/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150105.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 5, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 3
Headlines
ADDISON RESERVE: Removes "Walton" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
ADVANCED MINING: Judge Refuses to Toss Breach of Contract Suit
AKRON, OH: Faces Class Action Over New Water Surcharge
AMBOW EDUCATION: March 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
APPLE CANADA: Faces Class Action Over MacBook Pro GPU Issues
ASCENSION LAW: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
AVANIR PHARMA: Faces Class Actions Over Otsuka Acquisition
BANK OF AMERICA: Removes "Anderson" Class Suit to C.D. California
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Discriminatory Mortgage Lending in LA
BARRETT BUSINESS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Wash.
BEST BUY: Proceedings in Pension Fund Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
BEST BUY: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Discovery in IBEW Case
BREWERS RETAIL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
CONN'S INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CSK AUTO: Removes "Saenz" Suit to Central District of California
DOLPHIN TOWING: Removes "Garcia" Suit to Florida District Court
ELLIOTT AUTO: Faces "Stilley" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
ENDO HEALTH: Bricklayers Fund Suit Moved From Pa. to Illinois
ENDO HEALTH: Bricklayers Fund Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
ESAOTE NORTH: Faces Suit in Indiana Alleging Violations of TCPA
FIRST STEP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
FRONT-ARNETT COMPANY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Johnson" Product Liability Suit in N.J.
GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
GOODRICH COUNTRY: Judge Orders Mediation in Sewage Class Action
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Appeal Arbitration of RAL & RAC Suit Pending
H&R BLOCK: Request to Arbitrate Compliance Fee Suit Still Pending
H&R BLOCK: Appeal v. Denial of Cert. in "Perras" Case Pending
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Strike Claims in Form 8863 Suit Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: International Textile Merger Suit Settlement Approved
HARMONY GOLD: Non-Profit Group Supports Silicosis Class Action
HARMONY GOLD: Mining Firms to Deal With Silicosis in So. Africa
HOME DEPOT: "Hartman" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
HOME DEPOT: "O'Brien" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
ICS-NATIONAL COLLECTION: Accused of Violating FDCPA in Missouri
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
INTELLIGENT MEXICAN: Plaintiffs Can't Amend Wage Complaint
J. C. PENNEY: Briefing on Bid to Junk "Marcus" Suit Complete
J. C. PENNEY: "Marcus" Lead Plaintiff Opposes Motion in "Johnson"
J. C. PENNEY: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Litigation Filed
JUMEI INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
JUMEI INT'L: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Court Okays Settlement of Merger Suit
MARION COUNTY, IN: Violates Civil Rights Act, Class Suit Claims
MCDONALD'S CORP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MCRIGHT SERVICES: Fires Sales Staff Due to Disability, Suit Says
MEDICREDIT INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs Want Presiding Judge Removed in Suit
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Suit in Pennsylvania Seeks Relief Under TCPA
NEIMAN MARCUS: Settles "Monjazeb"; Nixing of "Tanguilig" Appealed
NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Approves Settlement in "Newton" Labor Suit
NEIMAN MARCUS: NLRB to Decide on Suit Over Arbitration, Waiver
NEIMAN MARCUS: Cal. Court Vacates Hearing of Customer Lawsuit
NEIMAN MARCUS: Lawsuit Over Cyber-Attack Voluntarily Dismissed
NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal Against Dismissal of "Remijas" Suit Pending
NJOY Inc: Seeks Dismissal of False Advertising Class Action
PA HUMAN SERVICES DEP'T: Suit Seeks Claims Under Prisoner Rights
PETROBAS: Six US Law Firms Commence Class-Action Proceedings
PGA MANAGEMENT: Accused of Purposely Underpaying Workers' Wages
PGA MANAGEMENT: Improperly Utilized "Tip Credits," Suit Claims
PGA MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
PIKE COURT: N.C. Business Court Consolidates Suits Over Merger
PLANTATION SWEETS: Sued by Migrant Workers Over FLSA Violations
PRECISE BORING: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Accused of Violating Tort Claims Act
RAYONIER INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
REMINGTON ARMS: Judge Questions Rifle Class Action Settlement
SINGING RIVER: Employees File Class Action Over Pension Plan
SOUTHWESTERN & PACIFIC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in FCRA Suit
STORA ENSO: March 30 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SYNGENTA CORP: Removes "Archer" Suit to Louisiana District Court
TD AMERITRADE: To Vigorously Defend Securities Class Action
TENNESSEE COMMERCE: March 20 Hearing on $2.6-Mil. Settlement
TUESDAY MORNING: Removes "McMahon" Class Suit to N.D. California
UNITED STATES: Faces "Ryan" Class Suit in Vermont District Court
UTI WORLDWIDE: Moves to Dismiss California Securities Lawsuit
VALLEY VETERINARIAN: Removes "McEwan" Suit to S.D. California
VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Agrees to Settle Suit Over TTM, Vector Merger
VIOLIN MEMORY: Remaining Securities Claims to Go into Discovery
VIVINT SOLAR: Shareholders Have Until Jan. 20 to Join Class Suit
WESTERNONE INC: Sutts Strosberg Commences Securities Class Action
WHOLE FOODS: "Markley" Suit Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL
ZUMIEZ INC: Settlement in Calif. "Steele" Labor Lawsuit Approved
*********
ADDISON RESERVE: Removes "Walton" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Walton v. Addison Reserve Master
Property Owners Association, Inc., et al., Case No. 2014 CA
014120, was removed from the County Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West
Palm Beach). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:14-cv-
81586-KAM to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff is bringing a claim for overtime, attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff also
brings a claim for retaliation under the Florida Statute 440.205
and claims for tortious interference with a business relationship
against Defendants Lang Management Company, Inc. and G4S Secure
Solutions (USA) Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Minick, Esq.
MANSFIELD BRONSTEIN, P.A.
3440 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 450
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 601-5600
Facsimile: (954) 967-2791
E-mail: Jon@mblawpa.com
Defendants Addison Reserve Master Property Owners Association,
Inc., and Lang Management Company, Inc., are represented by:
Jana M. Leichter, Esq.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
1645 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., 2nd Floor
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 383-9200
Facsimile: (561) 683-8977
E-mail: jana.leichter@csklegal.com
Defendant G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. is represented by:
Christine L. Wilson, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500
2 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 577-7600
Facsimile: (305) 373-4466
E-mail: WilsonC@jacksonlewis.com
ADVANCED MINING: Judge Refuses to Toss Breach of Contract Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, report that a
Pennsylvania federal judge on Dec. 11 refused to toss a putative
class action accusing a bitcoin mining hardware maker of not
delivering its specialized computers, ruling that the
jurisdictional requirements for the amount in controversy have
been satisfied.
Advanced Mining Technology's motion to dismiss the breach of
contract class action was denied by U.S. District Judge Legrome D.
Davis, who said the amount in question exceeded the $5 million
threshold required by the Class Action Fairness Act.
"Taking plaintiffs' claims as a whole, we conclude that defendants
have failed to show to a legal certainty that plaintiffs cannot
recover the requisite amount in this case," the ruling stated.
Judge Davis said that potential punitive damages alone would
satisfy the requirement and noted that attorneys' fees could
"substantially increase" the amount in controversy.
The ruling is a setback for Haverford, Pennsylvania-based Advanced
Mining Technology, which was sued by North Carolina resident Craig
Lenell and other customers last April for breach of contract for
failing to deliver custom-made computers used to obtain the
virtual currency by processing complex mathematical algorithms.
Customers, who paid between roughly $1,500 and $15,000 for bitcoin
miners, say the company failed to deliver the purchased mining
products within the specified delivery window or failed to deliver
the purchased mining products altogether, according to the
complaint.
The plaintiffs claim the delays in the delivery of bitcoin miners
have decreased their value because time is of the essence when it
comes to bitcoin mining. The longer that customers wait for their
ordered bitcoin miners, the more obsolete the technology becomes,
they allege.
In addition to breach of contract, the suit alleges breach of
express warranty, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and violations of trade and consumer laws in
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida and Utah.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kimberly Donaldson Smith --
KimDonaldsonSmith@chimicles.com -- Benjamin F. Johns --
BenJohns@chimicles.com -- and Joseph B. Kenney --
JosephKenney@chimicles.com -- of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP.
The defendants are represented by Michael N. Onufrak --
onufrakm@whiteandwilliams.com -- and Primitivo J. Cruz --
cruzp@whiteandwilliams.com -- of White and Williams LLP.
The case is Craig Lenell et al. v. Advanced Mining Technology Inc.
(a/k/a Advanced Mining Technologies Inc.) et al., case number
2:14-cv-01924, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.
AKRON, OH: Faces Class Action Over New Water Surcharge
------------------------------------------------------
The Hudson Hub Times reports that the City of Hudson filed a class
action lawsuit against the City of Akron on Dec. 11 that
challenges the water surcharge recently levied against Hudson and
its residents and businesses served by Akron water.
The class action suit, filed on behalf of Hudson citizens who
receive Akron water and are subject to this new surcharge, asserts
that the 42 percent surcharge, which is in addition to the ongoing
160 percent water rate and a "capital projects charge," is unfair
and unreasonable and bears no rational relationship to the water
services that Akron provides.
"We brought this suit against the City of Akron because it is our
responsibility to ensure that our citizens and taxpayers are
treated fairly and equitably, particularly when it involves a
life-sustaining utility such as water," said Hudson City Manager
Jane Howington.
In addition to seeking a declaratory judgment that the surcharge
is unfair, unreasonable and unlawful, the suit seeks a permanent
injunction preventing Akron from continuing to impose the
surcharge on Hudson and its citizens. The lawsuit also seeks an
award of damages, including but not limited to, an order that
Akron must return all surcharges paid by Hudson and each member of
the class, with interest.
The court will determine whether the case will move forward as a
class action suit. If the court so orders, all Hudson citizens who
receive water service from the city of Akron will be automatically
included in the lawsuit and do not need to notify the city of
Hudson or the court of their desire to be part of this class
action. Affected customers will receive official notification of
the class action. Information regarding how to opt-out of the
lawsuit will be included in this notification.
AMBOW EDUCATION: March 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Dec. 12 disclosed that the United
States District Court Central District of California Western
Division has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of American
Depository Shares of Ambow Education Holding, Ltd.:
SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AMERICAN
DEPOSITORY SHARES ("ADS") OF AMBOW EDUCATION HOLDING, LTD. DURING
THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 5, 2010 THROUGH FEBRUARY 27, 2013,
INCLUSIVE AND HELD SUCH ADS THROUGH AT LEAST MAY 16, 2012.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on March 16, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in room 880
before the Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District
Judge of the Central District of California, 255 East Temple
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of
$1,500,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application for an award of attorneys' fees of no more than
$375,000 or 25% of the Settlement Amount and reimbursement of
expenses of not more than $115,000, and an incentive payment of no
more than $1,500 each to lead plaintiff and the two named
plaintiffs, should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation
should be dismissed with prejudice.
If you purchased American Depository Shares ("ADS") of Ambow
Education Holding, Ltd. during the class period from August 5,
2010 through February 27, 2013, inclusive, and held such ADS
through at least May 16, 2012, your rights may be affected by the
Settlement of this action. If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by
writing to: Ambow Education Holding, Ltd. Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste.
3, Media, PA 19063 (866-274-4004 (Tel); 610-565-7985 (Fax);
info@strategicclaims.net or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net
If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release postmarked no later than February 16, 2015,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit
a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim. If
you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion so that it is received no later than
February 16, 2015, in the manner and form explained in the
detailed Notice to the Claims Administrator.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form explained
in the detailed Notice and received no later than February 24,
2015, to each of the following:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Counsel for Defendants Ambow Education Holding, Ltd., Jin Huang,
Paul Chow and Shasha Chang
Seth Aronson, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Counsel for Defendants Mark Robert Harris, Daniel Phillips, and
Tao Sun
Ambow Education Holding, Ltd. Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3
Media, PA 19063
Claims Administrator
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Plaintiff's Counsel:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel.: 213-785-2610
Fax: 213-226-4684
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
DATED: DECEMBER 2, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
APPLE CANADA: Faces Class Action Over MacBook Pro GPU Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Rossignol, writing for 9to5Mac, reports that following a
petition with thousands of signatures related to GPU complaints
and a class-action lawsuit filed in the United States, another
class-action lawsuit has been filed north of the border against
Apple Canada over the same GPU issues affecting some 15-inch and
17-inch 2011 MacBook Pro models equipped with an AMD graphics
chip.
The virtually identical class-action lawsuit was filed in Canada
by Montreal-based legal firm Lex Group Attorneys and argues that
certain 2011 MacBook Pros suffer from a design and manufacturing
defect that causes graphical issues such as severe screen
distortion, pixilation, graphical artifacts, and ghosting, often
rendering the notebooks unusable.
According to official court documents, the defect stems from lead-
free solder used to connect the AMD GPU to the logic board of the
affected MacBook Pros. The lawsuit argues that customers were
forced to pay up to $600 in out-of-warranty replacement costs, and
that Apple ignored and failed to reimburse owners faced with these
out of pocket expenses.
Apple did offer a free video card replacement in the United States
for some mid-2011 iMacs exhibiting similar symptoms, though the
cards in the MacBook Pro are different, and recalls as a whole are
rare. The most recent was in August, when Apple offered free
battery replacements for some iPhone 5 models that were deemed to
have defective batteries.
Apple has still not provided comment on either of these lawsuits,
and given that it generally remains tight lipped on matters such
as these, it might not ever provide any official word regarding
the cases. If the class-action lawsuits are won, affected
customers across Canada and in select parts of the United States
could be entitled to a settlement.
ASCENSION LAW: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristie Shackelford and Joel Shackelford, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ascension Law Group,
PC, Pamela Tsao and Cloud Portfolio Recovery, Inc., Case No. 8:14-
cv-02022-AG-DFM (C.D. Cal., December 19, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Babak Semnar, Esq.
SEMNAR LAW FIRM INC
400 South Melrose Drive, Suite 209
Vista, CA 92081
Telephone: (619) 500-4187
Facsimile: (888) 819-8230
E-mail: Bob@SemnarLawFirm.com
- and -
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
HYDE AND SWIGART APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
- and -
Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
HARTMAN LAW OFFICES INC
400 South Melrose Drive, Suite 209
Vista, CA 92081
Telephone: (951) 234-0881
Facsimile: (888) 819-8230
E-mail: jaredhartman@jmhattorney.com
AVANIR PHARMA: Faces Class Actions Over Otsuka Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan on Dec. 11 disclosed that class action lawsuits
have been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of
public stockholders of Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. challenging
the proposed acquisition by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
The complaints allege that on December 2, 2014, Otsuka and the
Company announced a definitive agreement under which Otsuka,
through its wholly-owned subsidiary Bigarade Corporation, will
acquire all of the outstanding shares of Avanir through a tender
offer to be commenced within ten business days. In the Proposed
Transaction, Avanir stockholders will receive $17.00 per share of
Avanir stock in a transaction valued at approximately $3.5
billion.
As alleged in the complaint, Morgan & Morgan is investigating
whether the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize shareholder value and/or protect the
interests of Avanir shareholders.
If you own shares of Avanir and want more information on the
Avanir Class Action Lawsuit, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800)
732-5200 or email info@morgansecuritieslaw.com
About Morgan & Morgan
Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In
addition to securities fraud, the firm also practices in the areas
of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection, overtime, and
product liability. All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted
in its core mission: provide investor and consumer protection and
always fight "for the people."
