/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150318.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 18, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 55 Headlines AECOM: AECOM Australia Continues to Defend Class Action AECOM: Agreed to Pay Fees and Expenses of $900,000 AKORN INC: Faces "Yeung" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports ALIBABA GROUP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action ALPHA NATURAL: $195MM Payments Related to Shareholder Settlement AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Settled "Silverstrand" Class Action AMERICAN EQUITY: Class Action Litigation Reserve Decreased ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Faces Class Action Over Lime-A-Rita Drink Claim ATLAS AIR: Opposed Recommendation on Order Certifying Class ATLAS AIR: Deal Reached With Canadian Plaintiffs Under Review ATLAS PIPELINE: Tulsa Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed AUTONATION INC: Defending Against Automotive Technicians' Suits BAPTIST HEALTH: Sued Over Underfunding Workers Retirement Plan BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in Calif. BRISTOL-MYERS: Still a Defendant in AWP Litigation BRISTOL-MYERS: Defendant in Plavix State Attorneys General Suits BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces 5,500+ Injury Claims Related to Plavix BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Suits on Behalf of 3K Plaintiffs Over Reglan BRISTOL-MYERS: 430+ Lawsuits Pending Related to Byetta CAPITAL HEALTH: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Strip Searches CELGENE CORPORATION: Restraints Trade of Generic Drugs, Suit Says CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims CSX CORP: Court Delayed Proceedings of Fuel Surcharge Case DELTA AIR: Cert. Motion Filed in 1st Bag Fee Antitrust Litigation DELTA AIR: Appeal in EU Regulation 261 Class Action Pending DOZEN BAGELS: Faces "Nahar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ELAUWIT LLC: Faces "Crank" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs Dismissed Class Suit v. Cotter EXELON CORP: ComEd Has Reserve on Loss Associated With TCPA Suit EXELON CORP: Final Approval of Merger Suit Settlement in Q2 2015 FACEBOOK INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims GROWLIFE INC: To Seek Approval of Class Action Settlement GUAM: April 16 Conference Scheduled for Tiyan Land Class Action HARVEST MANAGEMENT: "Jonzun" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT HITANO SERVICES: "Callejas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages HOSPIRA INC: Settlement in Sterling Heights Case Fully Funded HOSPIRA INC: Faces "Casey II" and "Montini" Class Actions HULU LLC: Judge Likely to Dismiss Privacy Class Action IGNITE RESTAURANT: June 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set JRB ENGINEERING: "Max-George" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages KING.COM INC: Sued in Illinois Over Unauthorized Computer Access LA ABUNDANCIA: "Ocampo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime LA TAQUERIA: Faces "Zaldivar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LEAR CORP: No Approval Yet on Class Suit Deals in US, Canada LEAR CORP: Dismissed From City of Richmond Class Action LEAR CORP: Faces Truck Dealers Class Action LENOVO US: Faces "Phillips" Suit Over Harmful Spyware LENOVO US: Faces "Wood" Suit in N.C. Over Harmful Spyware LIBERTY SILVER: Reached Deal Regarding Securities Class Action LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Faces Two Putative Class Action Lawsuits LJ CAMPBELL: Faces "Santana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Badias" Suit Over Flooring Products LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Bloomfield" Over Flooring Products LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Conte" Suit Over Flooring Products MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $771MM Liability in Merchant Class Suit MASTERCARD INC: Class Actions Filed in Saskatchewan and Alberta MASTERCARD INC: Cal. High Court Denied Request to Appeal Ruling MASTERCARD INC: Plaintiffs in ATM Surcharge Suit Appeal Dismissal MEADWESTVACO: Faces Class Action Over Rock-Tenn Merger MODEL N: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuits NBTY INC: Reduced Exposure Estimate in Glucosamine Class Actions NBTY INC: CCG Filed Motion to Dismiss "Lary" Complaint NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Class Action NEUSTAR INC: Motion to Dismiss IPRS's Amended Complaint Granted NEW JERSEY: Faces "Kolakowski" Suit Over RICO Violations NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Defending Against Railroad Class Actions PFIZER INC: Class Action Settlement on Track for Approval POINCIANA MANAGEMENT: "Manuel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Against McCaffree Action PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Cruise and Mullaney Class Actions Dismissed QUICKEN LOANS: Must Face TCPA Class Action RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Class Action in Early Stages REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Consolidated Class Suit Dismissed in December REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Maiman" Class Action RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Faces 10 Class Action Lawsuits on Merger SAKS FIFTH: Seeks Dismissal of Return Policy Class Action SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Morgan & Morgan Files Data Theft Class Suit SPANSION INC: Faces "Jeter" and "Stein" Class Actions SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Disputes Boeing Indemnity Related to Harkness SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Awaiting Decision on Motion to Dismiss SWEET MAPLE: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TARGET CORP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TARGET CORP: Faces False Advertising Class Action TEMPUR SEALY: Plaintiffs in Norfolk & Benning Actions Appeal TEMPUR SEALY: Says "Todd" Class Action Lacks Merit TENNESSEE: Sued Over Alleged Student Voters Discrimination TIME WARNER: Parties Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Actions TIME WARNER: Defendant in Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Case TIME WARNER: Downs and Jarrett Litigation Terminated TRT HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Disabled-Inaccessible Facility TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Settled Occupant Safety Systems Products Suits TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Class Actions UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Remains Party to 2 Suits on Endoscopy Center VERDE ENERGY: Illegally Charges High Premium Rates, Action Claims VITESSE WORLDWIDE: "Sikiotis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT VONAGE HOLDINGS: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in Appeal WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Herbal Supplements WARNER MUSIC: Reply Date Not Set in Digital Music Downloads Case WARNER MUSIC: Deal in Music Download Suit Now Effective WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Faces "Doppelt" Class Action ********* AECOM: AECOM Australia Continues to Defend Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- AECOM Australia continues to defend a class action, AECOM said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. In 2005 and 2006, the Company's main Australian subsidiary, AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast assignment for a client consortium as part of the client's project to design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in Australia. To fund the motorway's design and construction, the client formed certain special purpose vehicles (SPVs) that raised approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately an additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank loans. The SPVs went into insolvency administrations in February 2011. KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs (the RCM Applicants), caused a lawsuit to be filed against AECOM Australia by the RCM Applicants in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012. Portigon AG (formerly WestLB AG), one of the lending banks to the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against AECOM Australia on May 18, 2012. Separately, a class action lawsuit, which has been amended to include approximately 770 of the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM Australia in the Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012. All of the lawsuits claim damages that purportedly resulted from AECOM Australia's role in connection with the above described traffic forecast. The RCM Applicants have claimed damages of approximately $1.68 billion Australian dollars (including interest, as of March 31, 2014). The damages claimed by Portigon as of June 17, 2014 were also recently quantified at approximately $76 million Australian dollars (including interest). The Company believes this claim is duplicative of damages already included in the RCM Applicants' claim to the extent Portigon receives a portion of the RCM Applicants' recovery. The class action applicants claim that they represent investors who acquired approximately $155 million Australian dollars of securities. AECOM Australia disputes the claimed entitlements to damages asserted by all applicants and continues to defend this matter vigorously; AECOM Australia cannot provide assurance that it will be successful in these efforts. The potential range of loss and the resolution of this matter cannot be determined at this time and could have a material adverse effect on AECOM Australia and the results of its operations. AECOM: Agreed to Pay Fees and Expenses of $900,000 -------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' counsel in the URS merger litigation lawsuits petitioned the Delaware Court for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and after negotiations, the Company has agreed to pay fees and expenses of $900,000, AECOM said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. Between July 21 and August 4, 2014, six then-stockholders of URS brought lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Delaware Court) entitled Falato v. URS Corp, et al., C.A. No. 9921-CB, City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Creel, et al., C.A. No. 9924-CB, Petroutson v. URS Corp., et al., C.A. No. 9938, Miller v. URS Corp., et al., C.A. No. 9939-CB, Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System v. Creel, et al., C.A. No. 9975-CB, and Cambridge Retirement System v. Creel, et al., C.A. No. 9998-CB (collectively, Lawsuits), alleging that the board of directors of URS breached its fiduciary duties in connection with URS's then-proposed merger with the Company (Merger) and that the Company aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiffs in the Lawsuits sought to, among other things, enjoin enforcement of a provision in the applicable merger agreement that plaintiffs called the "Anti-Waiver Provision" and that plaintiffs had alleged was impeding the potential for the emergence of competing bids for URS. Between July 31, 2014 and August 4, 2014, URS and the Company clarified to the Delaware Court and the plaintiffs that their intent with respect to the "Anti-Waiver Provision" was that any standstill required by that provision would not preclude any potential alternative suitor from making a topping bid for URS and agreed to (1) waive all extant standstills contained in non- disclosure agreements (NDAs) signed by pre-signing bidders for URS; (2) ensure that any standstills contained in NDAs executed by potential suitors post-signing would contain an exception to permit those potential suitors to make topping bids for URS; (3) clarify the operation of any post-signing standstill to potential suitors for URS; and (4) disclose the same in URS's proxy statement seeking stockholder support for the Merger, which clarification and agreements plaintiffs considered to moot the claims asserted in the Lawsuits. On August 28, 2014, the Delaware Court entered an order dismissing the Lawsuits as moot. On October 16, 2014, URS stockholders voted to approve the Merger, which closed the following day. On November 17, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel in the Lawsuits petitioned the Delaware Court for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and after negotiations, the Company has agreed to pay fees and expenses of $900,000. AKORN INC: Faces "Yeung" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Solomon Yeung, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Akorn, Inc., Rajat Rai, Timothy A. Dick, and Bruce Kutinsky, Case No. 1:15-cv-01944 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Akorn, Inc. engages in the manufacture and marketing of diagnostic and therapeutic ophthalmic pharmaceuticals products, hospital drugs, and injectable pharmaceuticals in the United States and internationally. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com fmcconville@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. Louis C. Ludwig, Esq. 