee@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP.
The case is Sherman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., case
number 3:13-cv-00981, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
KENNETH COLE: Interns File Labor Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that Kenneth
Cole Productions Inc. is the latest high-fashion retailer to be
accused of not paying its interns for work that doesn't qualify as
education or training, according to a proposed class action filed
on Dec. 2 in New York court.
Lead plaintiff Oluseyl Shay Awogbile says he and all other unpaid
interns who worked for Kenneth Cole in New York over the past six
years were improperly classified as minimum wage-exempt employees.
The defendant has had the policy since October 2008 through the
present, even though interns -- as persons employed for hire --
are employees as understood under New York labor law, according to
the putative class action. The law defines "employee" as "any
individual employed or permitted to work by an employer in any
occupation."
"Defendant's unlawful conduct had been pursuant to a corporate
policy or practice of minimizing labor costs by denying named
plaintiff and the putative class compensation in violation of the
NYLL and its implementing regulations," the complaint says.
Awogbile, who lives in New York, worked as an intern for Kenneth
Cole from September 2011 through December 2011 and from September
2012 through April 2013, according to the putative class action.
He was allegedly tasked with assisting design work, sketching,
inspecting sample items, organizing production aspects, answering
phones, running errands and performing administrative tasks.
But even though he worked between 30 and 35 hours a week during
his first stint at Kenneth Cole, and between 20 and 30 hours a
week when he returned, the defendant didn't provide him with any
compensation -- only $10 per day for travel expenses and lunch.
Moreover, Kenneth Cole allegedly didn't provide academic or
vocational training to Awogbile or the putative class.
The suit claims the defendant would've hired additional employees
or required existing staff to work additional hours had Awogbile
and other members of the putative class not performed work for
Kenneth Cole.
Class actions launched by unpaid interns in the fashion industry
have been multitudinous in recent years. And New York's Supreme
Court is a hot battleground for these spats.
Gucci America Inc. was hit with an unpaid intern class action in
November, preceded by Calvin Klein Inc. in late October, Marc
Jacobs International LLC in mid-October, Oscar de la Renta LLC in
September and Coach Inc. in July, all launched in New York Supreme
Court and filed by the same two law firms: Leeds Brown Law PC and
Virginia & Ambinder LLP.
Those same two firms announced a $795,000 settlement in November
in New York federal court to end an unpaid intern class action
against The Madison Square Garden Co.
Meanwhile, NBCUniversal Inc. shelled out $6.4 million to resolve a
putative class and collective action filed by former unpaid
interns at MSNBC and Saturday Night Live who claimed they should
have been compensated, according documents filed in New York
federal court in mid-October.
Awogbile and the putative class are represented by Lloyd R.
Ambinder of Virginia & Ambinder LLP; and Michael A. Tompkins and
Jeffrey K. Brown of Leeds Brown Law PC.
The case is Awogbile v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc. et al., case
number 161886/2014, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York.
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Continues to Face "Jansky" Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings continues to face the
class action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., the Company 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.
On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the
Defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and
violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to
diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in
customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as
well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Continues to Face "Pepe" Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings continues to face the
class action lawsuit, Ann Baker Pepe v. Genzyme Corporation and
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, the Company 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.
On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Ann Baker Pepe v. Genzyme Corporation and
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
lawsuit alleges that the Defendants failed to preserve DNA samples
allegedly entrusted to the Defendants and thereby breached a
written agreement with Plaintiff and violated state laws. The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual, double and treble
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal
expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Continues to Face Sandusky Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings continues to face the
class action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v.
MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., the Company 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.
On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the Defendants violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express permission or invitation.
The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of
$5,000 for each violation, subject to trebling under TCPA, and
injunctive relief. In September 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for class
certification was denied. The Company will continue to vigorously
defend the remaining individual claim in the lawsuit.
LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Bohlander" & "Andres" Complaint Amended
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintifs in the class action lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v.
Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et
al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, et al., have
filed an amended complaint, the Company 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.
The Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action
lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, et al., related to overtime pay.
After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the
Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit, and
the consolidated lawsuit is now pending in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles. In the consolidated
lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated
phlebotomists and couriers that the Company failed to pay
overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed
other violations of the California Labor Code.
On March 24, 2014, the Court granted the Company's Motion to
Dismiss due to technical deficiencies in the pleading of the
Plaintiffs' claims, but granted Plaintiffs leave to amend to cure
the defects. Plaintiffs have subsequently filed an amended
complaint. The complaint seeks monetary damages, civil penalties,
costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Defendant in "Rabanes" & "Varsam" Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America 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 is a defendant in two additional putative class action
lawsuits alleging similar claims to the Bohlander/Andres
consolidated lawsuit. The lawsuit Rachel Rabanes v. California
Laboratory Sciences, LLC, et al., was filed in April 2014 in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, and
the lawsuit Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America DBA
LabCorp, was filed in June 2014 in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego. In these lawsuits, the
Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated employees that
the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and
rest breaks, and committed other violations of the California
Labor Code. The complaints seek monetary damages, civil penalties,
costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company will
vigorously defend these lawsuits.
LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Dickerson" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America 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 was served on June 17, 2014, with a putative class action
lawsuit, Michael Dickerson v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
Inc. filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. The complaint alleged that the Company
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by
placing non-emergency telephone calls to cellular telephones
without the recipients' prior consent or permission. The lawsuit
sought the greater of actual damages or the sum of $5,000 for each
violation, subject to trebling under TCPA, and injunctive relief.
The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice in October 2014.
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Faces "Legg" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America 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 was served on July 9, 2014, with a putative class action
lawsuit, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the
Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
("FACTA") by allegedly providing credit card expiration date
information on an electronically printed credit card receipt. The
lawsuit seeks statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
and attorney's fees. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Faces Suits by LipoScience Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2014, Laboratory Corporation of America and
LipoScience, Inc. ("LipoScience") announced that they had entered
into a definitive agreement and plan of merger under which the
Company will acquire all of the outstanding shares of LipoScience
in a cash tender offer for $5.25 per share for a total purchase
price to stockholders and option holders of approximately $85.0
million. The tender offer and the merger are subject to customary
closing conditions set forth in the agreement and plan of merger.
In October 2014, the Company was named in two lawsuits filed by
putative classes of shareholders of LipoScience, Carren Overby v.
LipoScience, Inc., et al, filed in North Carolina state court, and
Gautum Patel v. LipoScience, Inc., et al., filed in Delaware state
court. The lawsuits name both LipoScience and the Company as
defendants and allege breaches of fiduciary duty and/or other
violations of state law arising out of the proposed acquisition,
the Company 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.
LENCO MOBILE: TCPA Class Action Plaintiffs Object to Sale
---------------------------------------------------------
Lenco Mobile Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 12, 2014, a copy of the First Amendment to
the Asset Purchase Agreement made and entered into as of October
31, 2014 by and between Waterfall International Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Purchaser"), and Archer USA Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Seller").
Pursuant to Section 2.3(b) of the Sale Agreement, Archer filed a
motion for Bankruptcy Court approval of the APA and entry of the
Sale Order. Various creditors of Archer objected (the "Creditors'
Objections") to the Sale Motion. In addition, Christopher Legg,
Christina Melito, individually and as representatives of a
putative classes of claimants (collectively, the "Litigants"),
filed a limited objection (the "Litigants' Objection") to the Sale
Motion.
The Litigants are asserting claims under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq. (the "TCPA") against
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. and AEO Management Co.
(collectively, the "Defendants") in two separate class action
lawsuits (the "TCPA Litigation") pending before the United States
District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the
Southern District of Florida (the "District Courts"). Prior to
Archer's filing of the Bankruptcy Case for Chapter 11 relief,
Litigants served subpoenas (the "Subpoenas") on Archer.
The Creditors' Objections included a limited objection by one of
the primary customers of Archer's Marketing Services Business,
Experian Marketing Solutions, Inc. ("Experian"), which included
its contention (the "Indemnification Objection") that it holds an
indemnification claim arising out of the TCPA Litigation against
Archer pursuant to Section 10.1 of that certain iLoop Platform and
Services Reseller Agreement, dated October 8, 2010, as amended
(the "Experian Contract"). Because the Experian Contract is a
Seller Contract to be assumed and assigned to Purchaser under the
Sale Order, Experian contended that the indemnification
obligations, if any, arising from the TCPA Litigation, as well as
any other existing or future indemnification obligations arising
from Seller's pre-Closing acts or omissions in performing the
Experian Contract, whether under the TCPA or other applicable law
or regulation (collectively, the "Archer Experian Indemnification
Obligations") must be assumed and performed by Purchaser post-
Closing.