BANK OF AMERICA: Removes "Anderson" Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Greg Anderson v. Bank of America,
National Association, Case No. BC564359, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
09728-FMO-MAN to the proceeding.
Mr. Anderson alleges that he "suffered damages as a result of
Defendant's conduct, including but not limited to denials of
credit, a lowered credit score during the time Defendant failed to
furnish accurate information to the CRA's [sic] [credit
reporting agencies], and emotional distress." He alleges further
that "Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover damages
pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1785.31, including,
attorneys' fees, costs, punitive damages, and other relief as is
deemed appropriate."
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert W. Thompson, Esq.
Lee A. Sherman, Esq.
Sarah E. Christenson, Esq.
CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP
2601 Main Street, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 261-2872
Facsimile: (949) 261-6060
E-mail: rthompson@ctsclaw.com
lsherman@ctsclaw.com
schristenson@ctsclaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Agoglia, Esq.
Angela E. Kleine, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
E-mail: MAgoglia@mofo.com
AKleine@mofo.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Discriminatory Mortgage Lending in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The People of the State of California v. Bank of America
Corporation; Bank of America, N.A.; Countrywide Financial
Corporation; Countrywide Home Loans; and Countrywide Bank, FSB,
Case No. 2:14-cv-09744 (C.D. Cal., December 19, 2014) alleges that
BoA has engaged in a continuing pattern of discriminatory mortgage
lending practices in Los Angeles.
According to the complaint, Banks must extend credit to minorities
on equal terms as they do to other similarly situated borrowers.
Banks should not target minority neighborhoods for loans that
discriminate nor make loans to minorities on terms that are worse
than those offered to whites with similar credit characteristics.
Michael Feuer, City Attorney for the City of Los Angeles, acting
to protect the public as borrowers from alleged unlawful business
practices, brings this action in the public interest in the name
of the People of the state of California pursuant to Section 17200
of the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the Defendants from engaging in the unlawful
business practices alleged herein, and seeks civil penalties for
the Defendants violations of the statute.
Bank of America, N.A., is organized as a national banking
association under the laws of the United States, and is
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. BoA maintains
multiple offices in the state of California, including in the City
of Los Angeles, for the purposes of soliciting applications for
and making residential mortgage loans and engaging in other
business activities.
During the relevant period, Countrywide Financial Corporation was
a Delaware-incorporated financial holding company or savings and
loan holding company with its principal business office in
Calabasas, California. CFC created, authorized, and ratified the
lending-related policies and practices at issue in this Complaint
that its divisions and subsidiaries implemented.
In July 2008, Bank of America Corporation, a Delaware-incorporated
financial holding company, acquired ownership of CFC, including
all of its subsidiary business entities. Since that acquisition,
CFC has remained a Delaware-incorporated company with its
principal business office in Calabasas, California, as a direct,
wholly-owned subsidiary of BAC.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. is a New York-incorporated wholly-
owned subsidiary of CFC with its principal business office in
Calabasas, California. Prior to 2008, CHL funded the majority of
CFC's nationwide residential mortgage loan origination activity.
For the loans it funded under the Countrywide name, CHL was the
named lender on the promissory notes for those loans. CHL became
a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of BAC on July 1, 2008, as a
result of BAC's acquisition of CFC.
Countrywide Bank, FSB was originally chartered as a national bank
subject to supervision by the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, and was a subsidiary of financial holding company CFC.
CWB was headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, until February
2009. As a financial holding company, CFC, together with its
subsidiary CHL, was supervised by the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System. On March 12, 2007, CWB changed its
charter to that of a federal savings association, and CFC became a
savings and loan holding company. Those changes caused CWB, CFC,
and CHL to become subject to supervision by the Office of Thrift
Supervision.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael N. Feuer, Esq., City Attorney
James P. Clark, Esq., Chief Deputy City Attorney
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
200 N. Main Street, Room 800
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 978-8100
E-mail: Mike.feuer@lacity.org
James.p.clark@lacity.org
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
Lee M. Gordon, Esq.
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com
lee@hbsslaw.com
christopherp@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Joel Liberson, Esq.
Howard Liberson, Esq.
TRIAL & APPELLATE RESOURCES, P.C.
400 Continental Blvd., 6th Floor
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 426-2361
E-mail: joel@taresources.com
howard@taresources.com
- and -
Robert Peck, Esq.
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION
777 6th Street NW, Suite 520
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 944-2803
E-mail: Robert.peck@cclfirm.com
- and -
Clifton Albright, Esq.
ALBRIGHT YEE & SCHMIT
888 West 6th Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 833-1700
E-mail: clifton.albright@ayslaw.com
BARRETT BUSINESS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 12 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Barrett Business Services, Inc. and certain
of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Western District of Washington, at Tacoma, and
docketed under 14-cv-05912, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased Barrett securities between
February 12, 2013 and October 29, 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 Barrett securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 5, 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.
Barrett is a provider of business management solutions, combining
human resource outsourcing and professional management consulting
for its operational platform. The Company's integrated platform
is built upon its purported expertise in payroll processing,
employee benefits, workers' compensation coverage, risk management
and workplace safety programs, and human resource administration.
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)
that the Company under accrued its self-insured workers'
compensation reserves; (2) that, as a result, the Company
overstated its earnings; (3) that the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On October 28, 2014, after the market closed, BBSI revealed that
in the third quarter of 2014, the Company recorded an additional
increase to its self-insured workers' compensation reserve of $80
million, or $47.9 million after tax, which effectively wiped out
the Company's past five years of pretax earnings. According to
the Company, the increase represented approximately 38% of the
Company's total workers' compensation reserve, bringing the
liability up to $208.3 million at September 30, 2014. Taking into
account the effect of this expense, the Company reported a net
loss in the third quarter of 2014 of $37.8 million compared to net
income of $9 million in the year-ago quarter.
The Ultimate IUL Sales Guide
On this news, shares of Barrett fell $26.18 or almost 59%, on
unusually heavy volume, to close at $18.28 on October 29, 2014.
With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.
BEST BUY: Proceedings in Pension Fund Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial court has stayed proceedings in IBEW Local 98 Pension
Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., while an appeal against the
certification of the case is pending, according to the company's
Dec. 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2014.
In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed
against the company and certain of the company's executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
This federal court action alleges, among other things, that the
company and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections
10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act in connection with press releases and other
statements relating to the company's fiscal 2011 earnings guidance
that had been made available to the public. Additionally, in March
2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single
shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against the company and certain of the
company's executive officers in the same court. In July 2011,
after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene
LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98
Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of
fiscal 2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action
with prejudice. In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
alter or amend the court's decision on the company's motion to
dismiss. In October 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
alter or amend the court's decision on the company's motion to
dismiss in part by vacating such decision and giving plaintiff
leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiff did in October
2012. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in November 2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in
December 2012. A hearing was held on April 26, 2013. On August 5,
2013, the court issued an order granting the company's motion to
dismiss in part and, contrary to its March 2012 order, denying the
motion to dismiss in part, holding that certain of the statements
alleged to have been made were not forward-looking statements and
therefore were not subject to the "safe-harbor" provisions of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Plaintiffs moved
to certify the purported class.
By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of
persons or entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between
10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and
who were damaged by the alleged violations of law. The 8th Circuit
Court of Appeals granted the company's request for interlocutory
appeal of that order with briefing expected to be complete in
January 2015 and oral argument to be scheduled later in 2015. The
trial court has stayed proceedings while the appeal is pending.
BEST BUY: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Discovery in IBEW Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In Re: Best Buy Co., Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation
remains stayed pending the close of discovery in the consolidated
IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. case,
according to the company's Dec. 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov.
1, 2014.
In June 2011, a purported shareholder derivative action captioned,
Salvatore M. Talluto, Derivatively and on Behalf of Best Buy Co.,
Inc. v. Richard M. Schulze, et al., as Defendants and Best Buy
Co., Inc. as Nominal Defendant, was filed against both present and
former members of the company's Board of Directors serving during
the relevant periods in fiscal 2011 and the company as a nominal
defendant in the U.S. District Court for the State of Minnesota.
The lawsuit alleges that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duty, among other claims, including violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in failing to
correct public misrepresentations and material misstatements
and/or omissions regarding the company's fiscal 2011 earnings
projections and, for certain directors, selling stock while in
possession of material adverse non-public information.
Additionally, in July 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Daniel Himmel, against the company
and certain of the company's executive officers in the same court.
In November 2011, the respective lawsuits of Salvatore M. Talluto
and Daniel Himmel were consolidated into a new action captioned,
In Re: Best Buy Co., Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, and a
stay ordered pending the close of discovery in the consolidated
IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. case.
The plaintiffs in the aove securities actions seek damages,
including interest, equitable relief and reimbursement of the
costs and expenses they incurred in the lawsuits.
BREWERS RETAIL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
revelations of a secret deal to carve up Ontario's beer market
between the big-brewer-owned Beer Store and the provincially owned
Liquor Control Board of Ontario have spawned a proposed class-
action lawsuit demanding $1.4-billion in damages on behalf of beer
drinkers.
A five-page notice of action filed on Dec. 12 in Toronto in
Ontario Superior Court alleges the retail outlets engaged in a
"conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of beer in
Ontario" and "participated in illegal and secretive discussions
and made agreements relating to prices and distribution areas of
beer in Ontario."
The allegations have not been proved in court, and class-action
lawsuits need to be certified, or given a green light by a judge,
before they proceed as actions on behalf of a large group of
people. The court documents were filed by lawyers with London,
Ont.-based Siskinds LLP on behalf of a Burlington, Ont., man,
David Hughes, and a numbered company that operates a Burlington
restaurant called The Poacher, with both acting as representative
plaintiffs in the case.
Named in the notice of action as defendants are the LCBO and
Brewers Retail Inc., which operates the Beer Store, as well as the
foreign-owned beer companies that own Brewers Retail: Labatt
Breweries of Canada LP, Molson Coors Canada and Sleeman Breweries
Ltd.
The action demands $1.4-billion in general damages, alleging the
defendants engaged in "conspiracy, intentional interference with
economic interests" and conduct that is contrary to the
Competition Act. The claim also demands $5-million in "punitive
and exemplary damages."
The lawsuit was sparked by revelations in the Toronto Star this
week of a secret deal between the LCBO and the Beer Store dating
from June, 2000, that saw the provincially owned booze retailer
agree to sell only six-packs, leaving the cheaper 12- and 24-packs
to be sold only at the Beer Store. The deal originated under the
Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris, but has been
sustained since by Liberal governments.
On Dec. 10, Restaurants Canada, a national restaurant industry
group, called on the Ontario government to cancel what it called a
"sweetheart deal" and said it had asked the federal Competition
Bureau to launch an investigation. The restaurant group alleges
the deal restricts competition and drives up the cost of beer in
restaurants and bars.
In an e-mail on Friday, Ted Moroz, president of the Beer Store,
told The Globe the retailer was not aware of any litigation and
had not seen a statement of claim. However, he said the company
was "confident any such litigation is completely without merit and
as a result, we will defend vigorously against it."
Mr. Moroz also said the Beer Store does not fix prices:
"Individual brewers independently set their own prices which are
approved by the LCBO on a weekly basis."
A spokeswoman with the LCBO declined to comment "pending the
receipt of a formal notice of action."
CONN'S INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, on Dec. 12
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all purchasers of the securities of Conn's, Inc. between
September 2, 2014 and December 9, 2014. The lawsuit seeks to
recover losses of Conn's investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the Conn's class action, go to the website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-462.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. The case filed by the firm is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.
"The lawsuit claims that Conn's misled investors by failing to
disclose the true extent of the deterioration of its credit
portfolio," said Rosen attorney Phillip Kim. The suit claims that
true state of its deteriorated credit portfolio was revealed on
December 9, 2014, when the Conn's withdrew its financial guidance
and admitted that its prior financial guidance was not "acceptably
accurate." On this news, Conn's shares lost over 40% of its
value.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
February 10, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation or to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com
The Rosen Law Firm focuses on prosecuting securities class action
litigation and actions involving financial fraud. The Rosen Law
Firm represents investors throughout the globe.
CSK AUTO: Removes "Saenz" Suit to Central District of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Noel Saenz v. CSK Auto, Inc., et
al., Case No. BC564177, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-09789-MWF-MAN to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges claims of discrimination.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Pairavi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN PAIRAVI
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-2063
Facsimile: (310) 789-2064
E-mail: edwinpairavi@gmail.com
- and -
Omid Nosrati, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF OMID NOSRATI
1875 Century Park East, 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-5630
Facsimile: (310) 553-5691
E-mail: omid@nosratilaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James M. Peterson, Esq.
Jason C. Ross, Esq.
HIGGS FLETCHER AND MACK LLP
401 West A Street, Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101-7913
Telephone: (619) 236-1551
Facsimile: (619) 696-1410
E-mail: peterson@higgslaw.com
rossj@higgslaw.com
DOLPHIN TOWING: Removes "Garcia" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Garcia, et al. v. Dolphin Towing
& Recovery, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-29584 CA 01, was removed
from the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24797-KMM to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 448-9292
Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Adi Amit, Esq.
LUBELL & ROSEN, LLC
200 S. Andrews Ave, Suite 900
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 880-9500
Facsimile: (954) 755-2993
E-mail: adi@lubellrosen.com
ELLIOTT AUTO: Faces "Stilley" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Stilley, Individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons v. Elliott Auto Supply Co., Inc. d/b/a Factory
Motor Parts, Case No. 0:14-cv-05034 (D. Minn., December 19, 2014)
seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
ENDO HEALTH: Bricklayers Fund Suit Moved From Pa. to Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Massachusetts Bricklayers &
Masons Health and Welfare Fund v. Endo Health Solutions, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-04355, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-10154 to the proceeding.
The antitrust action arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
scheme to allocate and unreasonably delay competition in the
market for extended release oxymorphone hydrochloride, which Endo
sells under the brand name Opana ER. The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct included a payment from
Endo to Impax of more than $112 million in cash in exchange for
Impax's agreement to keep its generic extended release oxymorphone
hydrochloride out of the market for two and a half years -- from
June 2010 to January 2013.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
WEINSTEIN, KITCHENOFF, SCARLATO & GOLDMAN, LTD.
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 545-7200
Facsimile: (215) 545-6535
E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com
- and -
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Mathew J. Perez, Esq.
Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
ebelfi@labaton.com
mperez@labaton.com
rvandermeulen@labaton.com
- and -
Michael P. Thornton, Esq.
Garrett J. Bradley, Esq.
THORNTON NAUMES LLP
100 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (888) 491-9726
Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
E-mail: mthornton@tenlaw.com
gbradley@tenlaw.com
Defendant Impax Laboratories, Inc. is represented by:
John G. Harkins, Jr., Esq.
HARKINS CUNNINGHAM LLP
2800 One Commerce Street
2005 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 851-6700
E-mail: jharkins@harkinscunningham.com
- and -
Neill C. Kling, Esq.
HARKINS CUNNINGHAM LLP
4000 Two Commerce SQ
2001 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7044
Telephone: (215) 851-6700
E-mail: nkling@harkinscunningham.com
ENDO HEALTH: Bricklayers Fund Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Massachusetts Bricklayers &
Masons Health and Welfare Fund v. Endo Health Solutions, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-04355, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-10153 to the proceeding.