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com lcludwig@pomlaw.com ALIBABA GROUP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on Feb. 26 disclosed that it filed a class action complaint against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint was filed on behalf of those persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Alibaba securities between October 21, 2014 and January 28, 2015 and seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Investors who purchased Alibaba securities during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the class action must move the Court no later than March 31, 2015. Members of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain absent class members in the lawsuit. The securities class action charges that, throughout the Class Period, Alibaba made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Alibaba's business, operations, and prospects. The complaint alleges that when this adverse information became known, prices of the Company's securities declined significantly. If you wish to view the complaint, please click here: Complaint. If you wish to discuss the Alibaba litigation, or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Michael Burnett of Scott+Scott at mburnett@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770, or (860) 537-5537, or visit the Scott+Scott website for more information: http://www.scott-scott.com Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide. ALPHA NATURAL: $195MM Payments Related to Shareholder Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that cash used in operating activities for the quarter ended December 31, 2014 was $31 million, compared with cash used in operating activities of $70 million for the fourth quarter of 2013. Capital expenditures for the fourth quarter of 2014 were $99 million, compared with $95 million in the fourth quarter of 2013. For the full year 2014, cash used in operating activities totaled $284 million, including $195 million in payments related to the shareholder class action settlement, net of insurance recoveries of $70 million, compared to cash provided by operating activities of $109 million in the same period a year ago. AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Settled "Silverstrand" Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, that the Company has settled the Silverstrand class action lawsuit. The Company said, "We were the target of a purported class action complaint filed in March 2010 entitled Silverstrand Investments et. al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., which alleged certain securities laws violations. Although we settled the Silverstrand case in January 2015, we may also be the target of claims asserting violations of securities and fraud and abuse laws and derivative actions or other litigation in the future. Any future litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management's attention and resources, which could cause serious harm to our business, operating results and financial condition. Further, we may not be successful in defending ourselves in the litigation and, as a result, our business could be materially harmed. These lawsuits may result in large judgments or settlements against us, any of which could have a negative effect on our financial condition and business if in excess of our insurance coverage. Though we maintain liability insurance, if any costs or expenses associated with litigation exceed our insurance coverage, we may be forced to bear some or all of these costs and expenses directly, which could be substantial." AMERICAN EQUITY: Class Action Litigation Reserve Decreased ---------------------------------------------------------- American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that first quarter 2014 includes a net benefit of $2.2 million from recognizing a decrease in an estimated class action litigation reserve based upon developments in the claim process for settlement of the class action and third party costs incurred during the quarter associated with administration of the settlement, which after related adjustments to amortization of deferred sales inducements and deferred policy acquisition costs and income taxes, decreased net loss and loss per common share - assuming dilution by $0.9 million and $0.01 per share, respectively. The Company also said fourth quarter 2013 includes expense of $4.2 million from recognizing an increase in an estimated class action litigation reserve based upon developments in the claim process for settlement of the class action litigation and third party costs incurred during the quarter associated with administration of the settlement, which after related adjustments to amortization of deferred sales inducements and deferred policy acquisition costs and income taxes, decreased net income and earnings per common share - assuming dilution by $1.9 million and $0.02 per share, respectively. ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Faces Class Action Over Lime-A-Rita Drink Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the plaintiffs in a proposed class action filed against a popular beer maker argue that their lawsuit, filed against the company for its allegedly deceptive product labeling, should not be dismissed. Plaintiff Sheila Cruz and the proposed class filed an opposition to Anheuser-Busch's motion to dismiss earlier in February. In December, Cruz filed the lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch, which makes Bud Light products. She alleges the company's Bud Light Lime-A-Rita products claim to be low in calories, but actually contain more calories than any other product sold by Anheuser- Busch. The lawsuit, which alleges that Anheuser-Busch deceptively concealed, omitted and misrepresented the calories in the products, seeks class status for anyone who purchased any flavor of Bud Light Lime-A-Rita since it was first introduced in 2008. "Much like the 'Rita Products at issue, A-B's motion to dismiss is founded on a material omission," lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote. In their Feb. 13 filing, the plaintiffs argue that a Florida federal court recently rejected "nearly all" of the company's arguments for dismissal. The plaintiffs contend in their 25-page motion, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, that the company fails to acknowledge another federal court ruling, Marty v. Anheuser-Busch Companies LLC. The ruling, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in September, left standing most of a putative class action lawsuit against the beer maker. "Failing to even acknowledge the Marty opinion, A-B also fails to mention that the court there -- applying California law -- rejected its motion to dismiss and expressly held that, under California law, the safe harbor protections of [the state's] Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act do not preclude the plaintiffs' claims," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote. "Marty also provides a useful analysis of related issues such as A-B's deceptive advertising and labeling practices." In its motion to dismiss, filed Jan. 23, Anheuser-Busch argues that every label at issue "accurately discloses" the average number of calories and carbohydrates that the products contain, as required by the federal agency responsible for alcohol beverage labeling, the U.S. Treasury's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, or TTB. An eight-ounce can of Lime-A-Rita contains about 220 calories and 21.9 grams of carbohydrates, according to the plaintiffs' lawsuit. In comparison, a 12-ounce can of Budweiser contains about 145 calories and 10.6 grams of carbohydrates; a can of Bud light has about 110 calories and 6.6 grams of carbohydrates; and a can of Bud Light Lime has about 116 calories and 8 grams of carbohydrates. Anheuser-Busch advertises five different Lime-A-Rita flavors each varying between 192 and 220 calories, and 22.8 and 23.6 carbohydrates per eight-ounce can, according to the complaint. "Plaintiffs do not contend that these disclosures are inaccurate," lawyers for Anheuser-Busch wrote in their motion. "In fact, Plaintiffs fail to even inform the Court that the accurate number of calories and carbohydrates in the products is disclosed on the products' labels. "Plaintiffs ignore these disclosures and simply allege that they believed the products would have fewer calories and carbohydrates (fewer than what, they never say) solely because the brand name on the labels includes the statement 'Bud Light Lime.'" The company argues in its 25-page motion that the complaint should be dismissed because the challenged labels were approved by the TTB prior to use. "The TTB has determined that the use of the term 'light' on a malt beverage label is not misleading or deceptive as long as the label contains a statement of average analysis disclosing the actual number of calories, carbohydrates, protein and fat the product contains," Anheuser-Busch wrote. "The labels at issue here complied with this TTB requirement, and thus were approved by the TTB prior to being used in the United States. "Pursuant to California's safe harbor doctrine, Plaintiffs cannot premise their consumer protection or warranty claims on the use of the statement 'Bud Light Lime' because the TTB specifically permits the challenged labels to include that statement." The company's lawyers also argue that the plaintiffs' claims -- including one for breach of express warranty -- fail because they have not identified an "actionable misrepresentation." "Plaintiffs allege only that they subjectively interpreted the words 'Bud Light Lime' to mean that the products 'were low in calories and carbohydrates,' and that Plaintiffs do not personally consider the actual amount of calories and carbohydrates -- as disclosed on the labels -- to satisfy their subjective definition of 'low,'" they wrote. The lawsuit was originally filed in a Los Angeles state court, but Anheuser-Busch had the case removed to the federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher P. Ridout and Caleb Marker of Ridout Lyon + Ottoson LLP and Kevin Mahoney -- info@mahoney-law.net -- Sam Kim and Nick Poper of Mahoney Law Group APC. Both law firms are based in Long Beach, Calif. Anheuser-Busch is represented by New York City firm Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP. ATLAS AIR: Opposed Recommendation on Order Certifying Class ----------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company filed an opposition to the court magistrate's recommendation that the court enter an order certifying the class in the lawsuits related to the pricing practices of a number of air cargo carriers. In 2010, Polar Air Cargo LLC ("Old Polar"), formerly Polar Air Cargo, Inc., entered into an agreement with the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") to resolve issues relating to the previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning alleged manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and other rate components for air cargo services (the "DOJ Investigation"). As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust laws. The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief. In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising prior to 2004. The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs' motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011. There was substantial pretrial written discovery and document production, and a number of depositions were taken. A court hearing on whether or not to certify the case as a class action was held in October 2013 and oral arguments were held in November 2013. On October 15, 2014, the court magistrate issued a decision recommending that the court enter an order certifying the class for adjudicating the claims. "We filed our opposition to that recommendation on December 1, 2014 and also intend to vigorously pursue a number of defenses. We are unable to reasonably predict the court's ruling on our opposition to class certification and our defenses, or the ultimate outcome of the litigation," the Company said. ATLAS AIR: Deal Reached With Canadian Plaintiffs Under Review ------------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement agreement reached by the Canadian plaintiffs and Old Polar is under review. The Company, Polar Air Cargo LLC ("Old Polar"), formerly Polar Air Cargo, Inc., and a number of other cargo carriers were named as defendants in civil class action suits in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada that are substantially similar to the class action suits in the United States. On August 1, 2014, the Canadian plaintiffs and Old Polar executed a settlement agreement in which Old Polar agreed, without admitting violations of law, to pay an immaterial amount in return for the release of all claims. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and currently is under review. ATLAS PIPELINE: Tulsa Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. (NYSE: APL; "APL") is making the following supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy statement/prospectus on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy Statement/ Prospectus") filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by APL on January 22, 2015, in connection with the proposed settlement of certain litigation relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 13, 2014, by and among Targa Resources Corp., Targa Resources LP, Targa Resources GP LLC, Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC, Atlas Energy, L.P., APL and Atlas Pipeline Partners GP, LLC (the "APL Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, among other things, subject to the terms and conditions thereof, TRP would acquire APL in a merger between APL and MLP Merger Sub LLC (the "APL Merger"). Pursuant to the proposed settlement, APL has agreed to provide the additional information set forth below under the heading "Supplement to Definitive Proxy Statement." The following supplemental disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which should be read in its entirety. To the extent that information herein differs from or updates information contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, the information contained herein supersedes the information contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Defined terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. As disclosed on pages 27 and 91-92 of the Proxy Statement/ Prospectus, five public unitholders of APL filed putative class action lawsuits against APL, the other parties to the APL Merger Agreement and certain of their managers. These lawsuits are styled (a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (b) William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma; (the "Tulsa Lawsuit") (c) Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (d) Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; and (e) Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (together, the "APL Lawsuits"). The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum APL Lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019245, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated APL Lawsuit"). The Tulsa Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on February 4, 2015. On February 9, 2015, the defendants reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit regarding a settlement of that action. That agreement is reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines the terms of the parties' agreement to settle, dismiss and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit, and is subject to court approval. Defendants agreed to the memorandum of understanding solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk, burden, and expense inherent in litigation and without admitting or denying that further supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. The memorandum of understanding is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including judicial approval of the proposed settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, following notice to APL unitholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the court, it is anticipated that the settlement will result in a release of all claims that were or could have been brought by plaintiffs or any member of the putative class of APL unitholders that they purport to represent challenging any aspect of or otherwise relating to the Transactions, any actions, deliberations or negotiations in connection with the Transactions or any agreements, disclosures, or events related thereto, including the ATLS Merger Agreement, the APL Merger Agreement and the disclosures made in connection therewith, and that the APL Lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, in connection with the proposed settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, which the defendants may oppose. APL or its successor will pay or cause to be paid those attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the court. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement. In either event, or certain other circumstances specified in the memorandum of understanding, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. The settlement will not affect, among other things, the consideration to be paid to APL's unitholders in connection with the APL Merger. As disclosed in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, a special meeting was slated to be held on February 20, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., local time, at the Sofitel Philadelphia, 120 South 17th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, for the purpose of considering and voting upon, among other things, the APL Merger Agreement and the APL Merger. The managing board of APL GP, acting upon the unanimous recommendation of the conflicts committee of the managing board, recommends that the APL unitholders vote "FOR" the proposal to approve and adopt the APL Merger Agreement and to approve the APL Merger. AUTONATION INC: Defending Against Automotive Technicians' Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- AutoNation Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that that the Company is currently defending several purported class action lawsuits in California arising out of alleged violations of state wage and hour laws relating to compensation of automotive technicians. BAPTIST HEALTH: Sued Over Underfunding Workers Retirement Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Baptist Health System Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv- 00382 (N.D. Ala., March 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to set a funding policy that adequately fund that anticipated obligations of the Plan in compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Baptist Health System Inc. owns and operates four hospital campuses located in Birmingham, Alabaster, Jasper and Talladega, Alabama, and maintains 43 primary and specialty clinics in Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allison L. Riley, Esq. M Clay Ragsdale IV, Esq. RAGSDALE LLC 517 Beacon Parkway West Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 290-6800 Facsimile: (205) 290-6810 E-mail: allison@ragsdalellc.com clay@ragsdalellc.com - and - Charles E. Robinson, Esq. THE ROBINSON LAW FIRM Sixth Avenue Court Street West Post Office Box 370 Ashville, Alabama 35125 Telephone: (205) 594-5133 E-mail: crobjr@tlflaw.net BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 25 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Bridgepoint securities between August 7, 2012 and May 30, 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 Bridgepoint securities during the Class Period, you have until April 27, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://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. The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company had applied an improper revenue recognition methodology to assess collectability of funds owed by students; (2) as a result, the Company's revenues and financial results were overstated; (3) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 12, 2014, Company issued a press release announcing that, "on May 2, 2014, the SEC informed the Company that a reassessment is required under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States upon certain changes in circumstances, such as when a student loses financial aid eligibility. Based on the Company's internal analysis to date, management has preliminarily estimated that application of a student-by-student reassessment during the quarter ended March 31, 2014 resulted in decreases in revenue and bad debt expense of $0.7 million and $0.2 million, respectively." On this news, shares of Bridgepoint fell $1.41 per share to $14.51, or more than 8.85%, in intraday trading on May 12, 2014. On May 30, 2014, Bridgepoint announced that its financial statements filed with the SEC for the years ended December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2012, as well as the financial statements issued for the quarters ended March 31, 2012, June 30, 2012 and September 30, 2012, should no longer be relied upon. According to the Company, these financial statements contained errors related to revenue recognition that resulted in material misstatements of revenue, bad debt expense and accounts receivable. 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. BRISTOL-MYERS: Still a Defendant in AWP Litigation -------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs, entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs. The Company remains a defendant in two state attorneys general suits pending in state courts in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the defendant in a trial in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court), brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In September 2010, the jury issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the Company was not liable for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court judge issued a decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that did not go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million and enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of inflated AWPs. The Company appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and oral argument took place in May 2013. In June 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the Commonwealth judge's decision and remanded the matter back to the Commonwealth Court. In January 2015, the Commonwealth Court entered judgment in favor of the Company. It is possible that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania could appeal this decision. BRISTOL-MYERS: Defendant in Plavix State Attorneys General Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in consumer protection and/or false advertising actions brought by several states relating to the sales and promotion of Plavix*. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their potential impact on the Company. BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces 5,500+ Injury Claims Related to Plavix ----------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix*. Currently, over 5,500 claims involving injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed in state and federal courts in various states including California, Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware and New York. In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company and Sanofi's motion to establish a multidistrict litigation to coordinate Federal pretrial proceedings in Plavix* product liability and related cases in New Jersey Federal Court. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company. BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Suits on Behalf of 3K Plaintiffs Over Reglan ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is one of a number of defendants in numerous lawsuits, on behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs, including injury plaintiffs claiming personal injury allegedly sustained after using Reglan* or another brand of the generic drug metoclopramide, a product indicated for gastroesophageal reflux and certain other gastrointestinal disorders, as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries. The Company, through its generic subsidiary, Apothecon, Inc., distributed metoclopramide tablets manufactured by another party between 1996 and 2000. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits. The resolution of these pending lawsuits, however, is not expected to have a material impact on the Company. BRISTOL-MYERS: 430+ Lawsuits Pending Related to Byetta ------------------------------------------------------ Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Amylin, a former subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Byetta*. To date, there are over 430 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of over 1,900 active plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S. The Company has agreed in principle to resolve over 510 of these claims. The majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta*, primarily pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases are pending in Federal Court in San Diego in a recently established multidistrict litigation, with the next largest contingent of cases pending in a coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in Los Angeles. Amylin has product liability insurance covering a substantial number of claims involving Byetta* and any additional liability to Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared between the Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to reasonably predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding or the potential impact on the Company. CAPITAL HEALTH: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Strip Searches ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a judge has certified a class-action suit against Capital Health after a hospital-wide strip search of patients at Dartmouth's East Coast Forensic Hospital in 2012. The decision says 33 forensic psychiatry patients at the Nova Scotia facility were strip searched on Oct. 16, 2012. Ralph Atkinson speaks out about strip search at Capital Health Evidence presented by the facility says search took place after a number of events from June to October 2012, causing the person in charge of the "rehabilitation side" of the hospital to have increased concerns about illegal substances being brought into the hospital. The events culminated after those in charge began looking for any contraband -- including illegal substances -- after a number of patients were "acting oddly" on Oct.15, 2012. In the written decision Justice Denise Boudreau said there is no doubt administrators in facilities such as the forensic hospital need to be able to control their operations, but that strip searches are highly intrusive. "A court ruling in this particular case would likely be helpful in finding the appropriate line between those two realities." In his affidavit to the court, lead plaintiff Mark Murray said they strip searched him with the door open. He says other patients could have seen the search and his claim says he may have also been in view of a video camera. Mr. Murray said he was happy when his lawyer told him the class action was certified on Feb. 26. "I felt absolutely wonderful. I felt a great justice had been served and that