LIME ENERGY: Insurance to Cover Cost of Defending Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lime Energy Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
carries Directors and Officers insurance with an aggregate limit
of $10 million, which it anticipates will cover the cost of
defending an existing class action suit and derivative action and
any related awards or settlements, up to the limit of the policy.
At this point in the legal process, the Company estimates that its
reasonably possible costs, over and above the amounts covered by
insurance, of responding to these lawsuits, responding to the SEC
investigation and completing its internal investigation and
restatement will be between $6.5 million and $7.0 million, of
which $6.1 million had been incurred through September 30, 2014.
There are many factors that could cause the actual costs to exceed
or be less than this estimate; therefore the Company has not
accrued for these potential future costs.
Lime Energy designs and implements energy efficiency programs that
enable utility clients to reach their underserved markets and
achieve their energy reduction goals.
LIME ENERGY: Judge Grants Final OK of Satterfield Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Lime Energy Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Judge Sara Ellis
entered an order granting final approval of the class action
settlement and notice to the settlement class in the matter
Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co. et al., Case No. 12-cv-05704.
Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co. et al., Case No. 12-cv-5704 (N.D.
Ill.) is a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between May 14, 2008 and December 27, 2012,
inclusive. The Company said that, "Following an announcement by
us dated July 17, 2012, four separate putative class actions were
filed alleging violations of the federal securities laws and
naming as Defendants the Company and two of its former officers,
John O'Rourke and Jeffrey Mistarz. The four cases were
consolidated.
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(the "PSLRA"), on October 26, 2012, the Court appointed Lead
Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint on January 18, 2013, alleging that Defendants
issued false and misleading statements concerning Lime Energy's
revenues during the class period and thereby artificially inflated
our stock price.
On January 21, 2014, following several months of arm's length
negotiations, the Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
stipulation of settlement under which this matter would be fully
and finally settled. As part of the settlement, Defendants agreed
to cause $2.5 million to be paid into a settlement fund, which
$2.5 million has been provided by the Company's directors and
officers liability insurers. On January 28, 2014, Judge Sara
Ellis entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class
action settlement and notice to the settlement class in the
matter. On June 4, 2014, Judge Sara Ellis entered an order
granting final approval of the class action settlement and notice
to the settlement class in the matter Satterfield v. Lime Energy
Co. et al., Case No. 12-cv-05704.
Lime Energy is a leader in designing and implementing energy
efficiency programs that enable utility clients to reach their
underserved markets and achieve their energy reduction goals.
LIPOSCIENCE INC: "Overby" Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
LipoScience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit captioned Carren Overby v.
LipoScience, Inc. et al., Case No. 14CV013448 without prejudice.
On September 24, 2014, LipoScience, Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings, a Delaware corporation (the "Parent"), and Bear
Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Parent (the "Merger Sub"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which the Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company on the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent. The Company's board of
directors has unanimously determined that the Merger Agreement and
the transactions contemplated thereby are advisable, fair to and
in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders and has
recommended approval of the Merger by the Company's stockholders.
On October 9, 2014, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company, members of the
Company's board of directors, Parent and Merger Sub in the
Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina captioned Carren
Overby v. LipoScience, Inc. et al., Case No. 14CV013448. The
plaintiff alleged claims against (i) the members of the Company's
board of directors for breach of fiduciary duties in connection
with their approval of the Merger Agreement, and (ii) the Company,
Parent and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting the alleged breach
of fiduciary duties by the members of the Company's board of
directors. The plaintiff sought, among other things, injunctive
relief enjoining the Merger. On October 23, 2014, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice.
LipoScience is a clinical diagnostic company focused on developing
diagnostic tests based on nuclear magnetic resonance, NMR,
technology to improve the quality of patient care in
cardiovascular, metabolic and other diseases.
LIPOSCIENCE INC: Inks MOU to Settle Merger Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
LipoScience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company and
the other defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of a consolidated
class action.
On September 24, 2014, LipoScience, Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings, a Delaware corporation (the "Parent"), and Bear
Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Parent (the "Merger Sub"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which the Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company on the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent. The Company's board of
directors has unanimously determined that the Merger Agreement and
the transactions contemplated thereby are advisable, fair to and
in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders and has
recommended approval of the Merger by the Company's stockholders.
On October 17, 2014, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, members of
the Company's board of directors, Parent and Merger Sub in the
Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Gautam Patel v. LipoScience,
Inc. et al., Case No. 10252. The plaintiff alleges claims against
(i) the members of the Company's board of directors for breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with their approval of the Merger
Agreement and the dissemination of allegedly incomplete or
misleading information about the Merger to the Company's
stockholders, and (ii) the Company, Parent and Merger Sub for
aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the
members of the Company's board of directors. The plaintiff seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger.
On October 22, 2014, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, members of
the Company's board of directors, Parent and Merger Sub in the
Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Stephen Bushansky v.
LipoScience, Inc. et al., Case No. 10267. The plaintiff alleges
claims against (i) the members of the Company's board of directors
for breach of fiduciary duties in connection with their approval
of the Merger Agreement and the dissemination of allegedly
incomplete or misleading information about the Merger to the
Company's stockholders, and (ii) the Company, Parent and Merger
Sub for aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duties
by the members of the Company's board of directors. The plaintiff
seeks, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger.
On October 22, 2014, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, members of
the Company's board of directors, Parent and Merger Sub in the
Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Faith Rash v. LipoScience,
Inc. et al., Case No. 10273. The plaintiff alleges claims against
(i) the members of the Company's board of directors for breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with their approval of the Merger
Agreement and the dissemination of allegedly incomplete or
misleading information about the Merger to the Company's
stockholders, and (ii) the Company, Parent and Merger Sub for
aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the
members of the Company's board of directors. The plaintiff seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger.
On October 24, 2014, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, members of
the Company's board of directors, Parent and Merger Sub in the
Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Theodore Brown v. Buzz Benson
et al. , Case No. 10283. The plaintiff alleges claims against (i)
the members of the Company's board of directors for breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with their approval of the merger
agreement and the dissemination of allegedly incomplete or
misleading information about the merger to the Company's
stockholders, and (ii) the Company, Parent and Merger Sub for
aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the
members of the Company's board of directors. The plaintiff seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger.
On October 29, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an
Order of Consolidation and Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel and
Liaison Counsel consolidating these four actions under the caption
In re LipoScience, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A.
No. 10252-VCP, or the Consolidated Action.
On November 7, 2014, the Company and the other defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding
the settlement of the Consolidated Action. In connection with the
settlement, the parties agreed that the Company would make certain
additional disclosures to its stockholders, which were provided in
the supplement to the definitive proxy statement filed on November
10, 2014 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Subject to
the completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the
plaintiff, the memorandum of understanding contemplates that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval. If the court approves the settlement,
the settlement will resolve all of the claims that were or could
have been brought in the action being settled, including all
claims relating to the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any
disclosure made in connection with the Merger and Merger
Agreement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the
parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will petition the
court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by
the Company, the amount of which will be agreed to by the parties
or awarded by the court.
LipoScience is a clinical diagnostic company focused on developing
diagnostic tests based on nuclear magnetic resonance, NMR,
technology to improve the quality of patient care in
cardiovascular, metabolic and other diseases.
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: To Defend Against Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
following the Company's initial announcement of the restatement in
March 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of the Company's current and now-former
officers. On September 30, 2014, an amended complaint was filed
against the Company, certain current and former officers, certain
members of the Company's Board of Directors and a shareholder of
the Company, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself.
MANAGED FUTURES: Settlement Reached in Suit v. Morgan Stanley
-------------------------------------------------------------
Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
parties in a class action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation.
On May 7, 2009, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("MS&Co.") was named as a
defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
which is now styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Litigation and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY").
The third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges,
among other things, that the registration statements and offering
documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-
through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading
information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed
these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief,
class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary
damages, costs, interest and fees.