The antitrust action arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
scheme to allocate and unreasonably delay competition in the
market for extended release oxymorphone hydrochloride, which Endo
sells under the brand name Opana ER. The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct included a payment from
Endo to Impax of more than $112 million in cash in exchange for
Impax's agreement to keep its generic extended release oxymorphone
hydrochloride out of the market for two and a half years -- from
June 2010 to January 2013.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
WEINSTEIN, KITCHENOFF, SCARLATO & GOLDMAN, LTD.
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 545-7200
Facsimile: (215) 545-6535
E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com
- and -
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Mathew J. Perez, Esq.
Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
ebelfi@labaton.com
mperez@labaton.com
rvandermeulen@labaton.com
- and -
Michael P. Thornton, Esq.
Garrett J. Bradley, Esq.
THORNTON NAUMES LLP
100 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (888) 491-9726
Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
E-mail: mthornton@tenlaw.com
gbradley@tenlaw.com
Defendant Impax Laboratories, Inc. is represented by:
John G. Harkins, Jr., Esq.
HARKINS CUNNINGHAM LLP
2800 One Commerce Street
2005 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 851-6700
E-mail: jharkins@harkinscunningham.com
- and -
Neill C. Kling, Esq.
HARKINS CUNNINGHAM LLP
4000 Two Commerce SQ
2001 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7044
Telephone: (215) 851-6700
E-mail: nkling@harkinscunningham.com
ESAOTE NORTH: Faces Suit in Indiana Alleging Violations of TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians Healthsource, Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons
v. Esaote North America, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-
cv-02075-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., December 19, 2014) seeks relief over
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
ANDERSON & WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
- and -
Matthew Elton Stubbs, Esq.
MONTGOMERY RENNIE & JONSON
36 East Seventh Street, Suite 2100
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 768-5227
Facsimile: (513) 241-8775
E-mail: mstubbs@mrjlaw.com
FIRST STEP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lea Reich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. First Step Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07435
(E.D.N.Y., December 22, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791-4400
Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
FRONT-ARNETT COMPANY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Sholinsky, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Front-Arnett Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-07889-NLH-KMW
(D.N.J., December 19, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark D. Mailman, Esq.
FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC
Land Title Building, 19th Floor
100 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19110
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
E-mail: mmailman@consumerlawfirm.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Johnson" Product Liability Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Johnson and Tara Follari-Johnson, individually and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. General Motors, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and
General Motors Company, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-
07924-KM-MAH (D.N.J., December 19, 2014) asserts contract product
liability claims.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joel R. Glucksman, Esq.
SCARINCI & HOLLENBECK, LLC
1100 Valley Brook Avenue
PO Box 790
Lyndhurst, NJ 07071
vTelephone: (201) 896-4100
Facsimile: (201) 896-8660
E-mail: jglucksman@njlegalink.com
GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaya Bodansky, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Case No.
1:14-cv-07438 (E.D.N.Y., December 22, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxim Maximov, Esq.
MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Telephone: (718) 395-3459
Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com
GOODRICH COUNTRY: Judge Orders Mediation in Sewage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clarkston News reports that about five months after Flint
Attorney Dean T. Yeotis filed a class action in the Seventh
Circuit Court for a group of Village of Goodrich residents, along
with three Genesee County businesses, charging four counts
surrounding the village sewage system, drains and mill pond -- a
county judge has ordered mediation for the case.
In November, Chief Genesee Circuit Judge Richard B. Yuille ruled
that all parties in the case gather with mediator Flint attorney
Jeff Himelhoch.
"Jeff was agreed upon by all parties to sit down and try to settle
this before the case becomes very costly and aggravating," said
Thomas McKenney, village attorney.
"Right now it's still very early in the case and there's still the
process of discovery ongoing which include a lot of written
questions."
In addition, the original number of plaintiffs in the suit has
been reduced from 19 residents to 17.
"A plaintiff is now deceased and the family opted not to continue
the suit, while a second plaintiff withdrew," added Mr. McKenney.
The four counts include sewage disposal system defect claims,
unlawful taking of property as a result of damages caused by the
sewer system, a negligence claim against the Goodrich Country Club
regarding a culvert under Ridge Road used to provide irrigation
for the golf course, and unlawful trespass of water claim against
the Goodrich Country Club that caused damage. The suit claims the
defendants failed to timely correct defective conditions with
regard to the sewers, drains and the mill pond. The results of
the defects caused damages to the plaintiffs' homes and businesses
when untreated sewage and storm water backed up into their
dwellings.
The parties have until June 2015 to meet, added Mr. McKenney.
"It's always a challenge in mediation when there are a lot of
players," he added. "But there are those cases that just cry out
to settle before the case to go to court. The bottom line is no
one thinks they got a good deal when it's all over."
Issues with the Goodrich area drains began about three years ago
allegedly caused by the Wheelock & Watkins Drain. The
agricultural drain, built in about 1897, encompasses a large
section of the village, impacting about 100 residents. The old
drain under the jurisdiction of Genesee County has been one
possible cause of flooding of several residents' homes over the
past few years.
The suit also claims the operation of the Goodrich Mill Pond and
Dam have substantial defects, including a lack of routine
maintenance, inadequate repairs and upgrades, misallocation of
funding, inappropriate and untrained operational staff, a
significant lack of capacity and negligent design.
The plaintiffs' series of complaints seek monetary damages in
excess of $25,000. Judge Richard Yuille will hear the case.
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Appeal Arbitration of RAL & RAC Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The petition of the plaintiffs in the IN RE: H&R Block Refund
Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No. 2373/No: 1:12-CV-02973-JBG),
for permission to appeal an arbitration order, remains pending
with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, according to H&R Block,
Inc.'s Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2014.
A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
company in various federal courts beginning on November 17, 2011
concerning the refund anticipation loan (RAL) and refund
anticipation check (RAC) products. The plaintiffs generally allege
the company engaged in unfair, deceptive or fraudulent acts in
violation of various state consumer protection laws by
facilitating RALs that were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate
TILA disclosures, and by offering RACs without any TILA
disclosures. Certain plaintiffs also allege violation of
disclosure requirements of various state statutes expressly
governing RALs and provisions of those statutes prohibiting tax
preparers from charging or retaining certain fees. Collectively,
the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who purchased RAL or RAC
products in up to forty-two states and the District of Columbia
during timeframes ranging from 2007 to the present. The plaintiffs
seek equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and
statutory damages, restitution, civil penalties, attorneys' fees
and costs. These cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation into a single proceeding in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
coordinated pretrial proceedings, styled IN RE: H&R Block Refund
Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No. 2373/No: 1:12-CV-02973-JBG).
On July 23, 2014, the MDL court granted our motion to compel
arbitration of the claims of the named plaintiffs and stayed the
cases pending arbitration. The MDL court subsequently certified
its July 23 order for interlocutory appeal. On October 16, 2014,
Plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal with the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains pending.
H&R BLOCK: Request to Arbitrate Compliance Fee Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to compel arbitration for the suit Manuel H. Lopez III
v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case # 1216CV12290) remains under
consideration, according to the company's Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 31, 2014.
On April 16, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.
(Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail
tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks
to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the compliance
fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. The
company filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011 claims.
The court denied the motion. The company filed an appeal. On May
6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed
the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for further
consideration of the motion.
H&R BLOCK: Appeal v. Denial of Cert. in "Perras" Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by plaintiff against the denial of class certification
in Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-
00450-DGK) remains pending in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,
according to the company's Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct.
31, 2014.
On April 19, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a compliance
fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax
seasons. The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons nationwide
(excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance
fee, and asserts claims of violation of various state consumer
laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. In November
2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011 claims and
stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims. On June 20,
2014, the court denied class certification of the remaining 2012
claims. Plaintiff filed an appeal of the denial of class
certification to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
remains pending.
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Strike Claims in Form 8863 Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to strike class allegations in In Re:H&R Block IRS Form
8863 Litigation (MDL No. 2474/Case No.4:13-MD-02474-FJG) relating
to clients who agreed to arbitration, remains pending, according
to the company's Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31,
2014.
A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
company in various federal courts and one state court beginning on
March 13, 2013. Taken together, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits
purport to represent certain clients nationwide who filed Form
8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office or using
H&R Block At Home online tax services or tax preparation software,
and allege breach of contract, negligence and violation of state
consumer laws in connection with transmission of the form. The
plaintiffs seek damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs. In August 2013, the plaintiff in the state court action
voluntarily dismissed her case without prejudice. On October 10,
2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the
company's petition to consolidate the remaining federal lawsuits
for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri in a proceeding styled
IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION (MDL No. 2474/Case No.
4:13-MD-02474-FJG). On July 11, 2014, the MDL court granted the
company's motion to compel arbitration for those named plaintiffs
who agreed to arbitrate their claims. Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint in October 2014. The company
filed a motion to strike class allegations in the consolidated
complaint relating to clients who agreed to arbitration, which
remains pending.
H&R BLOCK: International Textile Merger Suit Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of In re International Textile Group Merger
Litigation has received final court approval, according to H&R
Block, Inc.'s Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31,
2014.
On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by
Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant
International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital
Markets LLC (MCM) and others in the Court of Common Pleas,
Greenville County, South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346)
styled Brian P. Menezes, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal
Defendant, International Textile Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety
Components International, Inc.) v. McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC
(f/k/a RSM EquiCo Capital Markets, LLC), et al. The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in October 2011 styled In re
International Textile Group Merger Litigation, adding a putative
class action claim. The plaintiffs allege claims of aiding and
abetting, civil conspiracy, gross negligence and breach of
fiduciary duty against MCM in connection with a fairness opinion
MCM provided to the Special Committee of Safety Components
International, Inc. (SCI) in 2006 regarding the merger between
International Textile Group, Inc. and SCI. The plaintiffs seek
actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees and costs. On February 8, 2012, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim against all defendants. A class
was certified on the remaining claims on November 20, 2012. The
court granted summary judgment in favor of MCM on June 3, 2013 on
the breach of fiduciary duty claim. To avoid the cost and inherent
risk associated with litigation, the parties signed a memorandum
of understanding to resolve the case, which was subject to
approval by the court. The court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement on February 19, 2014 and final approval on
September 2, 2014. The company previously recorded a liability for
the company's estimate of the expected loss. The amount the
company paid under the settlement did not exceed the amount the
company previously accrued.
In connection with the sale of RSM McGladrey, Inc. (RSM) and MCM,
the company indemnified the buyers against certain litigation
matters. The indemnities are not subject to a stated term or
limit. A portion of the company's accrual is related to these
indemnity obligations.
HARMONY GOLD: Non-Profit Group Supports Silicosis Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Online reports that non-profit organization Section 27
hopes to form an integral part of a groundbreaking class action
lawsuit against the country's gold mining industry.
On Dec. 12 the NGO successfully filed an application at the South
Gauteng High Court to intervene as amici curiae (friends of the
court) in the gold mining silicosis lawsuit brought by Bongani
Nkala and 55 others against Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited
and 31 others on behalf of the Treatment Action Campaign and Sonke
Gender Justice.
The 56 applicants represent tens of thousands of current and
former gold mineworkers who worked in the gold mines for at least
two years from 1956 to the present and contracted tuberculosis and
silicosis.
Section 27 said the case presented the potential to vindicate the
rights of and achieve justice for the mineworkers and their
families in the form of compensation. It was also an opportunity
to achieve corporate accountability regarding the legal obligation
on mining companies to prevent and treat lung disease in the
mines.
"The application introduces novel legal arguments and new,
compelling evidence related to the conduct of the gold mining
industry, international law and the need for access to justice for
gold mineworkers and their families," it said.
A hearing on the application will be heard on April 13, 2015.
HARMONY GOLD: Mining Firms to Deal With Silicosis in So. Africa
---------------------------------------------------------------
Voice of America reports that five of South Africa's largest gold
mining companies recently announced they will create a working
group to deal with the issue of occupational lung disease.
This move comes as the sector faces what could be South Africa's
biggest-ever class action lawsuit. More than 25,000 miners are
seeking compensation from gold mining companies, saying they
failed to protect them from Silicosis, a debilitating and
incurable lung disease.
Back in his village in Lesotho, former miner David Maribenyane
must rely on his home garden to feed his family. At 48 years old,
he can't run or walk long distances, making it almost impossible
to get a job.
Mr. Maribenyane has Silicosis, which he said he contracted working
for more than 20 years underground in a gold mine in South Africa.
"I'm very angry at the mining houses. I came home empty handed
and a cripple," said Mr. Maribenyane. "I'm worried about the
future because I need to feed my family and to do so, I have to
plow; now, I can't because of my shortness of breath."
Crystalline silica dust
Silicosis is caused by breathing crystalline silica dust -- a
human lung carcinogen -- found in mines. It causes shortness of
breath, general weakness and increased susceptibility to
tuberculous. It cannot be cured.
Mr. Maribenyane is one of tens of thousands of former miners
who've joined a class action suit filed by three South African law
firms in an attempt to hold 30 of South Africa's gold mining
companies liable for the Silicosis.
"These box files are the files of the individual clients," said
Richard Spoor, who is one of the attorneys.
"Silicosis is not a new thing. It's a very old disease. It's
very well understood for a long, long time," he said. "There have
been laws to protect miners for a hundred years. Those laws are
very simple, they say 'you may not expose workers to harmful
quantities of dust. You may not do that, it's against the law'."
The class action suit came about after Mr. Spoor won a ground-
breaking case three years ago in which a former miner successfully
sued his employer for negligence which led to his contracting
Silicosis.
Building the case is taking time. Many of the affected miners are
from neighboring countries. So they must be tracked down,
screened for Silicosis and informed about their option to join the
class action suit. In Lesotho, that's the job of Isaac Shafiq,
from the Mineworker Development Agency, or MDA.
"Mostly they do not know that they have Silicosis. Most of them
go for screening in our local health facilities. But the result
is always TB. It doesn't go further to determine if it's actually
Silicosis or what," said Mr. Shafiq.
Numerous challenges
Mining companies are challenging the class action, claiming the
cause of Silicosis is up for debate. For former miner Mokete
Bokaako, however, the connection is obvious.
"I've never worked anywhere else than in the mines. I'm like this
because of the mines and I believe that the mines owe me
something," he said.
Mr. Bokaako said he only found out about his lung condition a few
years ago after he was retrenched, came back home to Lesotho and
was screened by the class action campaign.
"I'm angry when I think that we had a health checkup every 6
months, or every year, and the mining company never told me I had
Silicosis," said Mr. Bokaako.
In November, five of South Africa's biggest mining companies said
they would create a working group on occupational lung disease.
In the meantime, a ruling on whether the class action suit can
proceed is expected in October 2015. It is estimated that one in
four current and former gold mineworkers have contracted
Silicosis.
* * *
According to information available at business-humanrights.org --
http://is.gd/QOAPV8-- lawyer Richard Spoor in December 2012 filed
a motion in South Africa court seeking class certification for as
many as 17,000 ex-gold miners suffering from the lung disease
silicosis. The proposed class action named 30 gold mining
companies as defendants, including African Rainbow Minerals,
AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields and Harmony Gold. The plaintiffs
allege that the defendant companies knew of the dangers posed to
the miners by exposing them to silica dust and that defendants
failed to take adequate measures to protect the workers from this
exposure.
In October 2013, the High Court of Johannesburg ruled that all of
the pending lawsuits against gold mining companies regarding
silicosis may be consolidated into one action. The court has yet
to rule on the class certification motion.
HOME DEPOT: "Hartman" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jeffrey Hartman v. Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-01545, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta). The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04039-TWT to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT.
The litigation arose from the security breach in Home Depot's data
network in late April or early May 2014. The data network
contained the personal financial information of hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of consumers. The data breach was
first reported on September 2, 2014, by a computer security
blogger.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis J. Flynn, Esq.
CAREY DANIS & LOWE
8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 678-3400
Facsimile: (314) 678-3401
The Defendant is represented by:
Russell K. Scott, Esq.
GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C.
12 Wolf Creek Drive, Suite 100
Swansea, IL 62226
Telephone: (618) 257-7308
Facsimile: (618) 257-7353
E-mail: rks@greensfelder.com
HOME DEPOT: "O'Brien" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled O'Brien, et al. v. Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc., et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-05301, 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 Georgia
(Atlanta). The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04046-TWT to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT.
The litigation arose from the security breach in Home Depot's data
network in late April or early May 2014. The data network
contained the personal financial information of hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of consumers. The data breach was
first reported on September 2, 2014, by a computer security
blogger.
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul Allan Straus, Esq.
KING & SPALDING, LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 556-2100
Facsimile: (212) 556-2222
E-mail: pstraus@kslaw.com
ICS-NATIONAL COLLECTION: Accused of Violating FDCPA in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rhett Smillie, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ICS-National Collection Services, L.L.C., Case No.
6:14-cv-03528-SWH (W.D. Mo., December 19, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donald Brown, Esq.
DOUGLAS, HAUN & HEIDEMANN
111 W. Broadway
PO Box 117
Bolivar, MO 65613-0117
Telephone: (417) 326-5261
E-mail: dbrown@bolivarlaw.com
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Khaifur Khan, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-07412 (E.D.N.Y., December 19, 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
INTELLIGENT MEXICAN: Plaintiffs Can't Amend Wage Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Vehling, writing for Law360, reports that the Fifth Circuit
on Dec. 11 affirmed a decision that Texas-based sales and
marketing workers failed to establish that they suffered any
injury in their racketeering class action against their former
employers that accuses the two marketing companies of driving down
wages by hiring undocumented workers.
The appellate panel said that the employees' lawsuit, which
alleges that the jointly operated Intelligent Mexican Marketing
Inc. and Marketing and Inventory Management LLC engaged in a
conspiracy to depress wages by hiring undocumented workers in
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, fails to directly connect such allegations to wages of
documented employees. Moreover, the complaint fails to allege any
injury at all, the court said.
"Appellants' allegations are insufficient to establish that they
suffered any injury, much less an 'injur[y] . . . by reason of a
violation of' RICO," the opinion says.
The court also upheld the Texas district court's decision to deny
plaintiffs Jaime Varela and Yesica Wiegert leave to amend their
complaint a third time, finding that the new facts included in
that complaint still did not allege a "proximate cause" between
hiring activity and the allegedly depressed wages of sales and
marketing employees at IMM and MIM.
The panel's published opinion stems from the employees' appeal in
their proposed class action filed in March 2013 against their
Dallas-based employers. Varela, a sales representative, and
Wiegert, a merchandiser, were involved in sales and marketing
related tasks for the two marketing firms that focused on the
Hispanic market from 2011 to 2012.
Varela earned about $46,000 a year, including commission, and
Wiegert, about $26,000 without commission, but each said that
according to federal statistics they were making far less than the
$78,000 to $81,000 that people in their positions made on average
in the Dallas and Houston markets. Their lawsuit attributed their
low wages to IMM & MIM hiring 40 undocumented workers between 2010
to 2014, doing the same work as the plaintiffs but for less.
The plaintiffs' suit accused IMM & MIM, and joint presidents David
Benitez Gonzales and Ana Cristina Benitez, of transporting,
harboring and encouraging undocumented workers to enter the U.S.
and knowingly hiring those undocumented workers. The plaintiffs'
first amended complaint further accused Gonzales and Benitez of
using their companies to carry out those actions through a pattern
of racketeering activity.
In October 2013, the defendants successfully convinced the court
to toss the case because the employees had failed to sufficiently
allege standing to file a RICO suit.
The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend the complaint again, but
that too was tossed a month later. The court found that an expert
report attached to the new complaint did not cure the plaintiffs'
pleading deficiencies, dismissing the suit with prejudice while
denying the employees leave to file another amended complaint.
On Dec. 12, the appellate panel agreed that the plaintiffs'
lawsuit does not connect the hiring of undocumented workers to
wages paid in the sales and marketing industry in Texas, let alone
at the two companies.
The judges cited several high court rulings on establishing direct
injury in a civil RICO suit, including the justice's 2006 decision
in Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., which said that a plaintiff
must establish he or she was a direct victim of the accused
activity.
"The Supreme Court has made clear that the fact that appellees may
have intended to depress wages does not circumvent the proximate-
cause requirement," the judges said.
However, the judges said, the employees did not make that
connection in a few ways. They relied on very broad U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics to which to compare their wages to regional
average. Noting the arguments of IMM and MIM, the court said that
those statistics referred to anything from a door-to-door
salesperson to a high-level account executive.
In addition, the court said, it was unclear if the employees were
alleging the hiring of undocumented workers depressed wages just
in IMM and MIM or in the industry as a whole. In addition, the
employees did not specify how many employees the companies had or
how many workers there were in the market as a whole compared to
lower-paid undocumented workers.
Because of that, the employees did not adequately allege that the
companies hired enough workers to affect their wages, the justices
said.
The employees are represented by Colin William Walsh and Robert
Joseph Wiley of Rob Wiley PC.
The defendants are represented by John Bridges Brown --
john.brown@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Gavin Samuel Martinson --
gavin.martinson@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart PC.
The case is Jaime Varela, et al v. David Gonzales, et al, case
number 14-10452, in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
J. C. PENNEY: Briefing on Bid to Junk "Marcus" Suit Complete
------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the motion to dismiss the Marcus consolidated
complaint against J. C. Penney Company, Inc. was completed,
according to the company's Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov.
1, 2014.
The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are
parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
Division. The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedly
brought on behalf of persons who acquired the company's common
stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26,
2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff claims that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the
Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused
the company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices. The consolidated complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable
costs and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just
and proper. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was
completed in November, 2014.
J. C. PENNEY: "Marcus" Lead Plaintiff Opposes Motion in "Johnson"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit against J. C. Penney
Company, Inc., filed an opposition to the motion for appointment
of lead plaintiff in the securities suit by Nathan Johnson,
according to the company's Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov.
1, 2014.
Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E.
Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit is
purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired the
company's securities other than common stock during the period
from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and alleges
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Plaintiff's lawsuit generally mirrors the allegations
contained in the Marcus lawsuit, and seeks similar relief. On
November 11, 2014, defendants filed an unopposed motion to
consolidate this lawsuit with the Marcus lawsuit. On November 18,
2014, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of lead plaintiff.
On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit
filed an opposition to the plaintiff's motion for appointment of
lead plaintiff.
J. C. PENNEY: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Litigation Filed
------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a lawsuit against a wholly owned subsidiary of J. C.
Penney Company, Inc. over alleged violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, according to the company's Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 1, 2014.
The Company's wholly owned subsidiary, J. C. Penney Corporation,
Inc., and certain present and former members of Corporation's
Board of Directors have been sued in a purported class action
complaint by plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, in
the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
Division. The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section
502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by
breaching fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan
(the "Plan"). The class period is alleged to be between November
1, 2011 and September 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that they and
others who invested in or held Company stock in the Plan during
this period were injured because defendants allegedly made false
and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's
financial condition and business prospects that caused the
Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.
The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory relief, a
constructive trust, reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan,
actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 7,
2014.
JUMEI INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, on Dec. 12
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all purchasers of the securities of Jumei International Holdings
Limited between May 16, 2014 and November 20, 2014.
To join the Jumei class action, go to the website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-463.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. The case filed by the firm is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.
According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Jumei was changing
its revenue model by transiting away from marketplace services to
merchandise sales; (2) this transition posed a significant risk to
the Jumei's previously successful financial performance; and (3)
Jumei was not expanding its marketplace services as claimed. As a
result, the lawsuit claims that when these adverse facts became
known, the value of Jumei's securities dropped, damaging
investors.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
February 10, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation or to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com
The Rosen Law Firm focuses on prosecuting securities class action
litigation and actions involving financial fraud. The Rosen Law
Firm represents investors throughout the globe.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com
JUMEI INT'L: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 12 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Jumei
International Holding Limited American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
between May 16, 2014, the date of Jumei's initial public offering
("IPO"), and November 19, 2014.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from December 12, 2014. If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/jumei/
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Jumei, certain of its officers and directors
and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933. Jumei operates as an online retailer of beauty
products in the People's Republic of China.
On or about January 30, 2014, Jumei filed Registration Statements
with the SEC which, following several amendments in response to
comments by the SEC, would later be utilized for the IPO. On or
about May 16, 2014, Jumei and the underwriters priced the IPO.
The IPO was successful, with Jumei issuing and selling more than
12.7 million ADSs to the public at $22 each, raising approximately
$280 million in gross proceeds.
The complaint alleges that under the rules and regulations
governing the preparation of the Registration Statement, Jumei was
required to disclose at the time of the IPO that it had been
relying upon dubious suppliers for its third-party "Marketplace"
offerings, which it needed to cease doing business with, and that
ceasing to do business with those suppliers would raise its
product costs and would, at least temporarily, diminish its sales
by decreasing the variety of products the Company had to offer.
The Registration Statement, however, contained no such
disclosures. Following the Company's issuance of a July 2014
"Business Update" outlining a series of steps the Company would
need to take to ensure the legitimacy of the product being sold on
its website going forward and the Company's reporting of its
actual third quarter 2014 financial results (for the period ended
September 30, 2014), which were negatively impacted by the
business model changes described in the Business Update, and other
related disclosures, the price of Jumei ADSs fell. Currently
Jumei ADSs trade at below $14 each, a decline of approximately 38%
from the IPO price.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Jumei ADSs between May 16, 2014, the date of Jumei's IPO, and
November 19, 2014 (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by
Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class
actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial
fraud.
With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action judgment.
M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Court Okays Settlement of Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery approved a settlement and awarded
plaintiffs' counsel an agreed-upon attorneys' fee in a suit
against M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. over the
Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. Tender Offer Litigation, according to
the company's Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Oct. 3,
2014.
Following the company's November 2013 announcement of the
execution of a definitive agreement between the company and
Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. (Mindspeed) contemplating a tender
offer by the company for all outstanding shares of common stock of
Mindspeed and thereafter a merger with Mindspeed (Merger), a
number of purported class action lawsuits were filed against
Mindspeed, its directors, the company's merger subsidiary and the
company in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the California
Superior Court for Orange County.
The complaints alleged, generally, that the Mindspeed director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Mindspeed
stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such
breaches, by seeking to sell Mindspeed through an allegedly
defective process, for an unfair price, and on unfair terms. The
lawsuits sought, among other things, equitable relief that would
enjoin the consummation of the proposed Merger, rescission of the
proposed Merger (to the extent the proposed Merger has already
been consummated), damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
On November 22, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery. The amended complaint included similar
allegations to the original complaint, along with claims that the
Mindspeed Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the Merger
included misstatements or omissions of material facts. On November
25, 2013, a motion for preliminary injunction was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery. On December 3, 2013, all of the
complaints filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery were
consolidated (Delaware Actions).
On December 6, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions filed
their brief in support of a motion to enjoin the proposed Merger.
While the Defendants denied the allegations made in the lawsuits
and maintain that they have committed no wrongdoing whatsoever, to
permit the timely consummation of the Merger, and without
admitting the validity of any allegations made in the lawsuits,
the Defendants concluded that it was desirable that the Delaware
Actions be resolved.
On December 9, 2013, the Defendants' and plaintiffs' counsel in
the Delaware Actions entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle the Delaware Actions and to resolve all allegations which
were brought or could have been brought by the purported class of
Mindspeed shareholder plaintiffs. The settlement provides for the
release of all claims against the Defendants relating to the
proposed Merger. In connection with the settlement, Mindspeed
agreed to provide additional supplemental disclosures concerning
the tender offer as reflected in Amendment No. 3 to the Schedule
14D-9 filed with the SEC on December 10, 2013, which supplement
the information provided in the Schedule 14D-9. After the parties
entered into the memorandum of understanding, the motion for a
preliminary injunction was withdrawn and the hearing vacated in
the Delaware Actions. The Merger closed on December 18, 2013. The
parties submitted final settlement papers to the Delaware Court of
Chancery, which ordered that notice of the settlement be issued to
class members. On September 23, 2014, the Court of Chancery
approved the settlement and awarded plaintiffs' counsel the
agreed-upon attorneys' fee of $425,000.
MARION COUNTY, IN: Violates Civil Rights Act, Class Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Driver and Terry Clayton, individually and as
representatives of a class of all similarly situated individuals
v. The Marion County Sheriff, Case No. 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD (S.D.
Ind., December 19, 2014) alleges violations of the Civil Rights
Act.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard A. Waples, Esq.
WAPLES & HANGER
410 N. Audubon Road
Indianapolis, IN 46219
Telephone: (317) 357-0903
Facsimile: (317) 357-0275
E-mail: rwaples@wapleshanger.com
MCDONALD'S CORP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Garcia v. McDonald's Corporation, McDonald's USA, LLC, Case
No. 1:14-cv-04048-CAP (N.D. Ga., December 22, 2014) is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking payment for
unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, actual damages
and compensatory damages.
McDonald's Corporation is a Delaware foreign Corporation
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants describe their
business as a leading global foodservice retailer with more than
35,000 local restaurants serving nearly 70 million people in more
than 100 countries each day.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher D. Vaughn, Esq.
A. Brian Henson, Esq.
THE VAUGHN LAW FIRM, LLC
246 Sycamore Street, Suite 150
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (404) 378-1290
Facsimile: (404) 378-1295
E-mail: cvaughn@thevaughnlawfirm.com
bhenson@thevaughnlawfirm.com
- and -
Frank DeMelfi, Esq.
DEMELFI LAW GROUP, LLC
4651 Woodstock Road, Suite 208-103
Roswell, GA 30075
Telephone: (678) 948-7808
Facsimile: (866) 674-7808
E-mail: fdemelfi@gmail.com
MCRIGHT SERVICES: Fires Sales Staff Due to Disability, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Kim Carder v. McRight Services, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00123-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., December 19, 2014) accuses the Defendant
of discriminatory actions against the Plaintiff based on his
disabilities and age in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the
Kentucky Civil Rights Act.
Mr. Carder was hired by the Defendant in or about March 22, 2010,
as a Sales Consultant. He suffers from a physical impairment that
substantially limits him in a variety of major life activities,
including ambulating. He at times requires the use of a cane to
assist in walking and ambulating. The Defendant terminated Mr.
Carder on May 19, 2014, and informed him that the reasoning was
they were "changing directions."
McRight Services, LLC, is a corporation that conducts business in
the Western District of Kentucky.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Dutkanych III, Esq.
BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
411 Main Street
Evansville, IN 47708
Telephone: (812) 424-1000
Facsimile: (812) 424-1005
E-mail: ad@bdlegal.com
MEDICREDIT INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Babaev, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Medicredit Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07437-DLI-RML
(E.D.N.Y., December 22, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Sheffield, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LUPOLOVER
180 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 5
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Telephone: (201) 461-0059
Facsimile: (201) 608-7116
E-mail: matthew@lupoloverlaw.com
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs Want Presiding Judge Removed in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Solomon, writing for CBSSports.com, reports that plaintiffs
suing the NCAA over scholarship limits have requested the Indiana
federal judge presiding over the case remove herself because she
is a member of Butler University's board of trustees.
The antitrust lawsuit, known as the John Rock case, seeks damages
and a court order that would require Division I universities to
offer multiyear football scholarships and prevent the NCAA from
"artificially reducing" the total supply of scholarships to
athletes. U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson has presided
over the case since 2012, when Mr. Rock -- a former Gardner-Webb
quarterback who lost his scholarship -- sued the NCAA.
The development comes at a crucial time in the case as the
plaintiffs are trying to get Judge Magnus-Stinson to certify the
lawsuit as a class action. Hundreds of pages of discovery were
filed by the plaintiffs in recent weeks as part of the
certification process.
In a court filing on Dec. 11, Rock's lawyers said they discovered
Dec. 9 that Magnus-Stinson has been a board member at Butler since
2013. Butler's website shows Magnus-Stinson is one of 27 trustees
at the university, which is a Division I member and plays football
in the Football Championship Subdivision.
"Through Butler's President, the Trustees are privy to the
positions and discussions of the NCAA's President regarding the
anti-competitive conduct at the heart of this lawsuit," Rock's
lawyers wrote in a motion. "Moreover, Butler's Trustees are privy
to the discussions and strategic negotiations of Butler's
President within NCAA Division I athletics and directly advise him
on Butler's strategic and competitive positions, including with
respect to rule changes in Division I athletics."
The plaintiffs wrote that any change to NCAA bylaws or injunctive
relief as a result of the Rock case will impact Butler's
competitive position within Division I.
For example, the lawyers said, if the case results in schools
being required to provide multiyear scholarships -- since 2012,
schools have had the option to provide more than one year -- that
would have a financial impact on Butler "in the amount of millions
of dollars." Also, Rock has requested injunctive relief
prohibiting schools from discussing or limiting scholarships,
"which would have an impact on the way Butler conducts business
given that it has repeatedly engaged in discussions and votes on
(scholarships) to further protect its own competitive position,"
the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote.
In a court entry on Dec. 12, Judge Magnus-Stinson noted the
plaintiffs' motion doesn't state the NCAA's position on the matter
or whether the NCAA intends to file a response. The NCAA did not
respond to a request for comment. Judge Magnus-Stinson requested
that the assigned magistrate judge in the case hold a status
conference with the parties to determine the effect of the
plaintiffs' request on pending deadlines and discovery, including
deposition of a plaintiff's expert scheduled for Dec. 17.
Stuart Paynter, co-lead counsel for the Rock plaintiffs, said in
an interview that he only learned this week of Magnus-Stinson's
association with Butler because he was curious about where the
judge attended school and did a Google search.
"We're not accusing her of being biased," Mr. Paynter said. "The
standard is, is there a potential appearance you might be biased,
or do you have a financial interest in the subject matter? She is
a fiduciary to Butler as a trustee and Butler has a financial
interest in the subject matter. I think nine times out of 10,
judges are very professional about this. Even if she denies our
motion, we would probably try to appeal to the 7th Circuit."
Most recently, the NCAA and Rock plaintiffs have been fighting
over the definition of the class. The proposed definition in a
third amended complaint: All Division I football players from
Dec. 17, 2007 to the present who were classified under NCAA rules
as an "initial counter," were recruited by at least one FBS
school, and did not receive their initial year's athletic
scholarship for the full duration of their undergraduate education
or five years, whichever is shorter.
Previously, Rock's proposed class definition was limited to
Division I football players who had received an athletic
scholarship, had the scholarship reduced or not renewed, and went
on to pay tuition. The NCAA argued the new definition is much
broader and introduces factual questions not previously at issue
in the case, such as players whose scholarship got cut due to
ineligibility, fraudulent misrepresentation, misconduct or
voluntary withdrawal.
The NCAA previously failed to get the case dismissed. In August
2013, Magnus-Stinson wrote that the standard of proof would be
high for Rock at trial and whether he "can gather enough evidence
to prove that the relevant market he pleads is correct is a
question for another day."
Since then, the Rock plaintiffs have cited language from the
Ed O'Bannon antitrust ruling for a possible opening. In recent
weeks, the plaintiffs filed hundreds of pages of documents that
provide a fascinating account into the history of the NCAA's
scholarship rules.
The reason for the one-year scholarship rule often documented by
the NCAA and its members for many decades: Cost-cutting measures
and flexibility for coaches to run off players.
In 2010, the Justice Department's antitrust division started
investigating the NCAA's scholarship practices, including the
one-year rule. No lawsuit was filed by the Justice Department.
Two years later, the NCAA passed a rule ending the ban on
providing multiyear scholarships and barely survived the override
vote to kill the change.
Increasingly, many schools and conferences are announcing they
will provide guaranteed scholarships to athletes for the duration
of their college career provided they don't violate certain
provisions. The history behind how college sports reached this
point represents a large portion of the Rock plaintiffs' attempt
to get the class certified.
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Suit in Pennsylvania Seeks Relief Under TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Weed and Melissa Lindenmuth, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Navient Solutions, Inc., formerly
Sallie Mae, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-07190-RB (E.D. Pa., December
19, 2014) seeks relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
King Of Prussia, PA 19406
Telephone: (888) 595-9111
E-mail: czlevin@comcast.net
NEIMAN MARCUS: Settles "Monjazeb"; Nixing of "Tanguilig" Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the appeals against a dismissal is underway in the
labor suit filed by Bernadette Tanguilig against Neiman Marcus
Group LTD LLC, but no date has been set for oral argument; while
in the labor suit by Sheila Monjazeb, the court granted final
approval of a settlement, according to the company's Dec. 9, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2014.
On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed against the Company, Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California by Sheila
Monjazeb, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated. On July 12, 2010, all
defendants except for the Company were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was dismissed by Ms.
Monjazeb and refiled in the Superior Court of California for San
Francisco County. This complaint, along with a similar class
action lawsuit originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007,
alleges that the Company has engaged in various violations of the
California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including
without limitation, by (1) asking employees to work "off the
clock," (2) failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its
employees, (3) improperly calculating deductions on paychecks
delivered to its employees and (4) failing to provide a chair or
allow employees to sit during shifts. The Monjazeb and Tanguilig
class actions have been deemed "related" cases and are pending
before the same trial court judge.
On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the
Tanguilig case) to arbitrate their individual claims in accordance
with the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing
their ability to pursue a class action in court. However, the
court's order compelling arbitration did not apply to Ms.
Tanguilig because she is not bound by the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement. Further, the court determined that Ms. Tanguilig could
not be a class representative of employees who are subject to the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative
class action to those associates who were employed between
December 2003 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of the
company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement). Following the court's
order, Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed demands for arbitration
with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) seeking to
arbitrate not only their individual claims, but also class claims,
which the Company asserted violated the class action waiver in the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. This led to further proceedings
in the trial court, a stay of the arbitrations, and a decision by
the trial court, on its own motion, to reconsider its order
compelling arbitration. The trial court ultimately decided to
vacate its order compelling arbitration due to a recent California
appellate court decision. Following this ruling, the Company
timely filed two separate appeals, one with respect to Mr. Pinela
and one with respect to Ms. Monjazeb, with the Court of Appeal,
asserting that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to change
its earlier determination of the enforceability of the arbitration
agreement. The appeal with respect to Mr. Pinela has been fully
briefed and awaits the setting of a date for oral argument. The
appeal with respect to Ms. Monjazeb was dismissed since final
approval of the class action settlement was granted.
Notwithstanding the appeal, the trial court decided to set certain
civil penalty claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for trial on April
1, 2014. In these claims, Ms. Tanguilig sought civil penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act based on the Company's
alleged failure to provide employees with meal periods and rest
breaks in compliance with California law.
On December 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all of
Ms. Tanguilig's claims, including the civil penalty claims, based
on her failure to bring her claims to trial within five years as
required by California law. After several hearings, on February
28, 2014, the court dismissed all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims in the
case and vacated the April 1, 2014 trial date. The court has
awarded the Company its costs of suit in connection with the
defense of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, but denied its request of an
attorneys' fees award from Ms. Tanguilig. Ms. Tanguilig filed a
notice of appeal from the dismissal of all her claims, as well as
a second notice of appeal from the award of costs, both of which
are pending before the Court of Appeal. Should the Court of Appeal
reverse the trial court's dismissal of all of Ms. Tanguilig's
claims, the litigation will resume, and Ms. Tanguilig will seek
class certification of the claims asserted in her Third Amended
Complaint. If this occurs, the scope of her class claims will
likely be reduced by the class action settlement and release in
the Monjazeb case; however, that settlement does not cover claims
asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for alleged Labor Code violations from
approximately December 19, 2003 to August 20, 2006 (the beginning
of the settlement class period in the Monjazeb case). Briefing on
the appeals is underway, but no date has been set for oral
argument.
In Ms. Monjazeb's class action, a settlement was reached at a
mediation held on January 25, 2014. After several hearings, the
trial court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on May
6, 2014 and directed that notice of settlement be given to the
settlement class. The deadline for class members to opt out of the
settlement was August 11, 2014. The final approval hearing was
held on September 18, 2014. The court granted final approval and
issued a judgment approving the settlement. The settlement funds
have been paid by the Company and have been disbursed by the
claims administrator in accordance with the settlement.
Based upon the pending settlement agreement with respect to Ms.
Monjazeb's class action claims, the company recorded the company's
currently estimable liabilities with respect to both Ms.
Monjazeb's and Ms. Tanguilig's employment class actions litigation
claims in fiscal year 2014, which amount was not material to the
company's financial condition or results of operations. The
company will continue to evaluate these matters, and the company's
recorded reserves for such matters, based on subsequent events,
new information and future circumstances.
NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Approves Settlement in "Newton" Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego Superior Court approved the settlement reached in
Marisabella Newton v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., et al. and
dismissed the case, according to Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC's
Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2014.
On December 6, 2013, a third putative class action was filed
against the Company in the San Diego Superior Court by a former
employee. The case was entitled Marisabella Newton v. Neiman
Marcus Group, Inc., et al., and the complaint alleged claims
similar to those made in the case by Sheila Monjazeb. After filing
an answer to the complaint in the Newton case and responding to
discovery, the company reached a settlement of Ms. Newton's
individual claims and a dismissal of her class allegations,
subject to court approval. The court approved the settlement and
dismissed the case on August 25, 2014.
NEIMAN MARCUS: NLRB to Decide on Suit Over Arbitration, Waiver
--------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint against Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC's Arbitration
Agreement and class action waiver has now been transferred to the
National Labor Relations Board for further consideration and
decision, according to the company's Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 1, 2014.
In addition to the foregoing matters, the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) has been pursuing a complaint alleging that the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement's class action prohibition
violates employees' rights to engage in concerted activity, which
was submitted to an administrative law judge (ALJ) for
determination on a stipulated record. Recently, the ALJ issued a
recommended decision and order finding that the Company's
Arbitration Agreement and class action waiver violated the
National Labor Relations Act. The matter has now been transferred
to the NLRB for further consideration and decision.
NEIMAN MARCUS: Cal. Court Vacates Hearing of Customer Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California found the motion of Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC to
dismiss a consumer suit suitable for disposition without oral
argument and vacated a scheduled hearing, according to the
company's Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2014.
On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC in Los Angeles County Superior
Court by a customer, Linda Rubenstein, in connection with the
Company's Last Call stores in California. Ms. Rubenstein alleges
that the Company has violated various California consumer
protection statutes by implementing a marketing and pricing
strategy that suggests that clothing sold at Last Call stores in
California was originally offered for sale at full-line Neiman
Marcus stores when allegedly, it was not, and is allegedly of
inferior quality to clothing sold at the full-line stores. On
September 12, 2014, the company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. On
October 17, 2014, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was set for hearing on December 1, 2014. On
November 12, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which currently is set for hearing on July 20,
2015. On November 18, 2014, the court found the company's motion
to dismiss suitable for disposition without oral argument and
vacated the hearing scheduled for December 1, 2014.
NEIMAN MARCUS: Lawsuit Over Cyber-Attack Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three class actions relating to a Cyber-Attack were filed against
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC in January 2014 and later voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiffs between February and April 2014,
according to the company's Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov.
1, 2014.
The plaintiffs had alleged negligence and other claims in
connection with their purchases by payment cards. Melissa Frank v.
The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
January 13, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
April 15, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a
complaint. Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on January 27, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff on March 11, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-
file a complaint. Christina Wong v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC,
et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on January 29, 2014, but was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on February 10, 2014,
without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint.
NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal Against Dismissal of "Remijas" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal against the dismissal of the case Hilary Remijas v. The
Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, is currently pending in the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's Dec. 9, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2014.
Three new putative class actions relating to the Cyber-Attack were
filed in March and April 2014, also alleging negligence and other
claims in connection with plaintiffs' purchases by payment cards.
Two of the cases, Katerina Chau v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD, Inc.,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on March 14, 2014, and Michael Shields v.
The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on April 1, 2014,
were voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice as to Chau and without
prejudice as to Shields. The third case, Hilary Remijas v. The
Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, was filed on March 12, 2014 in the
Northern District of Illinois. On June 2, 2014, an amended
complaint in the Remijas case was filed, which added three
plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne Kao, California residents;
and Melissa Frank, a New York resident) and asserted claims for
negligence, implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of
various consumer protection statutes, invasion of privacy and
violation of state data breach laws. The Company moved to dismiss
the Remijas amended complaint on July 2, 2014. On September 16,
2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
Remijas case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing
due to their failure to demonstrate an actionable injury. On
September 25, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the district court's order
dismissing the case. The appeal is currently pending in the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefing on the appeal is
underway, but no date has been set for oral argument.
NJOY Inc: Seeks Dismissal of False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field and Andrew MacIntyre, writing for Law360, report that
e-cigarette manufacturer NJOY Inc. fired back at two consolidated
proposed class actions alleging it falsely advertises its products
as healthier than traditional cigarettes, arguing its
advertisements are harmless puffery that say nothing about health
or safety.
NJOY told U.S. Judge Margaret M. Morrow on Dec. 10 that plaintiffs
Kathryn Thomas, Ben Halberstam and Eric McGovern's allegations
that the company violated Florida unfair trade law and California
state consumer protection and unfair competition laws by
misleading customers into believing e-cigarettes are safer than
regular cigarettes should be dismissed because NJOY's advertising
doesn't make any health claims and its product packaging contains
nicotine warnings.
"Plaintiffs now assert that a variety of harmless, good-humored
advertising slogans, that say nothing about health or safety, as
well as product packaging that specifically discloses the harm
resulting from nicotine use, constitute false advertising that
NJOY's products are 'known to be generally safe or safer than
traditional cigarettes,'" NJOY said. "These allegations, however,
are divorced from the reality of NJOY's advertisements and product
packaging."
E-cigarettes, battery-operated products made to look like
cigarettes, contain cartridges filled with nicotine. The
advertisements cited by the plaintiffs are too general,
nonspecific and subjective and aren't likely to mislead a
reasonable consumer, according to NJOY.