On July 22, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation. The settlement is subject to approval by
the court, which set a final approval hearing for December 18,
2014.
MANAGED FUTURES: Settlement Reached in Suit v. MS&Co and Pinnacle
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
parties in a class action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, reached
an agreement in principle to settle the litigation.
On October 25, 2010, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("MS&Co."), certain
affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose
vehicle, were named as defendants in a purported class action
related to securities issued by the special purpose vehicle in
Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is
styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and
is pending in the SDNY. An amended complaint was filed on October
22, 2012. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on August 22, 2013 and granted class
certification on October 17, 2013.
On October 30, 2013, defendants filed a petition for permission to
appeal the court's decision granting class certification.
On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants engaged
in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the
Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the
securities' failure. In addition, the second amended complaint
alleges that the securities' offering materials contained material
misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying
assets and the alleged conflicts of interest between the
defendants and the investors. The second amended complaint
asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud,
fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement,
and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
On July 17, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation. The settlement is subject to court
approval.
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Files Another Bid to Dismiss Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meadowbrook Insurance Group, 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 filed another motion to dismiss two class action
complaints.
In August and October 2013, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, Robert Cubbin and Karen
Spaun. The cases were subsequently consolidated and on April 25,
2014, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint naming the same defendants, on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's stock
between February 17, 2009 and February 21, 2014 (the "Class
Period"). The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that during
the purported Class Period, the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements relating to the Company's reserves and
reported goodwill.
On July 7, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs filed
a Second Amended Complaint in response to the motion to dismiss.
On November 5, 2014, the Company filed another motion to dismiss
seeking a dismissal of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The
Company has not accrued any amounts for the securities class
actions as the Company does not believe that a loss relating to
these matters is probable, or that an estimate of a range of
potential loss relating to these matters, can reasonably be made.
Meadowbrook Insurance Group is a specialty niche focused
commercial insurance underwriter, which also owns and operates
insurance agencies and an insurance administration services
company.
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the motion
to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint in the case
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:13-
cv-04909-JD, is currently pending.
On February 7, February 14 and February 22, 2013, Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President and CEO, former CFO
and CFO were sued in three separate putative class action
complaints filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging purported violations of the
securities laws. On May 14, 2013, the court consolidated the
complaints and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On July
12, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint
against the same defendants. On October 11, 2013, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
transferred the consolidated action to the United States District
Court for Northern California ("the Court"). On March 31, 2014,
the Court dismissed the Amended Consolidated Complaint for its
failure to allege adequately falsity or scienter.
On May 19, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint. The Second Amended Consolidated Complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and violations of
Israel Securities Law, 1968. It alleges that defendants made
false or misleading statements (or failed to disclose certain
facts) regarding the Company's business and outlook and seeks
unspecified damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including reasonable attorney's fees, and any other relief deemed
just and proper. Lead plaintiffs seek to represent themselves, and
all persons purchasing the Company's common stock between July 19,
2012 and January 2, 2013. On July 7, 2014, defendants moved to
dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Court heard
oral argument on August 20, 2014. Defendants' motion is currently
pending. The matter is captioned, In re Mellanox Technologies,
Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:13-cv-04909-JD.
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israel Class Action Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the class
action by Avigdor Weinberger in Israel remains stayed pending the
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. Securities Litigation.
On February 20, 2013, a request for approval of a class action was
filed in the Economic Division of the District Court of Tel Aviv-
Jaffa against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President
and CEO, former CFO, CFO and each of the members of the Company's
board of directors (the "Israeli Claim"). The Israeli Claim was
filed by Mr. Avigdor Weinberger (the "Claimant"). The Israeli
Claim alleges that the Company, the board members, the Company's
President and CEO, its former CFO and its current CFO are
responsible for making misleading statements (or failing to
disclose certain facts) and filings to the public, as a result of
which the shares of the Company were allegedly traded at a higher
price than their true value during a period commencing on April
19, 2012 and ending January 2, 2013 and, therefore, these parties
are responsible for damages caused to the purchasers of the
Company's shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange during this time.
The Claimant seeks an award of compensation to the relevant
shareholders for all damages caused to them, including attorney
fees and Claimant's fee and any other relief deemed just and
proper by the court.
On April 24, 2013, the Claimant and the Company filed a procedural
agreement with the court to stay the Israeli Claim pending the
completion of the In re Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. Securities
Litigation. On April 24, 2013, the Israeli court approved this
procedural agreement and stayed the Israeli proceedings.
MIDAMAR CORP: To Contest Beef Product False Advertising Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
food supplier falsely marketed beef to Muslims around the world
for years as meeting strict halal standards, exporting products
that weren't slaughtered in accordance with Islamic law, federal
prosecutors allege in a lengthy fraud indictment.
Midamar Corp., based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, denies the allegations
that it sold at least $4.9 million in beef to customers in
Malaysia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and elsewhere that did not
follow the halal practices promised in its labeling and
advertising.
Midamar and its directors, brothers Jalel and Yahya "Bill" Aossey,
are charged with conspiring to make and use false statements and
documents, sell misbranded meat and commit mail and wire fraud.
Also indicted is another company the brothers operate, Islamic
Services of America -- one of the few organizations approved by
Malaysia, Indonesia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and UAE to certify beef
for import into their countries. The defendants are charged with
91 other counts of making false statements on export certificates,
wire fraud and money laundering.
The brothers, ages 40 and 44, entered not guilty pleas to the
charges and were released following an arraignment on Dec. 15 at
the federal courthouse in Cedar Rapids. Their father, Midamar
founder William Aossey Jr., 73, pleaded not guilty to similar
charges last week and watched the Dec. 15 hearing with a company
banker.
Attorney Michael Lahammer, who entered not guilty pleas on behalf
of the corporations, said Midamar stands by its "stellar record"
of delivering and exporting quality products for 40 years and
would contest the charges.
He said the company believed it had fixed labeling infractions
uncovered by inspectors in 2010, and would challenge the
allegations of halal fraud on the grounds that they violate the
U.S. constitution's separation of church and state.
"The government has no right to regulate what is a religious
matter," he said.
Midamar, which remains in business, said in a statement that its
slaughter methods have been vetted by halal auditors for decades.
"The allegations of halal fraud are due to a 'one size fits all'
approach taken by the government authorities," the company said.
Islamic Services of America said that it won't allow "allegations,
implications or inferences of any improprieties" to affect its
operations. The companies are based at the same location and
collectively have about 80 employees.
The indictment alleges the companies repeatedly gave the false
impression that beef products complied with import and United
States Department of Agriculture requirements.
Midamar and Islamic Services of America told customers its cattle
were slaughtered by hand by specially-trained Muslim slaughtermen
who always recited prayer, the indictment alleges. Midamar also
advertised that it did not use penetrative captive bolt stunning,
a process commonly used in meatpacking in which an animal is
killed when a steel rod is shot into its brain.
But Midamar's primary beef supplier was a Windom, Minnesota,
meatpacking plant that used bolt stunning to ensure all cattle
slaughtered "were rendered senseless and were dead," the
indictment alleges. The plant, which wasn't certified for export
to Indonesia and Malaysia, often did not have Muslim slaughtermen
present and didn't recite the "Tasmia" prayer, the indictment
says.
After the orders arrived in Cedar Rapids, employees removed
federally-required labels showing the beef came from that plant
with acetone or nail polish remover, the indictment says.
Employees allegedly then put on fraudulent labels indicating the
meat came from an Omaha plant that was certified to export to
Malaysia and Indonesia. Midamar allegedly included the false
representations about the source on export forms and certificates
presented to and approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Syed Rasheeduddin Ahmed, president of the Muslim Consumer Group
for Food Products, said many Muslims are apprehensive about meat
products that claim to meet halal standards.
"This indictment will add to their suspicion," he said. "Where
can we buy? Which one is halal?"
MINE SAFETY: "Word" Suit Removed to Eastern District of Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Pangborn Corporation removed the lawsuit captioned Word
v. Mine Safety Appliances Company, et al., Case No. CV-2014-457-2,
from the Jefferson County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Pine Bluff). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00445-BRW to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants' conduct was malicious
with conscious disregard for the Plaintiff's, and those similarly
situated, safety, health, and well-being and, thus, warrants
punitive damages.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T. Givens, Esq.