Thomas alleged that NJOY violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, according to NJOY, but she also said that she
didn't see any advertising for the e-cigarette she bought in
during the summer of 2012.
"In fact, Thomas was unable to allege that NJOY even advertised
the product she purchased," NJOY said. "As a result, Thomas bases
her claim solely on product packaging that makes no
representations, but instead contains an extensive warning
disclosing the potential health risks of nicotine."
Messrs. McGovern and Halberstam alleged NJOY violated California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and unfair competition law, according
to the motion.
McGovern saw a television advertisement with the phrase "Friends
don't let friends smoke," according to NJOY.
"This phraseology, however, could be used to promote any product,
and does not make any health claims," NJOY said, calling the ad
"innocuous."
Mr. Halberstam claimed he saw two print ads promoting NJOY
products, according to the motion.
One of the print ads seen by Mr. Halberstam said "you can get rid
of the smoke and keep the flavor," according to the motion.
Mr. Halberstam claimed he saw the ad in December 2012 or January
2013, but didn't buy an NJOY e-cigarette until nine months later,
according to NJOY.
NJOY argued that a reasonable consumer wouldn't be mislead by the
ad into thinking that an e-cigarette is safer, because it doesn't
make any health claims.
Mr. Halberstam alleged that he saw a print ad with the tagline
"Try something new in bed," but not where or when he saw that ad,
according to the motion.
NJOY also noted that its product packaging contains "extensive"
warnings about nicotine, which it said are far more than what the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration has proposed for e-cigarette
warnings.
NJOY is represented by Paul Gale -- paul.gale@troutmansanders.com
-- Daniel Rashtian, Thomas Prouty and John Gerstein --
jack.gerstein@troutmansanders.com -- of Troutman Sanders LLP.
The plaintiffs are represented by Stephanie Bartone and Shannon
Hopkins of Levi and Korsinsky LLP, Demet Basar -- basar@whafh.com
-- and Francis Gregorek of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz
LLP and Jerusalem F Beligan of Bisnar Chase, among others.
The case is In Re NJOY INC Consumer Class Action Litigation, case
number 2:14-cv-00428 consolidated with 2:14-cv-00427 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
PA HUMAN SERVICES DEP'T: Suit Seeks Claims Under Prisoner Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Mendez and Aminata Diao, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Beverly D. MacKereth, Secretary of
the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, and Dionisio
Mignacca, Executive Director of the Philadelphia County Assistance
Office, Case No. 2:14-cv-07199 (E.D. Pa., December 22, 2014) seeks
relief for claims pursuant to the Prisoner Civil Rights.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louise E. Hayes, Esq.
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES INC.
North Philadelphia Law Center
1410 West Erie Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19140
Telephone: (215) 227-4734
E-mail: lhayes@clsphila.org
PETROBAS: Six US Law Firms Commence Class-Action Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Pearson, writing for The Financial Times, reports that
six US law firms say they have begun class-action proceedings
against Petrobras in an effort to recoup money for US investors
who lost money as a multibillion-dollar corruption scandal
engulfed Brazil's biggest company.
The Pomerantz law firm, Glance Binkow & Goldberg, Brower Piven,
Kahn Swick & Foti, Wolf Popper, and Rosen Law Firm are all seeking
court approval to bring class-action lawsuits on behalf of
investors who bought American Depositary Shares (ADSs) in Brazil's
state-controlled oil producer on the New York Stock Exchange.
Shareholder class-action lawsuits are relatively common in the US
and have become harder to win in recent years because of tougher
standards handed down by the appeals courts. Their success does
not depend on the number filed because they are traditionally
combined into a single case on behalf of all affected investors.
Nevertheless, the lawsuits have spooked the markets in Brazil.
Under additional pressure from the plummeting oil price,
Petrobras's shares in Brazil slumped to a new 10-year low on
Dec. 11.
Corruption scandals, while commonplace in the Latin American
country, have rarely attracted so much attention from foreign
authorities.
In November, the FT reported that the US Department of Justice had
also opened a criminal investigation into the company, while the
Securities and Exchange Commission is pursuing a civil
investigation. In December, the SEC issued a subpoena for
documents related to the investigation. Petrobras has since
acknowledged that it is being investigated and has vowed to
collaborate with the US and Brazilian authorities.
Most of the lawsuits cited the recent arrests of two members of
the company's senior management and Petrobras's own announcement
on November 13 that 'Operation Carwash' -- as the police
investigation has been dubbed -- might force it to restate past
financial statements.
Petrobras's accounts are frozen and it cannot access capital
markets for the time being. The group has one of the world's
largest capital expenditure programs. Brazil's government said on
Dec. 11 it was working on a plan to guarantee a debt issuance by
the company. Energy Minister Edison Lobao said the deal could be
announced as early as Dec. 12.
The two former Petrobras executives are among more than 20 people
who have been arrested so far in connection with the supposed
scheme to funnel money from Petrobras contracts into President
Dilma Rousseff's Workers' Party and its ruling coalition.
Federal police have estimated that more than R$10 billion (US$3
billion) was stolen from the state-controlled company.
On Dec. 11, Brazilian prosecutors also formally charged executives
from six of the country's largest construction companies for
allegedly forming a cartel as part of the scheme, casting doubts
over the government's R$871 billion planned infrastructure
projects that include arenas for the 2016 Olympics.
PGA MANAGEMENT: Accused of Purposely Underpaying Workers' Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Mitchell v. PGA Management Services, Inc., Case No. 9:14-
cv-81571-KLR (S.D. Fla., December 19, 2014) alleges that the
Plaintiff has been damaged in the loss of wages as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's willful and deliberate
underpayment of wages.
PGA Management Services, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing
business in Palm Beach County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary A. Isaacs, Esq.
GARY A. ISAACS, P.A.
712 U.S. Highway One, Suite 400
North Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 844-3600
E-mail: gaisaacs@bellsouth.net
PGA MANAGEMENT: Improperly Utilized "Tip Credits," Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Holman v. PGA Management Services, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-
81568-KAM (S.D. Fla., December 19, 2014) alleges that the
Defendant improperly utilized a "tip credit" when paying the
Plaintiff and hourly rate below the minimum wage.
PGA Management Services, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing
business in Palm Beach County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary A. Isaacs, Esq.
GARY A. ISAACS, P.A.
712 U.S. Highway One, Suite 400
North Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 844-3600
E-mail: gaisaacs@bellsouth.net
PGA MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Thomas Zanaras, Jr. v. PGA Management Services, Inc., Case
No. 9:14-cv-81570-DMM (S.D. Fla., December 19, 2014) is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid wages,
an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.
PGA Management Services, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing
business in Palm Beach County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary A. Isaacs, Esq.
GARY A. ISAACS, P.A.
712 U.S. Highway One, Suite 400
North Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 844-3600
E-mail: gaisaacs@bellsouth.net
PIKE COURT: N.C. Business Court Consolidates Suits Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina Business Court entered an order consolidating
four lawsuits against Pike Corporation and designating Annabelle
Umberger v. Pike Corporation, et al. (Case No. 14-CVS-1202) as the
operative complaint, according to the company's Dec. 9, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2014.
On November 18, 2014, Pike Corporation (the "Company") filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive
proxy statement, dated November 18, 2014 (the "definitive proxy
statement"), with respect to the special meeting of the Company's
shareholders scheduled to be held on December 18, 2014 (the
"Special Meeting") in order to approve the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of August 4, 2014 (as it may be amended from time
to time, the "merger agreement"), by and among the Company,
Pioneer Parent, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and
Pioneer Merger Sub, Inc., a North Carolina corporation and a
direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub" and,
together with Parent, the "Parent Parties"). Pursuant to the
merger agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the
Company (the "merger"), with the Company surviving the merger as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.
As previously disclosed in the definitive proxy statement, four
purported class action complaints relating to the merger have been
filed. On August 19, 2014, a purported class action complaint was
filed on behalf of a putative class of the Company's public
shareholders. The complaint named as defendants the members of the
Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board"), the Company,
Court Square Capital Partners III, L.P. ("CSCP") and the Parent
Parties, and generally alleged that the members of the Board
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in
connection with the merger agreement and that CSCP and the Parent
Parties aided and abetted that breach. On September 8, 2014, a
second purported class action complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of the Company's public shareholders naming the
members of the Board and the Parent Parties as defendants, and
generally alleging that the Board breached its fiduciary duties to
the Company's shareholders in connection with the merger agreement
and that the Parent Parties aided and abetted that breach. The
Company was also named as a "nominal defendant" because the case
purported to be brought as a derivative action on the Company's
behalf in the alternative to the direct shareholder claims. On
September 17, 2014, a third purported class action complaint was
filed on behalf of a putative class of the Company's public
shareholders naming the members of the Board, CSCP and the Parent
Parties as defendants, and generally alleging that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in
connection with the merger agreement and that CSCP and the Parent
Parties aided and abetted that breach. The Company was again named
as a "nominal defendant" because of the alternative derivative
claims. The plaintiff in the third lawsuit filed an amended
complaint on October 7, 2014, to add claims based on alleged
omissions and incomplete disclosures in the Company's preliminary
proxy statement. On September 25, 2014, a fourth purported class
action complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of the
Company's public shareholders. The complaint names as defendants
the members of the Board, the Company, CSCP and the Parent
Parties. The complaint alleges that the members of the Board
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in
connection with the merger agreement, namely with regard to
alleged omissions and incomplete disclosures in the Company's
preliminary proxy statement. The complaint alleges that CSCP and
the Parent Parties aided and abetted the breach.
All four lawsuits were assigned to the North Carolina Business
Court (the "Court"). On October 30, 2014, the Court entered an
order consolidating the four lawsuits and designating Annabelle
Umberger v. Pike Corporation, et al. (Case No. 14-CVS-1202) as the
operative complaint, superseding the others. Any future-filed
lawsuits that are assigned to the Court will also be consolidated
into the action and superseded by the Umberger case.
PLANTATION SWEETS: Sued by Migrant Workers Over FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emiliano Herrera-Velazquez; Gaspar Resendiz-Alvarez; Hildeberto
Velazquez-Camacho; and Isaias Martinez-Zavala v. Plantation
Sweets, Inc; Ronald A. Collins; Narciso Perez; and Perez Forestry,
LLC; Case No. 6:14-cv-00127-BAE-GRS (S.D. Ga.,
December 19, 2014) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to pay each Plaintiff at least the
required average minimum hourly wage for every compensable hour of
labor performed in a workweek, including by failing to reimburse
their pre-employment expenses as required by law.
The Plaintiffs are migrant guest workers recruited by the
Defendants in Mexico in 2012 to work for the Defendants in and
around Tattnall County, Georgia.
Plantation Sweets is a Georgia corporation. Mr. Collins is a
resident of the state of Georgia. He is the day-to-day manager of
Plantation Sweets. Plantation Sweets grows, harvests, and packs
produce, including Vidalia onions, for sale in interstate
commerce.
Narciso Perez, a resident of the state of Arkansas, is the farm
labor contractor for Defendants Mr. Collins and Plantation Sweets.
Perez Forestry is an Arkansas corporation that conducted business
in the state of Georgia, but was not registered as a foreign
corporation with the Georgia Secretary of State.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dawson Morton, Esq.
Theodore Roethke, Esq.
Lisa J. Krisher, Esq.
GEORGIA LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM
104 Marietta Street NW, Suite 250
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 463-1633
Facsimile: (404) 463-1623
E-mail: dmorton@glsp.org
lkrisher@glsp.org
PRECISE BORING: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Randy Riffle and Jerry Tucker v. Precise Boring of Ohio, LLC and
Chad Crist, Case No. 2:14-cv-02692-GCS-NMK (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 20,
2014) alleges that the Defendants frequently did not pay
Plaintiffs overtime at a rate of one and one half times the usual
hourly rate for any work hours in excess of 40 per workweek.
Headquartered in Fairfield County, Ohio, Precise Boring of Ohio,
LLC, provides horizontal directional drilling relating to gas
pipelines and underground utilities. The Company also provides
pipe busting, vacuum excavation, directional drilling, and
underground installation services to private and commercial
clients, and municipalities, throughout Ohio. Chad Crist is the
owner of the Company.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Francis Scott, Esq.
17410 Dorchester Dr.
Cleveland, OH 44119
Telephone: (216) 650-3318
Facsimile: (216) 664-2663
E-mail: jfscld@yahoo.com
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Klein, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-07439 (E.D.N.Y., December 22, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxim Maximov, Esq.
MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Telephone: (718) 395-3459
Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com
PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Accused of Violating Tort Claims Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Alu Banarji, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Professional Placement Services, LLC, Case No. 3:14-
cv-02981-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal., December 19, 2014) is brought under
the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com
RAYONIER INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 12 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Rayonier, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Middle
District of Florida, and docketed under 14-cv-1395, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Rayonier securities between February 28, 2014 and November 7,
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 Rayonier securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 12, 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.
Rayonier, Inc. engages in the sale and development of real estate
and timberland management, as well as in the production and sale
of cellulose fibers in the United States, New Zealand, and
Australia. The company operates in four segments: Timber, Real
Estate, Performance Fibers, and Wood Products.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Rayonier's financial
statements overstated its estimated merchantable timber inventory
volumes by including timber in specially designated parcels
located in restricted, environmentally sensitive or economically
inaccessible areas; (2) the inclusion of this timber was
incorrect, inconsistent with Rayonier's historical definition of
merchantable timber inventory, and a significant change from prior
years; (3) Rayonier's financial statements understated depletion
expense in cost of goods sold by approximately $2.0 million in
each of the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014, and June 30,
2014, which resulted in a corresponding overstatement of income
from continuing operations of $1.9 million and $2.0 million,
respectively, in those periods; (4) there was a material weakness
in Rayonier's internal controls related to financial reporting as
of December 31, 2013, March 31, 2014, and June 30, 2014; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, Rayonier's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On November 10, 2014, before the market opened for trading, the
Company issued a press release and filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
reporting third quarter results and announcing a restatement of
prior issued financial statements, which contained material
errors.
On this news, shares of Rayonier fell $5.08 or almost 15%, on
unusually heavy volume, to close at $28.82 on November 10, 2014.
With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.
REMINGTON ARMS: Judge Questions Rifle Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that the federal judge who
is considering a proposed nationwide settlement involving
Remington's iconic Model 700 series rifle is making clear he has
no intention of rubber-stamping the deal.
Under the settlement filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City,
Missouri, Remington would replace the triggers on millions of
rifles that class-action plaintiffs claim are prone to firing
without the trigger being pulled.
At least 24 deaths and hundreds of injuries have been linked to
accidental firings of the rifles, an issue explored in the 2010
documentary "Remington Under Fire: A CNBC Investigation." But the
company denies the guns are defective, and has stressed that the
settlement should not be considered a recall.
Senior U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith has postponed ruling on
the settlement, instead scheduling a hearing for Feb. 4. But he
is already questioning whether the deal treats owners of the guns
fairly, and whether Remington plans to do enough to publicize it.
The judge also wants to know more about a provision that allows
the company to back out of the deal if too many customers opt out
of it.
Under the proposed settlement covering nearly 8 million guns
produced since 1948, Remington agrees to retrofit most of the
rifles, free of charge, with a trigger mechanism the plaintiffs
say is safer. But because some of the guns -- specifically models
600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722 and 725 -- cannot be retrofitted, those
owners would instead receive a voucher for $10 or $12.50 worth of
Remington products.
In his order scheduling the hearing, Judge Smith demands both
sides "explain why $10 and $12.50 is a sufficient amount of money
to provide these class members when they still will own a firearm
that may misfire."
Judge Smith, a Clinton appointee who has been on the federal bench
since 1995, also raises questions about the plans to notify
customers about the settlement.
Under the proposal, a Philadelphia-based claims administrator,
Angeion Group, would publicize the settlement in several national
magazines, on the Internet and through direct mail, in a campaign
Angeion estimates would reach about 73 percent of the owners. The
notices would direct customers to a dedicated website to download
the documents they need. The judge questions whether a separate
website is needed.
"The court would like the parties to explain why these documents
will not be provided on Remington's website," Judge Smith writes.
He also wants to know whether Remington's website will at least
provide a link to the settlement site.
Finally, the judge wants more information about an escape clause
that allows Remington -- in its sole discretion -- to cancel the
agreement if too many people opt out to pursue their own claims --
so much so that it "threatens to frustrate the purpose of the
agreement."
"The court would like the parties to explain how Remington will
determine what a 'sufficient' number is."
In their joint statement announcing the settlement, both Remington
and the plaintiffs said they would have no further comment until
the agreement is approved.
SINGING RIVER: Employees File Class Action Over Pension Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Lee, writing for SunHerald.com, reports that five current
and former Singing River Health System employees allege in a
federal lawsuit filed on Dec. 11 they were subjected to more than
20 counts of corporate and financial fraud, breach of contract and
bad faith when their pensions were yanked from under them without
notice.
They are suing numerous Singing River entities, former CEO Chris
Anderson, former CFO Mike Crews, retirement benefits committee
member and attorney Stephanie Barnes Taylor, eight members of the
Board of Trustees, auditing firm KPMG LLP and pension plan
administrator Transamerica Retirement Solutions Corp.
The lawsuit says Singing River breached its contract with plan
members because alternatives existed to "shore up" the pension
plan. Pension plan members, it says, had a "legitimate
expectation" their employer would contribute.
The lawsuit alleges fraud and deceit by Mr. Anderson, now CEO at
Baptist Health Systems in Jackson; Crews, who has retired; and
Barnes, who is no longer chief legal counsel at SRHS. The three
executives reviewed and approved audits containing fraudulent
material and misrepresented the pension plan's condition, the
lawsuit says.
Trustees are accused of fraud and deceit for failing to report the
plan's true condition to members and for voting to discontinue it,
among other allegations. The trustees named are president Michael
Heidelberg, vice president Michael Tolleson, Tommy Leonard, Larry
Cosper, Morris Strickland, Ira Polk, Stephen Nunenmacher and Hugo
Quintana.
As plan fiduciaries, board members are in a position of trust that
obligates them to represent the plan's best interests.
Among other things, the lawsuit seeks to make the pension plan
whole, appoint an independent fiduciary and fine the parties named
$110 a day for every day the plan has not been funded. The
lawsuit also asks for punitive damages against the three
executives and eight trustees because, it says, their actions were
malicious and reckless.
"We have clients afraid they're going to have to file for
bankruptcy," one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit,
Jim Reeves of Biloxi, said in a news release. "We have retirees
afraid they're going to be forced back into the work place. Others
might have to sell their homes. This is devastating on a large
scale to a lot of people."
Law firms Reeves and Mestayer and Cunningham Bounds of Mobile are
seeking class-action status for the lawsuit. Class-action status
would allow them to represent those of the more than 2,400
employees and 600 retirees who qualify. The case has been
assigned to U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett, Starrett must
decide whether a class of litigants can be certified based on
factors such as whether the alleged wrongs committed and potential
damages owed would uniformly apply.
Employees contributed a mandatory 3 percent to retirement from
their payroll checks. The plan offered them 50 to 70 percent of
pay for life when they retired. The lawsuit details signs the
plan was failing. Since 2009, the health system has not funded its
share of the plan. In 2011, it was closed to new employees.
Employees received annual statements in 2010 and 2011 that led
them to believe Singing River was still funding their retirement.
Annual audits of SRHS finances by KPMG "expressed the opinion the
plan was adequately funded when it was not," the lawsuit says.
"KPMG's misstatement of the true financial situation relating to
the plan was the result of an ongoing conspiracy between the
defendants to suppress the true financial picture of the plan and
the hospital."
A new firm, Horne LLP, conducted the hospital system's audit in
2013, revealing financial problems. Earlier this year, the
hospital was forced to write off $88 million in bad debt that had
been listed as operating income. On Nov. 20, the Board of
Trustees voted to terminate the pension plan.
SOUTHWESTERN & PACIFIC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in FCRA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge has ruled that the named plaintiff in a proposed class
action lawsuit against Southwestern & Pacific Specialty Finance
Inc. failed to prove that the company violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
The named plaintiff, Jaime Lea Derderian, could not provide
sufficient evidence that she did not receive Southwestern's firm
offers of credit, according to an order granting the defendant's
motion for summary judgment filed Dec. 8 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.
Southwestern claims it is entitled to summary judgment because it
complied with the FCRA.
"Southwestern asserts that it complied with the FCRA because it
obtained Derderian's credit for the permissible purpose of
extending a firm offer of credit, and sent Derderian a firm offer
of credit after each of the times Southwestern obtained her
consumer report on September 15, 2012 and March 15, 2013," the
order states.
Ms. Derderian does not offer enough evidence that Southwestern
failed to extend her a firm offer of credit after it obtained her
consumer report on Sept. 15, 2012 and March 15, 2013, according to
the order.
Southwestern provided evidence that its business practice is to
engage third parties to print and mail its firm offers of credit
to consumers after obtaining consumer reports. Southwestern also
provided evidence that firm offers of credit were mailed to
Ms. Derderian following receipt of her consumer report.
"Derderian has not provided any evidence of non-receipt; she has
only stated she 'does not believe' or 'does not recall' receiving
the offers," the order states. "In light of this evidence, the
Court finds Southwestern provided sufficient evidence that it
mailed firm offers of credit to Derderian to support a presumption
that Derderian received the offers, and that Derderian failed to
rebut this presumption."
The court found that Southwestern complied with the FCRA insofar
as it provided sufficient evidence to show that it extended
Ms. Derderian firm offers of credit after it obtained her consumer
reports.
Ms. Derderian originally filed her class action lawsuit in
San Diego County Superior Court on Jan. 23. The case was removed
to federal court on Feb. 24. On June 20, Southwestern filed a
motion for summary judgment.
Ms. Derderian was seeking class certification, $1,000 for each
consumer report improperly obtained and punitive damages.
District Judge M. James Lorenz also denied Ms. Derderian's request
to file an amended complaint to include additional instances in
which the company allegedly improperly accessed her credit report,
calling the request a delaying tactic.
Ms. Derderian was represented by Jeffrey Wilens of Lakeshore Law
Center in Yorba Linda, Calif.
Southwestern was represented by Anne Choi Goodwin and Adrienne
Renee Salerno of Squire Patton Boggs in Los Angeles; and Amy L.
Brown of Squire Patton Boggs in Washington, D.C.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number: 3:14-cv-00412.
STORA ENSO: March 30 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saveri & Saveri, Inc. and Trump, Alioto & Prescott LLP on Dec. 23
disclosed that your rights may be affected by class action
lawsuits entitled The Harman Press v. International Paper Co., et
al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-04-432167. The
Court has preliminarily approved a settlement agreement between
Plaintiffs and defendants Stora Enso North America Corporation,
n/k/a NewPage Wisconsin System, Inc. ("SENA") and Stora Enso Oyj
("SEO"), and has scheduled a hearing to consider the fairness,
adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed settlement. If the
Court grants final approval to the settlement, all named
defendants will have settled and the litigation will be concluded.
WHAT ARE THE LAWSUITS ABOUT? Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated persons and entities in the State
of California, allege that Settling Defendants and UPM-Kymmene
Corporation have unlawfully conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or
stabilize the price of Publication Paper, and that such conduct
violates the antitrust and/or consumer protection laws of
California. Defendants deny liability.
WHAT IS PUBLICATION PAPER? Publication Paper refers to paper that
contains a layer of coating material, such as kaolin, calcium
carbonate, titanium oxide, latex and/or other materials, in
combination with an adhesive, on one or both surface(s) of the
papers, and consists of coated groundwood and coated freesheet
papers in grades 1 through 5.
WHO IS AN INDIRECT PURCHASER? An indirect purchaser is a person or
entity (1) who bought Publication Paper from someone other than a
manufacturer of Publication Paper, including the Defendants or
their subsidiaries or affiliates, or (2) who purchased products
that contain Publication Paper, such as magazines and flyers.
WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS? All persons who resided in
California and all entities which had a place of business in
California as of November 21, 2014, whether or not a resident of
or a business located in California at the time of purchase, and,
at any time during the period June 8, 2000 up to and including
January 29, 2014, indirectly purchased in the State of California,
Publication Paper from any of the Defendants are in the
"Settlement Class."
WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TERMS? In exchange for the
release of claims by the Settlement Class, SEO has agreed to pay
$125,000. The Settlement Amount plus interest is the "Settlement
Fund." In addition, SEO has agreed to pay into the Settlement
Fund an amount equal to one-half the cost of the expenses of
providing notice of the settlement to the Class, up to a maximum
total payment of $12,500. The Settlement Fund, plus $900,000
recovered in a prior settlement with UPM-Kymmene Corporation, is
the "Combined Settlement Fund."
HOW WILL THE COMBINED SETTLEMENT FUND BE DISTRIBUTED? Plaintiffs'
Counsel will submit a plan of distribution to the Court for
distribution of the Combined Settlement Fund in the litigation,
less court-approved costs, expenses and attorneys' fees not to
exceed 1/3 of the Combined Settlement Fund, to eligible non-profit
organizations in the State of California who are, as nearly as
practicable, representative of the interests of indirect
purchasers of Publication Paper, or to other such organizations as
the Court may approve or direct, in accordance with applicable
law. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall submit the names and identities of
eligible non-profit organizations for the Court's approval at the
fairness hearing. Plaintiffs propose distributing the Combined
Settlement Fund in this manner due to the high cost of processing
claims and making direct cash distributions to potentially
millions of claimants relative to the average likely award to
those claimants. Under the plan of distribution, payments will
not be made to Settlement Class Members. The plan of distribution
is not part of the Settlement Agreement, and any order of the
Court relating to such plan shall not affect the finality of the
Settlement Agreement.
WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS? If you wish to remain a member of the
Settlement Class you need not take any action. You will be bound
by the judgment of the Court regarding your claims and cannot
present them in another lawsuit. If you don't want to be a member
of the Settlement Class, or be legally bound by the Settlement,
you must exclude yourself in writing by March 2, 2015. If you
exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will preserve your
right, if any, to sue SENA and SEO regarding the legal claims in
this case. However, on September 7, 2011, SENA and certain of its
affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware. The United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware confirmed the Chapter 11
bankruptcy plan of SENA, and on December 21, 2012, the Chapter 11
plan became effective. SENA received a discharge from claims
under the terms of its confirmed and effective Chapter 11 plan in
the Bankruptcy Cases. For more details regarding SENA's
bankruptcy, please review the Detailed Notice on
www.CaliforniaPublicationPaperSettlement.com
The Detailed Notice also describes how to exclude yourself from
the Settlement Class and how to object to the Settlement. If you
remain a Settlement Class Member, you may object to the Settlement
by March 2, 2015. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 9:00
a.m. on March 30, 2015, at 400 McAllister St., Dept. 304,
San Francisco, CA 94102. At this hearing, the Court will consider
whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should
be granted final approval. You may appear at the hearing, but you
don't have to.
HOW CAN I OBTAIN THE FULL NOTICE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT? You may obtain a copy of the full notice
and the proposed settlement by (a) contacting California
Publication Paper Antitrust Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box
6177, Novato, CA 94948-6177, 1-866-335-1850; or (b) visiting the
website: www.CaliforniaPublicationPaperSettlement.com
All questions you may have concerning the Settlement Agreement or
this Summary Notice should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE OR ADDRESS INQUIRIES TO THE COURT.
SYNGENTA CORP: Removes "Archer" Suit to Louisiana District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Archer Daniels Midland Company v. Syngenta
Corporation, et al., Case No. 79219, was removed from the 29th
Judicial District Court for St. Charles Parish, State of
Louisiana, to the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana (New Orleans). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-02891-SM-KWR to the proceeding.
ADM -- the international agri-business conglomerate -- filed the
lawsuit alleging that it was harmed when the Chinese government
refused to allow it to import corn from the United States that was
grown from Syngenta's U.S.-approved genetically modified corn
seed, called Viptera.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glenn Gill Goodier, Esq.
Richard D. Bertram, Esq.
JONES WALKER LLP
Place St. Charles
201 St. Charles Ave., Floor 48
New Orleans, LA 70170
vTelephone: (504) 582-8000
E-mail: ggoodier@joneswalker.com
rbertram@joneswalker.com
- and -
David F. Graham, Esq.
David H. Hoffman, Esq.
Cornelius A. Vandenberg, Esq.
Kelly Albinak Kribs, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 853-7000
Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com
david.hoffman@sidley.com
cvandenberg@sidley.com
kkribs@sidley.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark Christopher Surprenant, Esq.
ADAMS & REESE, LLP
One Shell Square
701 Poydras St., Suite 4500
New Orleans, LA 70139
Telephone: (504) 581-3234
E-mail: Mark.Surprenant@arlaw.com
TD AMERITRADE: To Vigorously Defend Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that TD
Ameritrade said it will "vigorously defend" against a class action
lawsuit recently filed against it
Joseph A. Giannone, a member of TD Ameritrade's communications and
public affairs department, said while it is TD Ameritrade's policy
not to comment on pending litigation, it will vigorously defend
against this lawsuit and others.
"We take our best execution responsibilities seriously and we
believe that our client orders receive best execution,"
Mr. Giannone said.
The class action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 15 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Gerald J. Klein claims TD Ameritrade and CEO Fredric Tomczyk
violated the Securities Exchange Act by making false or misleading
statements about the manner in which it routes clients' orders to
buy and sell securities.
Since 2011, TD Ameritrade acted as a broker for its clients and
was bound by a duty of best execution.
"Rather than route its clients' non-directed, non-marketable
orders to the venue(s) which would provide the best execution, TD
Ameritrade instead sent such orders to the venues which would
provide the highest liquidity rebates, payments made by the venues
to TD Ameritrade relating to the number and size of orders that
were routed," the complaint states.
As a result of the defendants' alleged self-interested order
routing, TD Ameritrade failed to provide best execution for its
clients, causing them material harm in the form of economic loss
due to their orders going unfilled, under-filled or filled at a
suboptimal price.
By the end of 2012, the suit further alleges, all non-marketable
limit orders were directed to Direct Edge, which offered the
highest rebate for adding liquidity, rather than to the venue that
would provide the best execution.
Mr. Klein claims this resulted in an economic loss for clients
TD Ameritrade earned routing revenue of $185 million in 2011, $184
million in 2012 and $236 million in 2013, according to the suit.
On Dec. 2, District Judge Michael A. Shipp approved the
defendants' motion to transfer the class action lawsuit from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to Nebraska.