Patrick C. Malouf, Esq.
Timothy W. Porter, Esq.
PORTER & MALOUF, P.A.
Post Office Box 12768
Jackson, MS 39236-2768
Telephone: (601) 957-7366
E-mail: johnny@portermalouf.com
patrick@portermalouf.com
tim@portermalouf.com
- and -
Robert Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
THE SMITH LAW FIRM, PLLC
681Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: (601) 952-1422
Facsimile: (601) 952-1426
E-mail: allen@smith-law.org
Defendants Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pangborn Corporation,
Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corp., Empire Abrasive Equipment
Corporation, Precision Packaging Inc., Lone Star Industries Inc.,
3M Company, E D Bullard Company, Does John & Jane 1-500, and Doe
Corporation are represented by:
Alex T. Gray, Esq.
Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Esq.
Megan D. Hargraves, Esq.
MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 688-8800
E-mail: agray@mwlaw.com
lpruitt@mwlaw.com
mhargraves@mwlaw.com
- and -
Ginger C. Hyneman, Esq.
MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
100 East Huntington, Suite C
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Telephone: (870) 336-9295
Facsimile: (870) 336-9787
E-mail: ghyneman@mwlaw.com
Defendant 3M Company is also represented by:
Mary Clay Morgan, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLC
188 East Capitol Street, Suite 400
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 948-8000
Facsimile: (601) 948-3000
E-mail: mmorgan@babc.com
Defendant E D Bullard Company is also represented by:
D. Michael Huckabay, Jr., Esq.
James Tucker Sayes, Esq.
HUCKABAY LAW FIRM
Simmons Tower, Suite 1575
425 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 375-5600
Facsimile: (501) 375-5605
E-mail: michael@huckabaylawfirm.com
jay@huckabaylawfirm.com
MMA CAPITAL: Expects to Settle Remaining Counts in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
MMA Capital Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit and two
derivative suits originally filed in 2008. The plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuit claim to represent a class of investors in
the Company's shares who allegedly were injured by misstatements
in press releases and SEC filings between May 3, 2004, and January
28, 2008. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages for
themselves and the shareholders of the class they purported to
represent.
In the derivative suits, the plaintiffs claimed, among other
things, that the Company was injured because its directors and
certain named officers did not fulfill duties regarding the
accuracy of its financial disclosures. Both the class action and
the derivative cases were brought in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action and in June
2012, the Court issued a ruling dismissing all of the counts
alleging any knowing or intentional wrongdoing by the Company or
its affiliates, directors and officers. The plaintiffs appealed
the Court's ruling and on March 7, 2014, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed the lower
Court's ruling. As a result of these rulings, the only counts
remaining in the class action relate to the Company's dividend
reinvestment plan and the plaintiffs in the derivative case have
voluntarily dismissed their case outright.
The Company expects to settle the remaining counts at an amount
between $0.4 million and $0.9 million and had a contingent
obligation of $0.5 million recorded at September 30, 2014. The
parties have reached an agreement in principle in the foregoing
range, but there are numerous steps to be taken before the
settlement can be considered final and binding. Assuming the
agreement becomes final and binding, the resulting settlement
amount is expected to be covered fully by insurance.
MOL GLOBAL: Four Law Firms File Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Star/Asia News Network reports that four law firms in the
United States have filed class-action suits against Nasdaq-listed
MOL Global Inc., which is one of the worst performers post
listing.
Wire reports said that Gainey McKenna & Egleston, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and The Rosen Law
Firm had filed the suits in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York seeking to recover damages for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws.
Among others, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the
company was overstating the revenue and profit derived from MOL
Global's business and operations.
The four are seeking to recover investors' losses pursuant to MOL
Global's initial public offering (IPO) under the US federal
securities laws.
Robbins Geller's complaint alleged that under the rules and
regulations governing the preparation of the registration
statement, MOL Global was required to disclose at the time of the
IPO that it lacked adequate financial reporting capabilities to
timely and accurately report its financial results and forecasts.
It also alleged that MOL Global misstated its revenue and direct
cost and other ancillary expenses in its Vietnam subsidiary, and
that the shift from online to mobile gaming had decreased volume
in the company's online games portal, MMOG.asia, with the decrease
being further compounded by technical delays in introducing and
monetising new mobile games on its platform.
The plaintiff noted that MOL Global's registration statement
contained no such disclosures.
Glancy Binkow alleged that MOL Global failed to disclose that it
would not be able to report its third-quarter 2014 financial
results on Nov. 21, as previously stated and thus as a result of
the foregoing, its financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Trading in the shares had been halted since Nov. 24 due to the
delay in the release of its third-quarter results and the
resignation of chief financial officer Allan Wong.
StarBiz reported on Dec. 4 that MOL Global's single largest
shareholder Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun gave his backing to the
company's management and felt that the stock had been unfairly
punished.
MOL Global shares have since recovered some of the losses and were
last traded at US$3.95 in after-hours trading on Dec. 4.
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: 14 Charged Over Meningitis Outbreak
------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Lavoie, writing for The Associated Press, reports that mold
and bacteria were in the air and on workers' gloved fingertips.
Pharmacists used expired ingredients, didn't properly sterilize
them and failed to test drugs for purity before sending them to
hospitals and pain clinics. Employees falsified logs to make it
look as if the so-called clean rooms had been disinfected.
Federal prosecutors leveled those allegations in bringing charges
on Dec. 17 against 14 former owners or employees of a
Massachusetts pharmacy in connection with a nationwide meningitis
outbreak that killed 64 people.
U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz called it the biggest criminal case
ever brought in the U.S. over contaminated medicine. The 2012
outbreak was traced to tainted drug injections manufactured by the
now-closed New England Compounding Center of Framingham.
Barry Cadden, a co-founder of the business, and Glenn Adam Chin, a
supervisory pharmacist, were slapped with the most serious
charges, accused in the racketeering indictment of causing the
deaths of 25 patients in seven states by acting with "wanton and
willful disregard" of the risks.
The other defendants were charged with such crimes as fraud and
interstate sale of adulterated drugs.
Ortiz said NECC was "filthy" and failed to comply with even basic
health standards, and employees knew it.
"Production and profit were prioritized over safety," she said.
More than 750 people in 20 states fell ill -- about half of them
with a rare fungal form of meningitis, the rest with joint or
spinal infections -- after getting steroid injections, mostly for
back pain. Sixty-four died.
In reaction, Congress last year increased federal oversight of
so-called compounding pharmacies like NECC, which custom-mix
medications in bulk and supply them directly to hospitals and
doctors.
Cadden's lawyer, Bruce Singal, complained that prosecutors are
trying to turn a "tragic accident" into a federal crime.
"Not every accident, and not every tragedy, are caused by criminal
conduct," Mr. Singal state in a statement.
Mr. Chin's lawyer, Stephen Weymouth, said he was stunned that
prosecutors charged his client with second-degree murder under the
racketeering law.
"He feels hugely remorseful for everything that's happened -- for
the injuries and the deaths -- but he never intended to cause harm
to anybody," Mr. Weymouth said. "It seems to be a bit of an
overreach."
Lawyers for the other defendants did not immediately return calls.
John Nedroscik, 64, of Howell, Michigan, received the tainted
steroids while getting treatment for damaged discs in his back.
He contracted a fungal infection that caused an abscess on his
spine. He spent nearly a month in the hospital for surgery to
remove the abscess and then had to return frequently for a string
of problems. He said he still takes pain medication and has
trouble sleeping.
"I still struggle with some stuff," he said. But "it could have
been a lot worse."
Messrs. Cadden and Chin were ordered jailed for a bail hearing on
Dec. 18. Gregory Conigliaro, who founded the business in 1988
with Cadden, his brother-in-law, was also among those arrested.
The federal law used against Cadden and Chin, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, was originally aimed at
organized crime but has been applied in white-collar prosecutions
and many other kinds of cases over the years.
Jeffrey Grell, a former prosecutor in Minnesota who is an expert
on RICO, said it is unusual to use the law to prosecute a
pharmaceutical company.
But "here, you've got such a close link between the meningitis and
the malfeasance at the laboratory, I can totally understand why
the U.S. Attorney's Office is using it in this circumstance," he
said.
After the outbreak came to light, regulators found a host of
potential sources of contamination at the pharmacy, including
standing water, mold and dirty equipment. The business filed for
bankruptcy after it was bombarded with hundreds of lawsuits from
victims or their heirs.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Stuart Delery said the defendants showed
"not only a reckless disregard for federal health and safety
regulations, but also an extreme and appalling disregard for human
life."
"Every patient should have the peace of mind knowing that their
medications are safe," he said.
The International Academy of Compounding Pharmacists defended the
industry and portrayed the Massachusetts business as a rogue
operator.
With the passage of new legislation, "the profession operates in a
highly regulated environment and compounding pharmacists adhere
to, and even exceed, these regulations every day," group said.
"The announcement is an important milestone in seeing that justice
is served."
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Two Men to Be Released in Meningitis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Marcelo, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two
men at the center of a 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak that killed
64 people will be released from custody, pending trial on criminal
charges.
Judge Jennifer Boal said the U.S. attorney's office had not "met
its burden" in requesting the detention of Barry Cadden, a
co-founder of the now-shuttered New England Compounding Center,
and Glenn Chin, the Framingham-based company's supervisory
pharmacist.
The two were among 14 people arrested and charged on Dec. 17 in
what authorities say is the largest U.S. criminal case ever
brought over contaminated medicine.
In a hearing on Dec. 18, lawyers for Cadden and Chin argued that
their clients don't serious flight risks, as the prosecution
claims. Judge Boal said she will set conditions for their release
Friday at 2:30 p.m.
* * *
Philip Marcelo, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two
men at the center of a 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak that killed
64 people asked to be freed from prison until their criminal
trials.
Barry Cadden, a co-founder of the now-shuttered New England
Compounding Center, and Glenn Chin, the Framingham-based company's
supervisory pharmacist, were in federal court on Dec. 18 as their
lawyers argued for their release.
The two were among 14 people arrested on Dec. 17 in a federal
racketeering conspiracy that authorities say is the largest U.S.
criminal case ever brought over contaminated medicine.
New England Compounding Center employees are accused of using
expired ingredients and failing to follow cleanliness standards,
resulting in tainted steroid injections used mostly for back pain.
More than 750 people in 20 states fell ill and 64 died. About
half of the victims developed a rare fungal form of meningitis.
The rest suffered joint or spinal infections.
Messrs. Cadden and Chin's lawyers argued that their clients have
deep roots in Massachusetts and have long been aware of the
likelihood of their arrest.
Bruce Singal, Cadden's lawyer, called imprisonment until trial a
"vast overreach."
Stephen Weymouth, Mr. Chin's lawyer, said his client has been
following a home confinement order after being arrested and
charged with a single count of federal mail fraud in September
when he attempted to fly to Hong Kong with his family for a
wedding.
Prosecutors argued the two pose a flight risk because they face
life in prison if convicted.
"We understand the argument that they've been here forever, that
they have homes here," said George Varghese, an assistant U.S.
attorney. "But the calculus changes when you face the enormity of
offenses that these two men are now facing."
Of the 14 defendants, Messrs. Cadden and Chin face the most
serious charges, including 25 counts each of second-degree murder
under federal racketeering law. Others face charges including
fraud and interstate sale of adulterated drugs.
Judge Jennifer Boal took the arguments under advisement and will
render a decision at a later date.
NUTEK DISPOSABLES: Removes "Silver" Class Suit to W.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Silver v. NUTEK Disposables,
Inc., et al., Case No. 644-1923133, was removed from the Jefferson
County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky (Louisville). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00872-JGH to the proceeding.
The lawsuit asserts personal injury claims.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex C. Davis, Esq.
Jasper D. Ward, Esq.
JONES WARD PLC
312 S. Fourth Street, 6th Floor
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (502) 882-6000
Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
E-mail: alex@jonesward.com
jasper@jonesward.com
Defendants NUTEK Disposables, Inc. and First Quality Enterprises
are represented by:
James A. Sigler, Esq.
WHITLOW, ROBERTS, HOUSTON & STRAUB, PLLC
300 Broadway Street
P.O. Box 995
Paducah, KY 42002-0995
Telephone: (270) 443-4516
Facsimile: (270) 443-4571
E-mail: jsigler@whitlow-law.com
OMNICELL INC: Plaintiff Fails to File Appeal by Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Omnicell, 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 plaintiff in a
class action lawsuit failed to file an appeal of the court's
decision dismissing the complaint by the deadline.
The Company said, "During November 2012, an Omnicell electronic
device containing medication dispensing cabinet log files from
three health system customers was stolen from an Omnicell
employee's locked vehicle. The files on this device contained
certain protected patient health information related to medication
dispensing transactions from our medication dispensing cabinets
over a one to three-week period, downloaded by the employee while
troubleshooting software for the hospitals. This loss resulted in
a putative class action complaint being filed against us and
certain of our customers in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey in March 2013 alleging breach of state
security notification laws, violations of state consumer fraud
laws, fraud, negligence and conspiracy relating to the theft of an
Omnicell electronic device containing medication dispensing
cabinet log files, including certain patient health information,
described above and subsequent notification of this unauthorized
disclosure of personal health information. In December 2013, the
court issued an order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without
prejudice. The plaintiff failed to file an appeal of the court's
decision by the January 27, 2014 deadline."
Omnicell, Inc. was incorporated in California in 1992 under the
name Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and reincorporated in Delaware in
2001 as Omnicell, Inc. Its major products are automated
medication supply control systems and medical adherence solutions
which are sold in its principal market, which is the healthcare
industry.
PEREGRINE SEMICONDUCTOR: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 10, 2014, that the Company entered on November 10, 2014,
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with
plaintiffs and other named defendants regarding the settlement of
a number of putative class action lawsuits filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court (the "Court"), as well as the settlement of all
related claims that were or could have been asserted in other
actions, in response to the announcement of the execution of an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 22, 2014 (the
"Merger Agreement"), by and between Peregrine, Murata Electronics
North America Ltd. ("Murata") and PJ Falcon Acquisition Company,
Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Murata. Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, Peregrine will become a wholly owned subsidiary of
Murata (the "Merger").
As described in further detail in the definitive proxy statement
filed on October 16, 2014 (the "Proxy Statement"), purported
stockholders of Peregrine filed class action lawsuits in the Court
which were consolidated as In re Peregrine Semiconductor Corp.
Shareholders Litig., Consolidated, C.A. No. 10119-CB (the
"Delaware Lawsuits"). The Delaware Lawsuits name Peregrine, its
directors, Murata and PJ Falcon Acquisition Company, Ltd. as
defendants.
Under the terms of the MOU, Peregrine, the other defendants and
the plaintiff have agreed to settle the Delaware Lawsuits and
release the defendants from all claims relating to the Merger,
subject to approval by the Court. If the Court approves the
settlement contemplated by the MOU, the Delaware Lawsuits will be
dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU,
Peregrine has agreed to make available additional information to
its stockholders. The additional information is contained below
and should be read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement, which
should be read in its entirety. Defined terms used but not defined
herein have the meanings set forth in the Proxy Statement. In
return, the plaintiffs have agreed to dismissal of the Delaware
Lawsuits with prejudice and to withdraw all motions filed in
connection with the Delaware Lawsuits. If the MOU is finally
approved by the Court, it is anticipated that the MOU will resolve
and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement
and any disclosures made in connection therewith. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the
settlement, even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.
The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to
Peregrine's stockholders in connection with the Merger or the
timing of the special meeting of Peregrine's stockholders, which
is scheduled for November 19, 2014 in San Diego, California, to
consider and vote upon a proposal to approve the Merger Agreement,
among other things.
Peregrine and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or liability with
respect to the facts and claims asserted, or which could have been
asserted, in the Delaware Lawsuits, including that they have
committed any violations of law or breach of fiduciary duty, that
they have acted improperly in any way, or that they have any
liability or owe any damages of any kind to plaintiffs or to the
purported class, and specifically deny that any further
supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable rule,
statute, regulation or law or that the Peregrine directors failed
to maximize stockholder value by entering into the Merger
Agreement with Murata and PJ Falcon Acquisition Company, Ltd. The
settlement contemplated by the MOU is not, and should not be
construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any
defendant. However, to avoid the risk of delaying the Merger, and
to provide additional information to Peregrine's stockholders at a
time and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the Merger,
Peregrine and its directors agreed to the settlement described
above. The parties considered it desirable that the action be
settled to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to fully
and finally resolve the matter.