District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon is now presiding over the case.
Mr. Klein is represented by Katrina Carroll and Joseph J. DePalma
of Lite DePalma Law Firm of Newark, N.J.
TD Ameritrade is being represented by Victoria H. Buter and Thomas
H. Dahlk of Kutak Rock Law Firm in Omaha, Neb.; and Alex J. Kaplan
-- ajkaplan@sidley.com -- Robert A. Pietrzak and Jackie A. Lu --
jlu@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin in New York.
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska case number:
8:14-cv-00396
TENNESSEE COMMERCE: March 20 Hearing on $2.6-Mil. Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Harrison, writing for Nashville Business Journal, reports
that shareholders of the failed Tennessee Commerce Bank are close
to reaching a $2.6 million settlement tied to a two-year old class
action lawsuit against the bank's holding company and four former
executives.
A federal judge has scheduled a March 20, 2015 hearing for the
proposed settlement reached by attorneys for both the lead
plaintiff and defendants in the case. The settlement outlines a
$2.6 million cash payment and accrued interest for investors who
acquired Tennessee Commerce common stock between April 2008 and
January 2012, according to court filings in the U.S. District
Court in Nashville. The proposal would also dismiss the lawsuit
originally filed in November 2012.
State and federal regulators shut down Tennessee Commerce in
January of 2012, which at the time was the first bank failure in
the state in a decade. The Franklin-bank first came on federal
regulators' radar in fall 2009, when the FDIC identified the bank
as being in "troubled condition." Ed Lowery, whose Citizens Corp.
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2011, was the bank's highest-
profile debtor.
Lead plaintiff Carolyn Lynn filed the class-action suit in
November 2012, claiming Tennessee Commerce and its top executives
falsely reported quarterly earnings on multiple occasions
beginning in April 2008.
Alongside Tennessee Commerce, defendants in the suit include
Art Helf, Lamar Cox, Michael Sapp and Frank Perez.
In August, the FDIC banned Helf and Cox from banking. Mr. Helf
founded Tennessee Commerce with Sapp in 2000 and served as
chairman and CEO until 2009, when Sapp replaced him in that role.
Cox was the bank's chief operating officer and Perez served as the
bank's chief financial officer from 2008 until regulators closed
the bank.
Earlier this year, the FDIC filed a charge seeking a $485,000 fine
against Sapp, alleging he engaged in unsound banking practices and
violated the law as Tennessee Commerce's CEO (charges he is
challenging).
TUESDAY MORNING: Removes "McMahon" Class Suit to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned McMahon v. Tuesday Morning,
Inc., Case No. C-14-02113, was removed from the Contra Costa
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
California Northern District (San Francisco). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-05547-EMC to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Neil Michael Larsen, Esq.
Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2937
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
neil@setarehlaw.com
tuvia@setarehlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher J. Cox, Esq.
WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 802-3029
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
E-mail: chris.cox@weil.com
UNITED STATES: Faces "Ryan" Class Suit in Vermont District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcella Ryan and John Herbert, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary of
Health and Human Services, Case No. 5:14-cv-00269-gwc (D. Vt.,
December 19, 2014) indicates its cause of action as "HHS: Adverse
Reimbursement Review."
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Kelly Benvenuto, Esq.
VERMONT LEGAL AID, INC.
264 North Winooski Avenue
P.O. Box 1367
Burlington, VT 05402-1367
Telephone: (802) 863-2871
E-mail: mbenvenuto@vtlegalaid.org
- and -
Sean P. Londergan, Esq.
VERMONT LEGAL AID, INC.
56 Main Street, Suite 301
Springfield, VT 05156
Telephone: (802) 885-5181
UTI WORLDWIDE: Moves to Dismiss California Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
All defendants in a securities suit against UTi Worldwide Inc. in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, moved to dismiss the case, according to the company's
Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2014.
On March 17, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and certain of its executives in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. As amended on September 5, 2014, the complaint, which
is captioned Michael J. Angley, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. UTi Worldwide Inc.,
Eric W. Kirchner, Richard G. Rodick, Edward G. Feitzinger and
Jeffrey W. Misakian, No. 2:14-cv-02066, generally alleges that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by misstating or
failing to disclose, in certain public statements made and in
filings with the SEC between March 28, 2013 and February 26, 2014,
material facts relating to the Company's liquidity position,
financial condition, financial covenants, financial systems and
freight forwarding operating system. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and other relief. The Company and the
individual defendants deny any allegations of wrongdoing and
intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. All defendants
moved to dismiss on November 4, 2014.
In July 2014, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC
requesting certain documents related to, among other things, the
facts and circumstances surrounding the Fiscal 2015 Refinancing.
In September 2014, the Company received a similar subpoena
directed to the members of the Audit Committee of the Board of
Directors. The Company has been cooperating and intends to
continue to cooperate with the SEC inquiry.
VALLEY VETERINARIAN: Removes "McEwan" Suit to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled McEwan v. Valley Veterinarian
Clinic, Ltd., et al., Case No. 37-2014-00038261-CU-MC-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, 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-02975-W-KSC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
James T. Hannink, Esq.
DOSTART CLAPP & COVENEY, LLP
4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 623-4200
Facsimile: (858) 623-4299
E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com
jhannink@sdlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul M. Kakuske, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704
Telephone: (213) 623-9300
Facsimile: (213) 623-9924
E-mail: paul.kakuske@dentons.com
VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Agrees to Settle Suit Over TTM, Vector Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties to a securities lawsuit filed against Viasystems
Group, Inc. in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri,
agreed in principle to resolve all claims over a merger with TTM
Technologies, Inc., and Vector Acquisition Corp., according to the
company's Dec. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2014.
As disclosed in the Proxy Statement, since the public announcement
on September 22, 2014 of the execution of the Merger Agreement,
Viasystems, TTM, Merger Sub, and the members of the Viasystems
Board have been named as defendants in two putative class action
complaints challenging the Merger. The first lawsuit, Stein v.
Viasystems Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 14SL-CC03422, filed on
September 22, 2014, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri (the "Missouri Lawsuit"), and the second lawsuit, Raeisi
v. Viasystems Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10231-VCL, filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware
Lawsuit" and, together with the Missouri Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"),
generally allege, among other things, that the Merger fails to
properly value Viasystems, that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement, and that
those breaches were aided and abetted by TTM, Merger Sub, and
Viasystems. On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Missouri
Lawsuit filed an amended complaint.
The Delaware Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other
allegations, that (1) the Viasystems Board breached its fiduciary
duties by: (a) agreeing to the Merger for grossly inadequate
consideration, (b) agreeing to lock up the Merger with deal
protection devices that prevent other bidders from making a
successful competing offer for Viasystems, and (c) participating
in a transaction where the loyalties of the Viasystems Board and
management are divided; (2) the Voting Agreements prevent
Viasystems stockholders from providing a meaningful vote on the
proposal to adopt the Merger; and (3) that those breaches of
fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by TTM, Merger Sub, and
Viasystems. Further, the Missouri Lawsuit specifically alleges,
among other allegations, that (1) the Merger is the result of an
unfair and flawed process because TTM's financial advisor
conspired with the Company's two largest stockholders and their
affiliates to sell the Company to TTM without the Viasystems
Board's knowledge; (2) the Merger is unfair because it undervalues
the Company; (3) the Viasystems Board and Viasystems' management
have a conflict of interest due to the cash pool bonus and change
in control payments to be made to certain executive officers and
key employees if the Merger is consummated; (4) the Merger is
unfair because the Merger Agreement contains preclusive deal
protection devices that prevent other bidders from making a
successful competing offer for Viasystems and prevent Viasystems
stockholders from providing a meaningful vote on the proposal to
adopt the Merger Agreement; and (5) the Proxy Statement fails to
provide Viasystems stockholders with material information that is
necessary to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the
proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement.
The Lawsuits seek, among other things, injunctive relief to enjoin
the defendants from completing the Merger on the agreed-upon
terms, rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the Merger
Agreement or any of the terms therein, costs and disbursements and
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, as well as other equitable
relief as the court deems proper. Viasystems believes that the
Lawsuits are without merit.
On December 8, 2014, subject to court approval and definitive
documentation, the parties to the Missouri Lawsuit agreed in
principle to resolve all claims against Viasystems, the members of
the Viasystems Board, TTM, and Merger Sub. The agreement will not
affect the merger consideration to be received by the Company's
stockholders pursuant to the Merger Agreement, or the timing of
the Viasystems Special Meeting, scheduled for December 16, 2014.
The agreement contemplates a release and settlement by the
Company's stockholders of all claims against the Company, the
members of its board of directors, TTM, and Merger Sub, and their
respective affiliates and agents in connection with the Merger. In
exchange for these releases and settlement, the Company will make
certain additional disclosures related to the Merger. The parties
anticipate that they will enter into a memorandum of
understanding, subject to customary terms, memorializing the
agreement within the next few days.
VIOLIN MEMORY: Remaining Securities Claims to Go into Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities suit against Violin Memory, Inc. will
proceed to the discovery phase on the remaining claim after a
partial dismissal, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2014.
Beginning on November 26, 2013, four putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company,
a number of the Company's present or former directors and
officers, and several underwriters of the Company's September 27,
2013 IPO. The four complaints have been consolidated into a
single, putative class action, and lead co-lead plaintiffs have
been appointed by the court. On March 28, 2014, a consolidated
complaint was filed. The complaint purports to assert claims under
the federal securities laws on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock issued in the IPO, and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and other relief. On April 18, 2014, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On October 31,
2014, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motions to dismiss. The court's order dismissed all except one of
plaintiffs' claims against the Company and the present or former
directors and officers but gave plaintiffs the opportunity to
amend their complaint. On November 21, 2014, the plaintiffs filed
an Amended Complaint. In so doing, the plaintiffs chose not to
amend their claims against the Company or the present or former
directors and officers. Pending further developments regarding
plaintiffs' claims against the underwriters, the case will proceed
to the discovery phase on the remaining claim against the Company
and the present or former directors and officers.
VIVINT SOLAR: Shareholders Have Until Jan. 20 to Join Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Hall, writing for PV Magazine, reports that NY law firm says
unhappy shareholders can join its class action until January 20.
After floating at $18.71 per share on October 1, solar leasing
company's stock is now trading below $8.
A New York law firm has reminded Vivint Solar shareholders left
nursing a hefty loss on the company's IPO price they have until
January 20 to join a class action suit against the company.
Residential solar leasing company Vivint, based in Lehi, Utah,
made its New York stock market debut on October 1 with an IPO
price of $18.71.
The shares, trading at $7.90 on Dec. 12, tumbled after an
unexpectedly disappointing set of Q3 results were announced on
Nov. 10, leading the Rosen Law Firm to file a class action lawsuit
for which new complainants can join as lead plaintiffs until next
month's deadline.
The Rosen action, according to an article run by the Globe
Newswire on Dec. 11, concerns damage to shareholders who saw the
company's stock lose 66c per share on the Q3 figures, far worse
than the 20c-per-share loss predicted by analysts.
Robbins Arroyo LLP has already filed a federal securities fraud
class action against Vivint in the U.S. district court for the
southern district of New York, claiming Vivint failed to warn in
the registration statement for its planned IPO it was reliant on a
long-term leasing model in sharp decline and would report higher
net loss earnings for Q3 on the back of operating expenses
unmatched by revenue growth.
WESTERNONE INC: Sutts Strosberg Commences Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sutts Strosberg LLP on Dec. 11 disclosed that on December 10,
2014, the law firm of Sutts, Strosberg LLP commenced a $75 million
proposed securities class action against WesternOne Inc., some of
its officers and directors and the lead Underwrites who underwrote
WesternOne's $38 million offering in September, 2014.
The plaintiffs allege that WesternOne made a misrepresentation by
failing to disclose that the company was experiencing significant
delays in phase one of the Keeyask Manitoba Hydro Project.
On November 13, 2014, WesternOne informed the public that there
was a significant decline in the its adjusted EBITDA for the nine
months ended September 30, 2014 as a result of, among other
things, increased labor and sub-contractor costs arising from
delays in the Keeyask Manitoba Hydro Project.
The value of WesternOne's stock has declined dramatically since
its November 13, 2014 announcement.
"It is imperative that publicly-traded companies make timely
disclosure of all material events, particularly in the context of
a substantial offering to the investing public." said
Jay Strosberg of Sutts, Strosberg LLP.
If you acquired WesternOne securities during the period September
12, 2014 to November 12, 2014, please contact Sutts, Strosberg LLP
at 1.519.561.6296 or email at weq@strosbergco.com
Alternatively, investors can visit www.weqclassaction.com for more
information about the proposed securities class action.
Sutts, Strosberg LLP, based in Windsor and Toronto, is one of
Canada's foremost class action firms and has particular expertise
in securities class actions. The firm has recovered more than $1.5
billion for its clients.
You can learn more about this class action at
www.weqclassaction.com or www.strosbergco.com
WHOLE FOODS: "Markley" Suit Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Markley v. Whole Foods Market
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-01892, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin).
The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01121-SS
to the proceeding.
The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Whole Foods Market, Inc., Greek Yogurt Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-mc-02588-SS.
The actions in the litigation share factual issues arising from
highly similar allegations that Whole Foods 365 Greek Yogurt
contains much more sugar than stated on its label, that the
Defendants' marketing of the Yogurt was false and deceptive, and
that the Defendants were negligent in testing the Yogurt, and in
ensuring that the label was accurate.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM PA
5400 S. University Dr., Suite 413
Davie, FL 33328
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
E-mail: jeggnatz@eggnatzlaw.com
- and -
Michael Thomas Fraser, Esq.
FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C.
5445 Parkford Cir.
Granite Bay, CA 95746-6684
Telephone: (386) 848-4194
E-mail: frasermt83@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Shuman Sohrn, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
1075 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309-3962
Telephone: (404) 885-1500
Facsimile: (404) 724-1587
E-mail: ssohrn@seyfarth.com
ZUMIEZ INC: Settlement in Calif. "Steele" Labor Lawsuit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco approved a settlement reached in the labor suit Robert
Steele v. Zumiez Inc., according to the company's Dec. 9, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2014.
On February 15, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Robert
Steele v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of a class
of all persons who are employed, or who have worked as, assistant
store managers for the Company in the State of California from
February 15, 2009 through the date of certification of the class
in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges causes of action for failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to pay wages for work done off-the-
clock, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks (and to pay
meal and rest period premiums), failure to pay terminated
employees all wages due at the time of termination, failure to
provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, failure
to reimburse employees for business expenses and unfair business
practices and declaratory relief. The Court has not set a date for
a hearing on class certification and has not set a trial date.
A second putative class action lawsuit, Ruben Hernandez v. Zumiez
Inc., was filed on September 3, 2013, alleging overlapping causes
of action. On or about October 22, 2013, the class action
allegations for the Hernandez case were dismissed without
prejudice. On November 12, 2013, the parties in the Steele case
agreed to a conditional settlement in the amount of $1.3 million
which is contingent upon the preliminary and final approval of the
Court (the "Conditional Settlement"). The parties have negotiated
and executed a formal settlement agreement that is subject to the
Court's approval. A motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was held on May 22, 2014 and was granted by the Court.
A hearing was held on November 24, 2014 and the settlement was
approved by the Court. The settlement was recorded in selling,
general and administrative expenses on the condensed consolidated
statements of income for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2014.
*********
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 2015. 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 * * *