PFIZER INC: Sued Over Injury Arising From Use of Pristiq Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Danielson, Individually, and as Parent and Natural
Guardian of HER Minor Child, P.E. v. Pfizer, Inc.; and Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00531-BLW (D. Idaho,
December 12, 2014) alleges that the pharmaceutical drug Pristiq is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings as to
the dangers associated with its use.
The Plaintiffs bring the action for personal injury, statutory and
compensatory damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged
concealment of risks associated with its drug PRISTIQ(R) or
desvenlafaxine, as well as damages relating to the Defendants'
design, manufacture, sale, testing marketing, advertising,
promotion, and distribution of the unsafe drug Pristiq.
Pfizer, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York
City. Wyeth is a Delaware corporation with its registered agent's
office located in Davids, Pennsylvania. Wyeth is a subsidiary of
Pfizer.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric B. Swartz, Esq.
JONES & SWARTZ PLLC
1673 W. Shoreline Drive, Suite 200
P.O. Box 7808
Boise, ID 83707-7808
Telephone: (208) 489-8989
Facsimile: (208) 489-8988
E-mail: eric@jonesandswartzlaw.com
- and -
Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
Jessica A. Perez, Esq.
Stan P. Baudin, Esq.
Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq.
PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
P. O. Drawer 71
24110 Eden Street
Plaquemine, LA 70765
Telephone: (225) 687-6396
Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
jperez@pbclawfirm.com
RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Case in Early Stages of Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint in the Ingrid
Barahona California Class Action, and the case remains in the
early stages of litigation.
On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc.
("DBA"), and two third-party staffing companies (collectively, the
"Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted for
temporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona seeks damages
and penalties under California law alleging that she and the
putative class were the subject of unfair and unlawful business
practices, including certain wage and hour violations relating to,
among others, failure to provide certain rest and meal periods, as
well as failure to pay minimum wages and overtime. Ms. Barahona
alleges that she was jointly employed by the staffing companies
and Radiant and DBA. Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's
allegations in their entirety, deny that they are liable to Ms.
Barahona or the putative class members in any way, and are
vigorously defending against these allegations based upon a
preliminary evaluation of applicable records and legal standards.
In addition, the Company believes that the plaintiff's class
definition is overly broad and cannot meet California's class
action certification requirements.
On August 28, 2014, the Company filed an Answer to Ms. Barahona's
First Amended Complaint, and the case remains in the early stages
of litigation. The Company is unable to express an opinion as to
the final outcome of the matter.
REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marton Gellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Regional Adjustment Bureau Incorporated, Case No.
1:14-cv-07286 (E.D.N.Y., December 15, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Palace, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
383 Kingston Avenue, #113
Brooklyn, NY 11213
Telephone: (347) 651-1077
Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com
SKECHERS USA: Faces 8 Suits Arising From Sale of Toning Shoes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al., is facing eight lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky:
-- Dorothea Hussey v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00884-TBR;
-- Shelly Betlej v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00874-TBR;
-- Daphne North v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00876-TBR;
-- Marilyn Yagi v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00878-TBR;
-- Diana Ladden v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00886-TBR;
-- Mary A. Thompson v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00880-TBR;
-- Caryn Conley v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00877-TBR; and
-- Scott Baker v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00875-TBR.
The Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Skechers
intentionally made numerous misrepresentations, and continues to
make those representations, regarding the efficacy and health
benefits of its toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and
Tone-ups.
The cases are part of the multidistrict litigation known as In re:
Skechers Toning Shoe Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2308.
The Practice and Procedure Order No. 2 authorized direct filing of
cases into MDL No. 2308 in order to eliminate delays associated
with transfer of cases and to promote judicial efficiency. Upon
the completion of all pretrial proceedings applicable to the
cases, each of the case will be transferred to the federal
district court in the district where the Plaintiff allegedly was
injured by use of Skechers shoes or where the Plaintiff resides at
the time of the transfer.
Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups. Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic
benefits. Skechers markets and promotes its toning shoes to be
worn in place of other athletic shoes during daily activities,
exercise routines, and in the workplace.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
812 E. National Road
Dayton, Ohio 45377
Telephone: (937) 435-7500
Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Voelker" Suit in Kentucky Over Toning Shoes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Voelker v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., Skechers, U.S.A., Inc.,
II, and Skechers Fitness Group, Case No. 3:14-cv-00888-TBR (W.D.
Ky., December 15, 2014) alleges that Skechers made numerous
misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and health benefits of
its toning shoes.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California.
Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II also headquartered in Manhattan Beach.
Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups. Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
812 E. National Road
Dayton, OH 45377
Telephone: (937) 435-7500
Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com
SONY PICTURES: Faces Class Action Over Employee Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael W. Sobol of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, disclosed that former employees
of Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. on Dec. 17 filed a class
action lawsuit against the company for failing to take reasonable
measures to secure the data of its employees from hacking and
other attacks. As a result, personally identifiable information
maintained by Sony of its current and former employees and their
families has been obtained and posted on websites across the
Internet apparently by a group calling itself the "Guardians of
Peace."
"The employee data maintained by Sony that has been hacked
contains the most intimate details of the personal and
professional lives of thousands of current and former Sony
employees and their families," stated Mr. Sobol. "These employees
are now vulnerable to cyber criminals who may use their Social
Security Numbers, birth dates, medical records, and personnel
data."
Among the staggering array of personally identifiable information
that has been compromised are medical records, Social Security
Numbers, birth dates, personal emails, home addresses, salaries,
tax information, employee evaluations, disciplinary actions,
criminal background checks, severance packages, and family medical
histories.
The complaint, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, charges that
Sony owed a duty to take reasonable step to secure the data of its
employees from hacking. Sony allegedly breached this duty by
failing to properly invest in adequate IT security, despite having
already succumbed to one of the largest data breaches in history
only three years ago. The complaint alleges that Sony's acts and
omissions constituted negligence and violated California law
including the California data breach notification and medical
records retention statutes.
The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all current and
former employees of Sony, and their families, within the United
States whose personally identifiable information was compromised
by the recent data breach. The lawsuit seeks an award of
appropriate relief including damages and injunctive relief against
Sony.
Persons interested in the lawsuit, as well as current and former
Sony employees who wish to report their experiences, can find
further information on the litigation and confidentially contact
plaintiffs' attorneys at
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Case-Center/sony-data-breach.shtml
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a sixty-plus attorney
law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville.
Described as "one of the nation's premier plaintiffs' firms"by the
American Lawyer, Lieff Cabraser is among the largest law firms in
the United States that only represent plaintiffs. Lieff Cabraser
is actively litigating digital privacy claims of individuals
against Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn, among others.
SONY PICTURES: Faces "Corona" and "Mathis" Data Breach Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Condon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two
former employees of Sony Pictures Entertainment are suing the
company for not preventing hackers from stealing nearly 50,000
social security numbers, salary details and other personal
information from current and former workers.
The lawsuit claims that Sony Pictures failed to secure its
computer systems despite "weaknesses that it has known about for
years," but that the company made a business decision to accept
the risk. It states that the latest data breaches are especially
"surprising and egregious" because Sony Pictures has been
repeatedly attacked over the years, including a 2011 hack that
revealed millions of user accounts on Sony's PlayStation video-
game network.
The case filed in a federal court in Los Angeles on Dec. 15 seeks
class-action status for other current and former employees whose
personal information was stolen posted online.
The case has two named plaintiffs: Michael Corona, a former Sony
Entertainment employee who left the company in 2007 and now lives
in Virginia, and Christina Mathis, who left the company in 2002
and lives in California. They allege their Social Security
numbers and other sensitive personal information have been leaked,
exposing them to identify theft for years to come.
Their lawyers allege that emails and other information leaked by
the hackers show that Sony's information-technology department and
its top lawyer believed its security system was vulnerable to
attack, but that company did not act on those warnings.
Mr. Corona and Ms. Mathis do not spell out how much they are
seeking the case, but want actual damages and an order requiring
Sony to pay for services to monitor credit and banking services
and repair damage from identify theft for at least five years.
Sony has offered employees one year of credit monitoring, the
lawsuit states. The plaintiffs claim that protection is
inadequate because it can take years for thieves to exploit the
personal information included in the data breach.
Mr. Corona so far has spent $700 on identity theft protection for
him and his family, and Ms. Mathis has spent $300, according to
the suit.
Highly sensitive material from the entertainment unit of Tokyo-
based Sony Corp. has been leaked almost daily since hackers broke
into its computer networks last month. New threats and data leaks
from the shadowy group calling itself Guardians of Peace, or GOP,
were issued on Dec. 16.
SONY PICTURES: Faces "Dukow" and "Yaconelli" Data Breach Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Condon and Anthony McCartney, writing for The Associated
Press, report that a second class action lawsuit has been filed
against Sony Pictures Entertainment by two former employees whose
private data was stolen from the company's servers and posted
online.
The lawsuit filed on Dec. 16 in Los Angeles Superior Court accuses
Sony of waiting too long to notify employees that data such as
Social Security numbers, salaries and medical records had been
stolen. The suit is filed by two former Sony film production
workers, Susan Dukow and Yvonne Yaconelli.
Their filing comes one day after two other former Sony employees
filed a class action lawsuit in federal court. Both cases seek to
represent current and former Sony employees who private data was
posted online.
The Culver City, California division of Japan's Sony Corp. has not
responded to requests for comment on the lawsuits.
Legal experts said the cases are likely just two of many that will
be filed over the data breach. Sony potentially faces tens of
millions of dollars in damages from a class-action lawsuit, said
Jonathan Handel, an entertainment law professor at the University
of Southern California Gould School of Law.
"This is not a 'bet your company' lawsuit but it is a serious
matter for Sony both in terms of dollar exposure and public
perception of the brand," Mr. Handel said. "This doesn't look
good for Sony, which after all is a technology company."
In addition to lawsuits from its ex-employees, Sony is likely to
face fines from government regulators and lawsuits from actors,
producers and directors who may not want to work with the studio
anymore, said Steven S. Rubin -- srubin@moritthock.com -- a New
York cybersecurity lawyer with the firm Moritt Hock & Hamroff.
Among the materials that have been leaked are sensitive emails and
studio materials that criticize actors and producers. Those with
ongoing contracts with Sony could argue the company has breached
their agreement and move their work elsewhere, Mr. Rubin said.
SONY PICTURES: Faces "Felix" Class Action Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a former director of technology
for Sony Pictures Entertainment has sued the company over the data
breach that resulted in the online posting of his private
financial and personal information.
Lionel Felix's lawsuit filed on Dec. 18 in federal court in Los
Angeles states he ran the company's infrastructure for Sony
Pictures Digital Entertainment from 2001 to 2004. His lawsuit is
joined by Michael Levine, one of the company's former technical
directors.
The suit seeks class action status for the nearly 50,000 current
and former employees' whose data was stolen and posted online by
hackers.
Their suit alleges Sony ignored warnings about the security of its
networks.
"For decades, (Sony) failed, and continues to fail, to take the
reasonably necessary actions to provide a sufficient level of IT
security to reasonably secure its employees'" personal
information, the lawsuit states.
The suit cites previous hacks on Sony's servers, including a 2011
attack that breached millions of accounts of its PlayStation
Network. It also cites a security audit from earlier this year
that found faults with the company's electronic security
procedures.
In all, eight ex-Sony employees have filed lawsuits against the
company this week over the hack, which has been linked to North
Korea.
Sony did not immediately respond to a request for comment about
the lawsuit.
SOTHEBY'S INC: Appeal in "Graham" Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action case, Estate of Robert Graham, et
al. v. Sotheby's, Inc., remains pending, the Company 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.
Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported
class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists
(and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the
State of California or at auction by California sellers and for
which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale
Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for
alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law.
In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion to dismiss the action on
the grounds, among others, that the Resale Royalties Act violates
the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act
of 1976. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed their response to
Sotheby's motion to dismiss. The court heard oral arguments on the
motion to dismiss on March 12, 2012.
On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing the action
on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated the Commerce
Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs have appealed this
ruling. Sotheby's believes that there are meritorious defenses to
the appeal.
SOTHEBY'S INC: Bid to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's, 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 decision by the
court is pending on the motion by plaintiffs for an order
dismissing the class action, The Employees Retirement System of
the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-
VCP (Del. Ch. 2014), as moot and for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses in the amount of $3.5 million.
On April 1, 2014, the Employees Retirement System of the City of
St. Louis, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of
Sotheby's stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint
against the Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby's. The
plaintiff alleged in two counts that the Directors breached their
fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-
called "proxy puts" in certain Sotheby's credit agreements. The
plaintiff alleged that the Rights Plan was discriminatory, was
designed to entrench current board members, and undermined the
proxy contest that was being conducted by Third Point. In
addition, the plaintiff alleged that the Directors endorsed credit
agreements containing "proxy put" provisions that were
unnecessary, preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate
Directors from proxy contests. The plaintiff sought judgment
preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment
preliminarily enjoining the Directors from using any proxies
solicited before they "approve" the Third Point nominees for
directorships, and a declaration that the Rights Plan was
unenforceable and that the Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the putative class.
On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this
action and Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v.
Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. --9508-VCP with the prior
pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil
Action No. 9469-VCP.
On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs'
motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions,
the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motion.
Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a
likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.
On June 4, 2014, the plaintiffs in this action and in the
Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System action jointly
filed a motion for an order dismissing their actions as moot and
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $3.5
million. On July 25, 2014, Sotheby's filed a brief in opposition
to the plaintiffs' motion. A hearing on the motion was held on
August 14, 2014 and a decision by the court is pending.
Sotheby's has been coordinating with its directors and officers
insurance carrier on the defense of this action and believes that
the outcome of this matter will not result in any cost to
Sotheby's.
SOTHEBY'S INC: Court Rejects Preliminary Injunction Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's, 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 Court denied
plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions, finding that
plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of
their claims in the case Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement
System v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No.--9508-VCP (Del. Ch.
2014).
On April 3, 2014, Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System,
the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of Sotheby's
stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint against the
Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby's. The plaintiff alleged
in two counts that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties
in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-called "proxy
puts" in certain Sotheby's credit agreements. The plaintiff
alleged that the Rights Plan was discriminatory, was designed to
entrench current board members, and undermined the proxy contest
that was being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the
plaintiff alleged that the Directors endorsed credit agreements
containing "proxy put" provisions that were unnecessary,
preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate Directors from
proxy contests. The plaintiff sought judgment preliminarily and
permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily
enjoining the Directors from using any proxies solicited before
they "approve" the Third Point nominees for directorships, and a
declaration that the Rights Plan was unenforceable and that the
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the putative class.
On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this
action and The Employees Retirement System of the City of St.
Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP with the
prior pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil
Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and
argument on plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions in the
coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying
the motion. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed
to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Reply in Support of Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, 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, the Company
filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss the Shareholder
Litigation.
John Perry v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March
14, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case
Number 2:2013-cv-00433-LDG-CWH. This putative consolidated class
action raises substantially identical claims and allegations
against defendants Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C.
Shrotriya, Brett L. Scott, and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged
class period is August 8, 2012 to March 12, 2013. The lawsuits
allege a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against all defendants and control person liability, as a
violation of Section 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
against the individual defendants. The claims purportedly stem
from the Company's March 12, 2013 press release, in which it
announced that it anticipated a change in ordering patterns of
FUSILEV. The complaints allege that, as a result of the March 12,
2013 press release, the Company's stock price declined. The
complaints further allege that during the putative class period
certain defendants made misleadingly optimistic statements about
FUSILEV sales, which inflated the trading price of Company stock.
The lawsuits seek relief in the form of monetary damages, costs
and fees, and any other equitable or injunctive relief that the
court deems appropriate.
On March 21, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On May 20, 2014,
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.
On July 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint. On September 19,
2014, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed an opposition to
the motion to dismiss. On October 17, 2014, the Company filed a
reply in support of the motion to dismiss.
SPRINT CORP: Accused of Illegally Billing for Unwanted Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
federal regulators are accusing Sprint Corp. of illegally billing
its wireless customers hundreds of millions of dollars in charges
for text message alerts and other services that they didn't order.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said on Dec. 17 that it
has sued the third-largest U.S. cellphone carrier over billing for
unauthorized charges, a practice known as "cramming." The agency
said Sprint failed to oversee third-party companies, allowing
illegal charges to be put on customers' bills. Over a decade,
consumers were charged for items like cellphone ringtones or
horoscope text messages they didn't want and didn't sign up for,
the regulators said.
Because Sprint profited from the billing system, receiving up to
40 percent of the revenue from the charges, "there was little
incentive for (Sprint) to put a stop to them," CFPB Director
Richard Cordray told reporters in a conference call.
Sprint, based in Overland Park, Kansas, disputed the government's
allegations, saying in a statement that "We strongly disagree with
(the CFPB's) characterization of our business practices" and
invited customers to contact the company if they thought they had
been charged improperly.
The bureau said the unauthorized charges ranged from one-time fees
of 99 cents to $4.99, to monthly subscriptions costing $9.99 a
month. It said some third-party merchants tricked consumers into
providing their cellphone numbers to get "free" digital content,
and then charged them for it. Many consumers didn't know that
third parties could put charges on their phone bills.
In its lawsuit filed in federal court in New York's Manhattan, the
CFPB is seeking an unspecified money penalty against Sprint.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the Federal Communications
Commission is expected to fine Sprint a record $105 million for
the alleged violations.
FCC spokesmen declined to comment on Dec. 17. But the agency said
in a statement that it is pursuing actions with the CFPB "to
protect consumers from unauthorized fees on their wireless bills."
Sprint said in its statement that it took "considerable steps to
protect wireless customers from unauthorized third-party billing
and is an industry leader in proactively preventing unauthorized
charges. . . . We consistently have encouraged any customers who
think they may have incurred an unauthorized third-party charge on
their phone bill to contact Sprint to resolve the issue."
Federal regulators have been targeting cellphone cramming in
recent years. The Federal Trade Commission has pursued seven
cases since 2013. In October, the FTC won a $105 million
settlement from AT&T Mobility, a subsidiary of telecom giant AT&T.
The settlement included $80 million in refunds to customers.
STATE STREET: Continues to Face Actions Over Forex Trades
---------------------------------------------------------
State Street 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
continues to face class action lawsuits over foreign exchange
transactions.
In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in federal
court in Boston seeking unspecified damages, including treble
damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed certain
foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 to 2009.
The putative class action alleges, among other things, that the
rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades
constituted an unfair and deceptive practice under Massachusetts
law and a breach of the duty of loyalty.
Two other putative class actions are currently pending in federal
court in Boston alleging various violations of ERISA on behalf of
all ERISA plans custodied with the Company that executed indirect
foreign exchange trades with State Street from 1998 onward. The
complaints allege that State Street caused class members to pay
unfair and unreasonable rates on indirect foreign exchange trades
with State Street. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
disgorgement of profits, and other equitable relief. Other claims
may be asserted in the future, including in response to
developments in the actions discussed above or governmental
proceedings.
"We expect that plaintiffs will seek to recover their share of all
or a portion of the revenue that we have recorded from indirect
foreign exchange trades. We cannot predict whether a court, in the
event of an adverse resolution, would consider our revenue to be
the appropriate measure of damages," the Company said.
STATE STREET: 3 Shareholder-Related Complaints Currently Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
State Street 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 three
shareholder-related complaints are currently pending in federal
court in Boston. One complaint purports to be a class action on
behalf of State Street shareholders. The two other complaints
purport to be class actions on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries in the State Street Salary Savings Program who
invested in the program's State Street common stock investment
option. The complaints allege various violations of the federal
securities laws, common law and ERISA in connection with our
public disclosures concerning our investment securities portfolio,
our asset-backed commercial paper conduit program, and our foreign
exchange trading business.
In July 2014, the court preliminarily approved a $60 million class
settlement in the shareholder litigation and a $10 million class
settlement in the two Salary Savings Program actions.
A fourth complaint, a purported shareholder derivative action on
behalf of State Street, was dismissed in September 2013.
"We have entered into an agreement to settle that matter for
nominal consideration. As of September 30, 2014, we had an accrual
which, together with anticipated insurance recovery, will be
sufficient to fund each of these proposed settlements," the
Company said.
TIPTREE FINANCIAL: Executed MOU to Resolve Merger Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tiptree Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Tiptree and its
subsidiaries are defendants in two putative class action lawsuits
brought by shareholders of Fortegra (Stein v. Fortegra Financial
Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-2014-CA-005825-XXXX-MA and Hickey
v. Fortegra Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-2014-CA-
006485-XXXX-MA) in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial
Circuit in and for Duval County, State of Florida alleging that
Tiptree and its subsidiaries aided and abetted the Fortegra
directors' breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the
Merger Agreement. The court consolidated the Stein and Hickey
actions on October 24, 2014.
On October 13, 2014, the Company and attorneys for both Stein and
Hickey executed a memorandum of understanding that provides for a
settlement. The terms of the memorandum of understanding did not
require any change to the merger agreement, but did require
Fortegra to provide its stockholders with supplemental disclosures
about the merger which Fortegra completed. Before the settlement
is finalized it must be approved by the court. Management
believes, based on information available at this time, the
ultimate resolution of this litigation will not be materially
adverse to the financial position, results of operations or cash
flows of the Company.
TWITTER INC: Class Action Over Text Messages Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg BNA reports that a suit alleging Twitter Inc. unlawfully
texted class members that the company allegedly knew or should
have known had withdrawn their consent to receive messages may
proceed, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California ruled Nov. 26.
The proposed class alleged that Twitter violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(A), by
using an automatic telephone dialing system to text the class
members without their prior express consent. In Satterfield v.
Simon & Schuster Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a text message is
a "call" for purposes of the TCPA, Judge Vince Chhabria wrote.
The putative class was composed of those with "recycled" telephone
numbers in which the prior holder of the number had consented to
messages from Twitter. The court said some class members alleged
they withdrew their consent, "only to be ignored by Twitter,"
while others said Twitter knew or should have known they hadn't
given their consent to receive texts.
The court rejected Twitter's argument that the case should be
dismissed because its equipment doesn't qualify as an automatic
telephone dialing system as defined by the TCPA.
The statute, at Section 227(a)(1), defines such telephone systems
as equipment that stores or produces telephone numbers using a
random or sequential number generator and dials those numbers.
Twitter said the lawsuit should be dismissed because its system
didn't generate numbers using either a random or sequential number
generator.
FCC Interpretation
The court, however, said the plaintiffs' case could proceed
because the Federal Communications Commission construed Section
227(a)(1) to include any equipment that generates numbers and
dials them without human intervention. Citing the FCC regulation,
the court said that definition included hardware that "when paired
with certain software, has the capacity to store or produce
numbers and dial those numbers at random, in sequential order, or
from a database of numbers."
Twitter may challenge at the summary judgment stage whether the
FCC exceeded its authority when construing the TCPA provision, the
court ruled. It said at least two federal district courts had
held the FCC unlawfully expanded the statute's definition of an
automatic telephone dialing system.
The court, citing Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co., 679 F.3d 637
(7th Cir. 2012), also rejected Twitter's argument that the person
who previously held the mobile phone number should be the person
from whom Twitter needed consent. In Soppet, the Seventh Circuit
held that the current holder of the phone number needed to provide
consent.
Keller Grover LLP, Jacobs Kolton Chtd. and the Law Offices of
David Schachman represented the plaintiffs. Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati PC represented Twitter.
WHITE COMMUNICATIONS: Removes "Usher" Suit to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ONeal Usher v. White
Communications, LLC, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00038321-CU-OE-CTL,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Diego, Central Division, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02938-JAH-BGS to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq.
HOGUE & BELONG
430 Nutmeg Street, 2nd Floor
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 238-4720
Facsimile: (619) 270-9856
E-mail: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason Conroy Ross, Esq.
HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK, LLP
401 West "A" Street, Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 236-1551
Facsimile: (619) 696-1410
E-mail: rossj@higgslaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.
* * * End of Transmission * * *