the members of the class of individuals was definitively acknowledged," Mr. Murray told CBC News. Another man, Ralph Atkinson, told CBC last year that the search made him feel he had been raped. "I've been sexually abused when I was younger so it just draws flashbacks back from bad experiences and it just gives you that wrong feeling, like that gut wrong feeling that you know you've been violated," he said in September. Justice Boudreau didn't comment on whether the strip searches in this case were warranted. "I make no comment as to the merits of the plaintiffs' case," Boudreau's written decision goes on to say. "These strip searches may ultimately be found to have been reasonable, or not. Regardless, important questions are raised, and a class action will allow those questions to be litigated." The case is important not just for those who were searched that day, but also for future patients, said Michael Dull, the lawyer for the plaintiffs. "The hospital has immense control over these patients and really at their whim they can subject them to humiliating strip searches," said Mr. Dull. "It's important that the hospital knows that if they do, then there are consequences." Strip searches continue Capital Health wouldn't comment on the certification because it is before the courts. Spokesman Everton McLean says strip searches still take place in the facility as per Department of Health and Wellness policies that allow such searches. Formal complaints have also been filed to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission by 21 of the people searched. CELGENE CORPORATION: Restraints Trade of Generic Drugs, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- City of Providence, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Celgene Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-01605 (D.N.J., March 3, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's illegal monopolization of, and restraint of trade in the market for thalidomide (Thalomid(R)) and lenalidomide (Revlimid(R)). Celgene Corporation is a Delaware biotechnology company that manufactures drug therapies for cancer and inflammatory disorders. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. James S. Notis, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 Telephone: (201) 567-7377 Facsimile: (201) 567-7337 E-mail: jsarnelli@gardylaw.com jnotis@gardylaw.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Whitney E. Street, Esq. Erica G. Langsen, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jblock@blockesq.com wstreet@blockesq.com elangsen@blockesq.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 492 Ninth Street, Suite 260 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 968-8999 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: lweaver@blockesq.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Charter Communications, Inc., Case No. 3:15- cv-00317 (D. Conn., March 3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited telephone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide. Charter Communications, Inc. is one of the largest cable television, Internet, and telephone service providers in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Shapiro (ct24075) SHAPIRO LAW OFFICES, LLC 104 Court Street Middletown, CT 06457 Telephone: (860) 347-3325 Facsimile: (860) 347-3874 E-mail: jshapiro@shapirolawofficesct.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. J. Dominick Larry, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: brichman@edelson.com nlarry@edelson.com CSX CORP: Court Delayed Proceedings of Fuel Surcharge Case ---------------------------------------------------------- CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2014, that the District Court has delayed proceedings on the merits of the Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation pending the outcome of the class certification remand proceedings. In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue. In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs' claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to appeal the District Court's class certification decision. In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class certification decision and remanded the case to the District Court to reconsider its class certification decision. In October 2013, the District Court held a case management conference to determine the scope and schedule of the remand proceedings, which are underway. The District Court has delayed proceedings on the merits of the case pending the outcome of the class certification remand proceedings. CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit. Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity in that particular period or for the full year. DELTA AIR: Cert. Motion Filed in 1st Bag Fee Antitrust Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Delta Air Lines, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion for class certification has been filed in the First Bag Fee Antitrust Litigation, but the Court has not yet ruled on it and no class has been certified to date. In 2009, a number of purported class action antitrust lawsuits were filed against Delta and AirTran Airways ("AirTran"), alleging that Delta and AirTran engaged in collusive behavior in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act in November 2008 based upon certain public statements made in October 2008 by AirTran's CEO at an analyst conference concerning fees for the first checked bag, Delta's imposition of a fee for the first checked bag on November 4, 2008 and AirTran's imposition of a similar fee on November 12, 2008. The plaintiffs sought to assert claims on behalf of an alleged class consisting of passengers who paid the first bag fee after December 5, 2008 and seek injunctive relief and unspecified treble damages. All of these cases have been consolidated for pre- trial proceedings and remain pending in the Northern District of Georgia. A motion for class certification has been filed, but the Court has not yet ruled on it and no class has been certified to date. Delta believes the claims in these cases are without merit and is vigorously defending these lawsuits. DELTA AIR: Appeal in EU Regulation 261 Class Action Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Delta Air Lines, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in the EU Regulation 261 Class Action Litigation have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which remains pending. In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking to represent all U.S. residents who were passengers on flights during the period from February 2009 to the present who are allegedly entitled to compensation under EU Regulation 261 because their flight was cancelled or delayed by more than three hours. Plaintiffs allege that Delta has incorporated a duty to pay this compensation into its contract of carriage, and assert a claim for breach of contract as the basis for their cause of action. The complaint seeks recovery of the EU Regulation 261 compensation of EUR600 for each U.S. resident on a flight qualifying for such compensation. In October 2013, the District Court granted Delta's motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which remains pending. Delta disputes the allegations in the Complaint and intends to vigorously defend the matter. DOZEN BAGELS: Faces "Nahar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Lutfur Nahar, Zahirul H. Khan and Hassan M. Mehadi, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other similarly-situated individuals v. Dozen Bagels Co. Inc d/b/a Bagel Cafe, Shlomo Bador, and Avi Bador, Case No. 1:15-cv-01613 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a food establishment located in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Evan Gottlieb, Esq. Tanvir Haque Rahman, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue, 5th fl. New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257-6800 Facsimile: (212) 257-6845 E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com trahman@wigdorlaw.com ELAUWIT LLC: Faces "Crank" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Chad Allen Crank and Rickey Whitney, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly-situated who consent to representation v. Elauwit, LLC, Elauwit Networks, LLC, and Elauwit Staffing, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01057 (D.S.C., March 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a media and technology company, which provides fiber optic networking services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin S. Little, Esq. BROWNSTEIN NGUYEN AND LITTLE LLP 1201 Peachtree St NE 400 Colony Square Ste 200 Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (404) 685-1662 E-mail: ksl@bnllawfirm.com EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs Dismissed Class Suit v. Cotter ------------------------------------------------------ Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth Edison Company, Peco Energy Company, and Baltimore Gas And Electric Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class action complaint was filed on April 11, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against Cotter Corporation, a former ComEd subsidiary, and six additional defendants. The complaint alleges that individuals living in the North St. Louis area within a three-mile radius of the West Lake Landfill suffered damage to property or loss of use of property due to the defendants' negligent handling of radioactive materials. On August 22, 2014, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. EXELON CORP: ComEd Has Reserve on Loss Associated With TCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth Edison Company, Peco Energy Company, and Baltimore Gas And Electric Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014, ComEd has a reserve, which is not material, representing its best estimate of probable loss associated with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Lawsuit (ComEd) class action complaint. On November 19, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a single individual and a presumptive class that would include all customers that ComEd enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program. The complaint alleges that ComEd violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending approximately 1.2 million text messages to customers without first obtaining their consent to receive such messages. The complaint seeks certification of a class along with statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and an order prohibiting ComEd from sending additional text messages. Such statutory damages could range from $500 to $1,500 per text. ComEd intends to contest the allegations of this suit. In February 2014, ComEd filed a motion to dismiss this class action complaint, which was denied in June 2014. As of December 31, 2014, ComEd has a reserve, which is not material, representing its best estimate of probable loss associated with this class action complaint. As ComEd is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding, actual damages may differ from the estimated amount recorded, which may be material to ComEd's results of operations, cash flows, and financial position. EXELON CORP: Final Approval of Merger Suit Settlement in Q2 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth Edison Company, Peco Energy Company, and Baltimore Gas And Electric Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that final court approval of the proposed settlement in a class action challenging a proposed merger is not expected to occur until the second quarter of 2015, at the earliest. Exelon and Pepco Holdings, Inc. on April 29, 2014, signed an agreement and plan of merger (as subsequently amended and restated as of July 18, 2014) to combine the two companies in an all cash transaction. PHI and its directors have been named as defendants in purported class action lawsuits filed on behalf of named plaintiffs and other public stockholders challenging the proposed Merger and seeking, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from consummating the Merger on the agreed-upon terms. Exelon has been named as a defendant in these lawsuits. Exelon has also been named in a federal court case with similar claims. In September 2014, the parties reached a proposed settlement which is subject to court approval. Final court approval of the proposed settlement is not expected to occur until the second quarter of 2015, at the earliest. If a plaintiff in these or any other litigation claims that may be filed in the future is successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the parties from completing the Merger on the terms contemplated by the Merger Agreement, the injunction may prevent the completion of the Merger in the expected time frame or altogether. If completion of the Merger is prevented or delayed, it could result in substantial costs to Exelon. In addition, Exelon could incur significant costs in connection with the lawsuits, including costs associated with the indemnification of PHI's directors and officers. FACEBOOK INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Duguid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00985 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending unauthorized automated text messages to the Plaintiff and class member's cellular phone. Facebook, Inc. is an online social networking service headquartered at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California 94025. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trinette G. Kent, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 10645 North Tatum Blvd. Suite 200-192 Phoenix, AZ 85028 Telephone: (855) 301-2100 ext. 5533 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com - and - Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Stephen Taylor, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 1100 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com staylor@lemberglaw.com GROWLIFE INC: To Seek Approval of Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- GrowLife, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that the Company anticipates that Motions for Court Approval of the Proposed Class Action Settlement will be filed. Beginning on April 18, 2014, three class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed against the Company in United States District Court, Central District of California (the "Court"). At a hearing held on July 21, 2014, the three class action lawsuits were consolidated into one case with Bryan Chong as the lead plaintiff (the "Consolidated Class Action," styled Romero et al. vs. GrowLife et al.). On May 15, 2014 and August 4, 2014, respectively two shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed against the Company with the Court (the "Derivative Actions"). On October 20, 2014, AmTrust North America, the Company's insurer filed a lawsuit contesting insurance coverage on the above legal proceedings. The AmTrust case was filed, and recently served on the Company. The Company has yet to appear in this action. On January 20, 2015, the Court ordered all of the actions stayed pending completion of mediation of the dispute. On October 28, 2014, the parties conducted voluntary, non-binding mediation of the actions. The parties continued settlement discussions through the New Year, and reached an agreement on a mediator's proposal by the first week of February of 2015 to resolve all litigation. On February 9, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Proposed Settlement with the Court presiding over the Consolidated Class Action. The parties expect that a Joint Motion for Court Approval of the Proposed Class Action settlement will be filed in the Romero Action, which will resolve both the Consolidated Class Action in Romero as well as the pending Derivative Actions against the Company and other defendants. The Company anticipates that the Motions for Court Approval of the Proposed Class Action Settlement will be filed within the next 45 days. The Company issued a press release on February 12, 2015 regarding the tentative settlement. A copy of the press release is available at http://is.gd/lwflBH A copy of the Notice of Settlement Agreement dated February 9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/M2w3TF GUAM: April 16 Conference Scheduled for Tiyan Land Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Krystal Paco, writing for KUAM News, reports that a class action case filed against the governor, Guam Ancestral Lands Commission, and Guam International Airport is moving through the District Court. A scheduling conference has been set for April 16. On behalf of all other Tiyan ancestral landowners, Benny Crawford in January filed a class action complaint seeking compensation for the airport's continued use of their land which he says they were never compensated for. HARVEST MANAGEMENT: "Jonzun" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ D'Anthony Jonzun, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Harvest Management SUB TRS Corp. d/b/a Holiday Retirement, Case No. 6:15-cv-00341 (M.D. Fla., March 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Harvest Management SUB TRS Corp. is a foreign for Profit Corporation, doing business in Deltona, Florida, which serves retirement seniors with independent and assisted living communities across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 14th Floor, 20 N Orange Ave Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 425-3341 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com HITANO SERVICES: "Callejas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Callejas, Carlos Flores and Jose Rosales on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hitano Services, Inc. d/b/a Action Complaint Building Services, and Eduardo Perez, Case No. 2:15-cv-01123 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Hitano Services, Inc. New York corporation and maintains a place of business at 23 Eliot Drive, Lake Grove, New York 11755, which provides residential and commercial cleaning services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose G. Santiago, Esq. THE SANTIAGO LAW FIRM, P.C. 201 Moreland Road, Suite 10 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 240-4355 Facsimile: (631) 406-4911 E-mail: jose@santiagolawfirm.com HOSPIRA INC: Settlement in Sterling Heights Case Fully Funded ------------------------------------------------------------- Hospira Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in the class action lawsuit filed by City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System was fully funded by insurance proceeds. On September 5, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois approved a settlement and dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against Hospira and certain of its current and former corporate officers alleging violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. In City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Hospira, Inc., F. Michael Ball, Thomas E. Werner, James H. Hardy, Jr., and Christopher B. Begley, amended complaint filed June 25, 2012, the plaintiffs alleged, generally, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Hospira's financials and business prospects and failed to disclose material facts affecting Hospira's financial condition. The settlement was fully funded by insurance proceeds. HOSPIRA INC: Faces "Casey II" and "Montini" Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------- Hospira Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Hospira and members of its Board of Directors are named as defendants in two class action lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among Hospira, Pfizer Inc., and Perkins Holding Company. Pfizer and Perkins Holding Company are also named as defendants. The lawsuits, which seek to enjoin the proposed transaction, allege generally that the Merger Agreement resulted from an unfair process and fails to maximize value for Hospira stockholders. The first lawsuit was filed by Robert J. Casey II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, on February 9, 2015; and the second lawsuit was filed by Samuel Montini, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, on February 10, 2015. HULU LLC: Judge Likely to Dismiss Privacy Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Beth Winegarner, Jessica Corso and Allison Grande, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge said on Feb. 26 that she would likely grant Hulu LLC the win in a proposed class action accusing the company of violating the Video Privacy Protection Act by revealing users' viewing habits, saying the plaintiffs lack evidence of a clear disclosure under the law. U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler said at the start of the Feb. 26 hearing that she believes the plaintiffs have to show "the equivalent of a Bork-like disclosure," referring to U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, whose video-rental history was leaked to the press, leading to the passage of the VPPA. That law requires evidence showing that the party accused of revealing the information did so knowingly, Hulu argued in its motion for summary judgment. "In the end, I think the evidence isn't there to allege it was a disclosure, or a knowing disclosure," Judge Beeler said. The plaintiffs claim that any time they clicked the "like" button next to a video on Hulu, it would show their Facebook friends that they'd done so when those friends looked at the same Hulu page. That was a disclosure of their viewing habits, argued plaintiffs attorney Scott Kamber of KamberLaw LLC. Hulu's attorney, Victor Jih of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, argued that the plaintiffs don't have any evidence to support their argument that Hulu knew it was revealing users' video preferences. "They don't reference the source code, they reference an email" that mentions what happens when users have opted to have their faces shown after they click that "like" button, Mr. Jih argued. "We had no idea how Facebook was figuring out how to show faces." Mr. Kamber, however, argued that the fact that Hulu shows the faces of a Hulu user's Facebook friends on a Hulu video page provides a reasonable inference that Hulu knew what was going on. "Hulu knows Facebook can identify users from the 'like' button, and that the transmission includes user identification information and video information," Mr. Kamber argued. But Judge Beeler said it's still not clear to her that the transmission of those two things adds up to a disclosure under the VPPA. Under the law, if there's a disclosure but the person on the other end doesn't understand it -- if it's in code, for example -- then it isn't a disclosure, she said, comparing it to whispering source code to a baby who doesn't understand language yet. "When you enter this realm, there has to be some kind of evidence of how Facebook would, did or could use it. Here, it seems Facebook's end of it is more important," Judge Beeler said. Ultimately, she took the arguments under submission and didn't indicate how she would rule. Last June, Judge Beeler denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, agreeing with Hulu's contention that the proposed class of individuals who used both Hulu and Facebook between April 2010 and June 2012 was not ascertainable because it would be too difficult to determine which joint users had had information related to their video-viewing history sent to Facebook through a "c-user" browser cookie, which appears only if users have logged into Facebook using a default setting on the same computer in the previous four weeks. The plaintiffs are represented by David C. Parisi and Suzanne Havens Beckman -- shavensbeckman@parisihavens.com -- of Parisi & Havens LLP, Scott A. Kamber, David A. Stampley and Grace E. Tersigni of KamberLaw LLC, and Brian R. Strange and Gretchen Carpenter -- gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com -- of Strange & Carpenter. Hulu is represented by Robert M. Schwartz -- rschwartz@omm.com -- Steven M. Dunst and Victor Jih of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. The case is In re: Hulu Privacy Litigation, case number 3:11-cv- 03764, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. IGNITE RESTAURANT: June 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Feb. 26 disclosed that the United States District Court Southern District of Texas has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc.: SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF IGNITE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ON MAY 11, 2012 OR BETWEEN MAY 11, 2012 AND OCTOBER 30, 2012 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, that a hearing will be held on June 5, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Vanessa Gilmore, United States District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, 515 Rusk Street, Courtroom 9A, Houston, Texas 77002, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Litigation for the sum of $1,800,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, which would result in this Litigation being dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation dated January 23, 2015; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys' fees of one third of the Gross Settlement Fund, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $330,000, and an incentive payment of no more than $5,000 to lead plaintiffs, should be approved. If you purchased common stock of Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. pursuant to traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on May 11, 2012 or between May 11, 2012 and October 30, 2012, both dates inclusive, 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 and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063 (866-274-4004 (Tel) 610-565-7985 (Fax); info@strategicclaims.net), or going to the website, http://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 April 15, 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 May 5, 2015, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice to the Claims Administrator. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, the Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, or awards to Lead Plaintiff s must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than May 16, 2015, to each of the following: Clerk of the Court Phillip Kim, Esq. United States District Court THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Southern District of Texas - 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor Houston Division New York, NY 10016 515 Rusk Avenue Houston, TX 77002 Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel Yosef J. Riemer, P.C. Robert Y. Sperling Shireen A. Barday Joseph L. Motto KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 601 Lexington Avenue 35 West Wacker Drive New York, New York 10022 Chicago, IL 60601-9703 Counsel for Defendants Counsel for Credit Suisse Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., Securities (USA) LLC Raymond A. Blanchette, III, Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc. Jeffrey L. Rager, and Piper Jaffray & Co., Edward W. Engel KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. Lazard Capital Markets LLC, and Raymond James & Associates, Inc. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel: Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel.: 212-686-1060 Fax: 212-202-3827 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: January 30, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS JRB ENGINEERING: "Max-George" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cecil Max-George, and others similarly situated v. JRB Engineering, LLC and Eric J. Garcia, Case No. 4:15-cv-00582 (S.D. Tex., March 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. JRB Engineering, LLC is a Houston-based, full-service geotechnical engineering, construction materials testing, and environmental consulting firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. ROSS LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 E-mail: charles@rosslawpc.com KING.COM INC: Sued in Illinois Over Unauthorized Computer Access ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alina Renert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. King.Com Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01853 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendant intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization. King.Com Inc. is a conglomerate of leading interactive entertainment companies for the mobile world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq. Michael Loren Silverman, Esq. Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 E-mail: isalam@siprut.com msilverman@siprut.com jsiprut@siprut.com LA ABUNDANCIA: "Ocampo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Isabel Ocampo, Jasmin Vargas Labaves and Juan David Serna, and other similarly situated current and former waiters, bussers, prep cooks and dishwashers v. La Abundancia Bakery, Inc., and Ruben Rojas, Case No. 1:15-cv-01134 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate restaurants with its principal place of businesses located at 63-10 Broadway, Woodside, New York 11377. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, Suite 307 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 Facsimile: (212) 233-9238 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com LA TAQUERIA: Faces "Zaldivar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Omar Zaldivar, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. La Taqueria El Ranchito, Inc. and Elias Rodriguez, Case No. 1:15-cv-01911 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com LEAR CORP: No Approval Yet on Class Suit Deals in US, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------ Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the U.S. settlement agreements between the Company and the classes of indirect purchasers remain subject to the final approval of the District Court, and the Canadian Settlement Agreement remains subject to court approval in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec following the provision of notice to purported class members. Beginning on October 5, 2011, several plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints in several United States federal district courts against the Company and several other global suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and related laws. Plaintiffs purport to be direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate commerce in the United States. The complaints further allege that defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys' fees. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the various civil actions (the "Consolidated Cases"), for pretrial purposes, into one proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "District Court"). Beginning in early 2012, putative class action complaints were filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia against the Company and several other global suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of Canadian laws related to competition (the "Canadian Cases"). The allegations and requests for relief in the Canadian Cases are substantially similar to those in the Consolidated Cases. In order to avoid the costs and distraction of continuing to litigate the Consolidated Cases and the Canadian Cases, the Company entered into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases on May 5, 2014 (the "U.S. Settlement Agreements") and with the plaintiffs in the Canadian Cases on November 11, 2014 (the "Canadian Settlement Agreement" and together with the U.S. Settlement Agreements, the "Settlement Agreements"), under which the class plaintiffs in both the Consolidated Cases and the Canadian Cases will release the Company from all claims, demands, actions, suits and causes of action. The Settlement Agreements contain no admission by the Company of any wrongdoing, and the Company maintains that it violated no laws in connection with these matters. Because the conduct alleged by the class plaintiffs overwhelmingly relates to periods prior to the Company's emergence from bankruptcy proceedings in 2009, the U.S. Settlement Agreements provide that the aggregate settlement amount of $8.75 million will consist of $370,263 in cash contributed by the Company with the remainder paid in outstanding common stock and warrants of the Company held in the bankruptcy reserve established under the Company's plan of reorganization. Likewise, the Canadian Settlement Agreement provides that the aggregate settlement amount of CDN$563,500 will consist of CDN$23,845 in cash contributed by the Company with the remainder paid from the proceeds of the sale of outstanding common stock and warrants of the Company held in the bankruptcy reserve established under the Company's plan of reorganization. The U.S. Settlement Agreements were approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 27, 2014, and preliminarily approved, on the record in open court, by the District Court on July 1, 2014. The U.S. Settlement Agreements between the Company and the class of direct purchasers received the final approval of the District Court on December 3, 2014. The U.S. Settlement Agreements between the Company and the classes of indirect purchasers remain subject to the final approval of the District Court, which will be decided following the provision of notice to purported class members and hearings, with respect to each class, to confirm the fairness of the settlement. Likewise, the Canadian Settlement Agreement remains subject to court approval in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec following the provision of notice to purported class members. LEAR CORP: Dismissed From City of Richmond Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the City of Richmond, California filed on February 20, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "District Court") on behalf of itself and other "Public Entities," comprising states, state subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, as well as local government subdivisions and agencies, and amended its complaint on October 3, 2014 (the "Public Entities Complaint"). The allegations and requests for relief in the Public Entities Complaint are substantially similar to those in the Consolidated Cases. The Public Entities dismissed the Company, without prejudice, from the Public Entities' lawsuit on October 9, 2014. LEAR CORP: Faces Truck Dealers Class Action ------------------------------------------- Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a plaintiff filed on November 21, 2014, a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "District Court") against the Company and several other global suppliers of wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and related laws regarding the sales of wire harnesses for medium and heavy duty trucks, buses, commercial vehicles and equipment. Plaintiffs purport to be truck and equipment dealers who are indirect purchasers of wire harnesses supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period. The allegations and requests for relief in the complaint are otherwise substantially similar to those in the Consolidated Cases. The ultimate outcome of this litigation, and consequently, an estimate of the possible loss, if any, related to this complaint, cannot reasonably be determined at this time. However, the Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations against it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in these proceedings. LENOVO US: Faces "Phillips" Suit Over Harmful Spyware ----------------------------------------------------- Herbert Phillips and Susan Tam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Superfish Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01103 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart televisions. Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company that develops various advertising-supported software products based on a visual search engine. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Bilsborrow, Esq. Robin L. Greenwald, Esq. Christopher B. Dalbey, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 Facsimile: (212) 344-5461 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com rgreenwald@weitzlux.com cdalbey@weitzlux.com LENOVO US: Faces "Wood" Suit in N.C. Over Harmful Spyware --------------------------------------------------------- David Wood, Yudhisthir Bissoonnauth, Dan Onken, Richard Seedroff, Sandra Allen, Sam Ellis, and Ryan Tuckerman, individually and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., and Superfish, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00077 (E.D.N.C., March 3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart televisions. Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company that develops various advertising-supported software products based on a visual search engine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan W. Duncan, Esq. Stephen M. Russell Jr., Esq. VAN LANINGHAM DUNCAN PLLC 300 N. Greene St., Suite 850 Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 645-3320 Facsimile: (336) 645-3330 E-mail: aduncan@vldlitigation.com srussell@vldlitigation.com - and - Jason M. Leviton, Esq. Joel A. Fleming, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com Joel@blockesq.com LIBERTY SILVER: Reached Deal Regarding Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Silver Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company had reached a settlement in principle regarding the consolidated securities class action filed in September 2013 in U.S. federal court in the Southern District of Florida pertaining to anomalous trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price from August through October 2012. On September 12, 2013, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors (the "Liberty Silver Parties") were named as defendants in a proposed securities class action lawsuit filed against Robert Genovese, certain individuals alleged to have collaborated with Mr. Genovese, and an offshore investment firm allegedly controlled by Mr. Genovese (the "Action," Case No. 9:13- cv-80923-KLR, Stanaford v. Genovese et al.). The action contains various claims alleging violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rules thereunder relating to anomalous trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price from August through October 2012. The plaintiff purports to bring suit on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common shares from April 1, 2008, through and including October 5, 2012. An amended complaint was filed on September 27, 2013. On January 22, 2014, the Court appointed Jerald Todd Stanaford and Philip Hobel lead plaintiffs and approved Federman & Sherwood as Lead Counsel and Menzer & Hill, PA as Liaison Counsel. On March 24, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On May 8, 2014, the Liberty Silver Parties moved to dismiss the Complaint. On December 8, 2014, the Company had reached a settlement in principle regarding the consolidated securities class action filed in September 2013 in U.S. federal court in the Southern District of Florida pertaining to anomalous trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price from August through October 2012. The settlement, which is subject to final documentation as well as review by the court, provides for a payment of $1 million cash, to be paid by the Company's D&O insurance coverage. This settlement, without in any way acknowledging any fault or liability, would lead to a full and final dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Liberty Silver, Geoffrey Browne, and William Tafuri in the litigation. Although defendants continue to deny plaintiffs' allegations, the Company believes it is in the best interests of its stockholders to focus its attention on its business and put the matter behind it. The settlement is subject to approval by the Court. LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Faces Two Putative Class Action Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and/or Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of the Company's subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and certain parties unaffiliated with the Company, are named defendants in 13 individual lawsuits filed in December 2014, and two putative class action lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama. These lawsuits allege that patients at Vaughan Regional Medical Center received improper interventional cardiology procedures. One of the putative class action lawsuits, filed on November 21, 2014, seeks certification of a class consisting of all Alabama citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology procedure at any LifePoint owned Alabama hospital and who received notice regarding the medical necessity of that procedure. The other putative class action lawsuit, filed on February 6, 2015, seeks certification of a class of individuals that underwent an interventional cardiology procedure that was not medically necessary and performed by Dr. Aksut. This action asserts, among other claims, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), which, if successful, would result in the awarding of treble damages for any injury resulting from the RICO violation and attorneys' fees. LJ CAMPBELL: Faces "Santana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Santiago Santana, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. L.J. Campbell Wholesale Meats, Inc. d/b/a L.J. Campbell Wholesale Meats, and James Hyland, Case No. 1:15-cv-01594 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. L.J. Campbell Wholesale Meats, Inc. is a meat wholesaler owned by James Hyland, located at 355 Food Center Drive, Building D6, Bronx, New York 10474. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Badias" Suit Over Flooring Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Joaquin F. Badias, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-20876 (S.D. Fla., March 3, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Peter Weil, Esq. RONALD WEIL PA 200 S Biscayne Boulevard Wachovia Financial Center Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-5352 Facsimile: (305) 372-5355 E-mail: Ronald@wqmlaw.net - and - Theodore Babbitt, Esq. BABBITT JOHNSON & OSBORNE 1641 Worthington Road Suite 100 PO Box 4426 West Palm Beach, FL 33402-4426 Telephone: (561) 684-2500 Facsimile: (561) 684-6308 E-mail: tedbabbitt@babbitt-johnson.com - and - Wendi Leigh Ribaudo, Esq. John Marion Quaranta, Esq. WEIL QUARANTA MCGOVERN, P.A. 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-5352 E-mail: wendi@wqmlaw.net John@wqmlaw.net LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Bloomfield" Over Flooring Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Bloomfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01956 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Eshoo Jr., Esq. Michael W. Duffy, Esq. CHILDRESS DUFFY, LTD. 500 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 494-0200 Facsimile: (312) 494-0202 E-mail: Eeshoo@childresslawyers.com mduffy@childresslawyers.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Conte" Suit Over Flooring Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Shelly Conte, Mark Reyes, Daniel Tacktill, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated and the general public v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01012 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Skye Resendes, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com skye@consumersadvocates.com MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $771MM Liability in Merchant Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- As of December 31, 2014, MasterCard Incorporated had accrued a liability of $771 million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases, MasterCard said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state law. The complaints allege, among other things, that MasterCard, Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint that seeks treble damages. In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release, without adequate consideration, MasterCard's right to assess them for MasterCard's litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing agreement with a number of financial institutions. The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which MasterCard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant litigations. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the financial institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a settlement involving only MasterCard and the financial institutions with respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards, MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement. In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement. MasterCard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its business practices, including its No Surcharge Rule. Objections to the settlement were filed by both merchants and certain competitors, including Discover. Discover's objections include a challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain of the rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court granted final approval of the settlement in December 2013, which has been appealed by objectors to the settlement. Merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the MasterCard and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the class settlement. MasterCard anticipates that most of the larger merchants who opted out of the settlement will initiate separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in various jurisdictions. The defendants have consolidated all of these matters (except for one state court action in Texas) in front of the same federal district court that is overseeing the approval of the settlement. In July 2014, the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for failure to state a claim. MasterCard recorded a pre-tax charge of $770 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 and an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in the second quarter of 2012 relating to the settlement agreements described above. In 2012, MasterCard paid $790 million with respect to the settlements, of which $726 million was paid into a qualified cash settlement fund related to the merchant class litigation. At December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, MasterCard had $540 million and $723 million, respectively, in the qualified cash settlement fund classified as restricted cash on its balance sheet. The class settlement agreement provided for a return to the defendants of a portion of the class cash settlement fund, based upon the percentage of purchase volume represented by the opt-out merchants. This resulted in $164 million from the cash settlement fund being returned to MasterCard in January 2014 and reclassified at that time from restricted cash to cash and cash equivalents. In the fourth quarter of 2013, MasterCard recorded an incremental net pre-tax charge of $95 million related to the opt-out merchants, representing a change in its estimate of probable losses relating to these matters. During 2014, MasterCard executed settlement agreements with a number of opt-out merchants and no adjustment to the amount previously recorded was deemed necessary. As of December 31, 2014, MasterCard had accrued a liability of $771 million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. The portion of the accrued liability relating to the opt-out merchants does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the opt-out merchant matters were litigated to a final outcome, in which case MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability. MasterCard's estimate involves significant judgment and may change depending on progress in settlement negotiations or depending upon decisions in any opt-out merchant cases. In addition, in the event that the merchant class litigation settlement approval is overturned on appeal, a negative outcome in the litigation could have a material adverse effect on MasterCard's results of operations, financial position and cash flows. MASTERCARD INC: Class Actions Filed in Saskatchewan and Alberta --------------------------------------------------------------- MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that additional proposed class action complaints have been filed in Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in the British Columbia and Ontario suits. If the class action lawsuits are ultimately successful, negative decisions could have a significant adverse impact on the revenue of MasterCard's Canadian customers and on MasterCard's overall business in Canada and could result in substantial damage awards. In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in MasterCard's favor) related to certain MasterCard rules related to point-of- sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge" rules. The suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits containing similar allegations to the Quebec class action were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against MasterCard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5 billion. The British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and legal costs. In April 2012, the Quebec suit was amended to include the same defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia and Ontario suits. With respect to the status of the proceedings: (1) the Quebec suit has been stayed, (2) the Ontario suit is being temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds, and (3) the British Columbia court issued an order in March 2014 certifying a number of the merchants' causes of action. The parties have appealed the certification decision. MASTERCARD INC: Cal. High Court Denied Request to Appeal Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an appeals court has affirmed the trial court's approval order in the Attridge action and the California Supreme Court has subsequently denied the objectors' request to appeal that ruling. In April 2005, a complaint was filed in California state court on behalf of a putative class of consumers under California unfair competition law (Section 17200) and the Cartwright Act (the "Attridge action"). The claims in this action seek to leverage a 1998 action by the U.S. Department of Justice against MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc. and Visa International Corp. In that action, a federal district court concluded that both MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy and a Visa bylaw provision that prohibited financial institutions participating in the respective associations from issuing competing proprietary payment cards (such as American Express or Discover) constituted unlawful restraints of trade under the federal antitrust laws. The state court in the Attridge action granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' state antitrust claims but denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Section 17200 unfair competition claims. In September 2009, MasterCard executed a settlement agreement that received final approval by the court in the California consumer actions in August 2010. The agreement includes a release that the parties believe encompasses the claims asserted in the Attridge action. In January 2012, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's settlement approval and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. In April 2013, the trial court granted final approval of a revised settlement agreement, to which the plaintiff from the Attridge action and three other objectors appealed. In October 2014, the appeals court affirmed the trial court's approval order and the California Supreme Court subsequently denied the objectors' request to appeal that ruling. MASTERCARD INC: Plaintiffs in ATM Surcharge Suit Appeal Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in the ATM non-discrimination rule surcharge complaints have appealed the dismissal of both their complaints and their motion to amend their complaints. In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint"). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM Consumer Complaints"). The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint described above, although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs' motion seeking approval to amend their complaints was denied by the district court in December 2013. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of both their complaints and their motion to amend their complaints. MEADWESTVACO: Faces Class Action Over Rock-Tenn Merger ------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Spiers, writing for Richmond BizSense, reports that hungry for more class-action cases, law firms from around the country are again targeting another big Richmond merger. The January announcement of the pending marriage of Richmond-based Fortune 500 MeadWestvaco and fellow packaging giant Rock-Tenn Co. sparked response from law firms across the country. These firms are all in search of the same thing: a MWV shareholder who disagrees with the deal and is willing to sign on as lead plaintiff for a potential class-action case. It's a practice that's become the norm following the announcement of big deals involving publicly traded companies. The MWV-Rock-Tenn deal is at least the fourth merger in recent years involving a Richmond company to be targeted by this legal strategy. Tucker McNeil, director of corporate communications for MWV, said the company and its attorneys are well aware of the tactic. "It's not unlike any of these firms to troll out there for possible folks to join in a class-action suit," Mr. McNeil said. "It was not news to our legal team by any stretch. They certainly weren't surprised when it happened." MeadWestvaco's deal, which would create a colossus company with combined $15.7 billion in revenue, was announced Jan. 26. Within days, at least half a dozen law firms took to the Internet claiming they are investigating the merger and potential claims against the MWV board of directors. In a merger situation, firms typically argue that the deal may not be in shareholders' best interest and that they are looking for possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other alleged violations. Similar language is used in each of the posts, which tell shareholders that they have the option to file a class-action lawsuit. For example, San Diego law firm Robbins Arroyo said in its release that its investigation "focuses on whether the board of directors at MeadWestvaco is undertaking a fair process to obtain maximum value and adequately compensate its shareholders." The firm contends that the $49.13 merger consideration represents a premium of 8.7 percent, based on MWV's closing price last December. "This premium is significantly below the average one-month premium of nearly 29.15 percent for comparable transactions within the past five years," the firm says, adding that the merger consideration "is significantly below the target price of $60" set by a financial analyst in January. "In light of these facts, Robbins Arroyo LLP is examining MeadWestvaco board of directors' decision to sell the company now rather than allow shareholders to continue to participate in the company's continued success and future growth prospects." If a lawsuit is filed in such an instance, it typically seeks to either block the deal, force changes in its terms or force settlements that can be potentially lucrative to both the plaintiff and the law firms. Deals involving Union Bankshares, Owens & Minor and the former Franklin Federal Savings Bank all were subject to similar tactics. And each led to lawsuits filed and cases that ended with varying results. While no lawsuit had been filed against MWV as of Feb. 25, at least two of the law firms' online posts refer to a complaint filed in Delaware state court. A search of online court records did not produce such a complaint. Should it close, the stock-for-stock deal will give MWV shareholders control of about 51 percent of the combined company. Richmond would then be home to the country's second-largest packaging company, behind only International Paper. Mr. McNeil said MWV stands by the numbers in the deal. "We've got fairness opinions," he said. "Our board is confident what we're doing is the right thing." MODEL N: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------- Securities class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against Model N, Inc. and others, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. On September 5, 2014 and January 22, 2015, purported securities class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former directors and executive officers and underwriters of the IPO. The lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased the Company's stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. The lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages and other relief. The Company believes that the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain and an adverse result could have a material effect on its financial statements. However, based on currently available information, the Company does not expect that the ultimate outcome of these unresolved matters will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or financial position. NBTY INC: Reduced Exposure Estimate in Glucosamine Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- NBTY, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has reduced its estimate of exposure to $6,100,000 in the class actions related to Glucosamine-based dietary supplements. Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, its subsidiary Rexall Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the marketing of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various states' consumer protection statutes. The lawsuits against NBTY and its subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed June 14, 2011) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive damages and injunctive relief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed August 22, 2011) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of Massachusetts consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory damages; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive relief, as well as other cases in California and Illinois against certain wholesale customers as to which we may have certain indemnification obligations. In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the remaining plaintiffs, which includes all cases and resolved all pending claims without any admission of or concession of liability by NBTY, and which provided for a release of all claims in return for payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on October 4, 2013 and November 20, 2013. On January 3, 2014, the court issued an opinion and order approving the settlement as modified (the "Order"). The final judgment was issued on January 22, 2014 (the "Judgment"). Certain objectors filed a notice of appeal of the Order and the Judgment on January 29, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 2014. On November 19, 2014, the appellate court issued a decision granting the objectors' appeal. The appellate court reversed and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's decision. In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a provision of $12,000,000, reflecting its best estimate of exposure for payments to the class together with attorney's fees and notice and administrative costs in connection with this class action settlement. As a result of the court's approval of the settlement and the closure of the claims period, NBTY reduced its estimate of exposure to $6,100,000. This reduction in the estimated exposure was reflected in the Company's first quarter results for fiscal 2014. Until the cases are resolved, no final determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on the part of NBTY. NBTY INC: CCG Filed Motion to Dismiss "Lary" Complaint ------------------------------------------------------ NBTY, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint related to Telephone Consumer Protection Act. NBTY, and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class- action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.; Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and John Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to plaintiff and others without invitation or permission, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross- claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY, and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014. On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and that motion is pending. NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Netsol Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the defendants' motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit was scheduled to be heard on March 16, 2015. On July 25, 2014, a Federal Securities class action lawsuit entitled Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies, Inc., Najeeb Ghauri, Naeem Ghauri, and Salim Ghauri was filed in Central District of California. The action generally alleges the Company violated certain federal securities laws by allegedly issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company's product and business prospect of that product. Specifically, the complaint alleges the next-generation product did not exist as of November 8, 2011 and there was no reasonable basis for stating that there was a growing interest or serious interest in the product; the product had been gaining momentum or that it had been well received. The plaintiff has filed an amended consolidated complaint including the previous allegations. On January 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit stating that the plaintiff's complaint fails to sufficiently plead the allegations and essential elements of the claims. Following responsive pleadings by plaintiff and defendant, the motion is scheduled to be heard on March 16, 2015. The Company believes the lawsuit to be meritless and intends to vigorously defend the action including but not limited to motions to dismiss. The Company has engaged counsel and has liability insurance. Given the early stage of the litigation, however, at this time the Company is unable to form a professional judgment that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, and it is not possible to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings will or will not have material adverse effect on the Company. As of the date of this filing, a class had not yet been established. NEUSTAR INC: Motion to Dismiss IPRS's Amended Complaint Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, granted NeuStar, Inc.'s motion to dismiss The Indiana Public Retirement System, or IPRS's amended complaint, NeuStar said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company said, "On July 15, 2014, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, or OFPRS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, or the Alexandria Division, against us and certain of our senior executive officers. The OFPRS complaint asserted claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who purchased our securities between April 19, 2013 and June 6, 2014, inclusive, and sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and injunctive relief." On October 7, 2014, the Alexandria Division issued an order appointing lead counsel and designating The Indiana Public Retirement System, or IPRS, as lead plaintiff. "On November 6, 2014, the IPRS filed an amended complaint and on December 8, 2014, we moved to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint. On December 22, 2014, IPRS filed its opposition to our motion to dismiss. On December 29, 2014, we filed a reply brief to the IPRS opposition. The Alexandria Division heard oral arguments on the motions on January 22, 2015 and on January 27, 2015, and issued an order granting our motion to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint with prejudice. IPRS has the right to appeal the dismissal," the Company said. NEW JERSEY: Faces "Kolakowski" Suit Over RICO Violations -------------------------------------------------------- David Kolakowski, all others similarly situated v. Governor Christopher Christie, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01583 (D.N.J., March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, (RICO) Chapter 96 of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1961-1968. Governor Chris Christie is the Acting Governor for the State of New Jersey located at Hughes Justice Complex, 25 West Market Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Kolakowski, PRO SE 54 Deal Lake Point Road Ocean, NJ 07712 E-mail: davidk@kolaco.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Defending Against Railroad Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to defend antitrust class actions filed against the Company and other Class I railroads, the company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against the Company and other Class I railroads in various Federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a class action. The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration. "We believe the allegations in the complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the cases. We do not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or liquidity," the Company said. A lawsuit containing similar allegations against the Company and four other major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling agreement entered into in August 2008, and most recently extended in August 2013. PFIZER INC: Class Action Settlement on Track for Approval --------------------------------------------------------- Pete Brush, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed $400 million deal to resolve a class action lawsuit accusing Pfizer Inc. of misleading investors about illegal off-label drug marketing was put on track for approval on Feb. 26, but not before a Manhattan federal judge asked pointed questions about the value of the deal and demanded a fresh round of opt-out notices for investors. The dollar value "seems like a lot of money," U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein told the litigants -- foes since the suit was filed in May 2010, but now allies in trying to consummate the accord -- but he worried at the preliminary approval hearing whether that sum really would mean anything, especially for small investors. "That's pretty much low," Mr. Hellerstein said, after hearing that the settlement marks a recovery of just less than 15 cents per damaged share -- far less than that $1.26 per damaged share a plaintiffs' damages expert had estimated. "To see this come in this way is disappointing." He said that small investors especially would be less likely to take action to collect because the per share recovery at their level "isn't worth doing anything." But plaintiffs' counsel Michael J. Dowd -- miked@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP reminded Judge Hellerstein that any recovery at trial would have been subject to the vagaries of a jury. And defense counsel Steven M. Farina -- sfarina@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly LLP noted that the defense put the damage per share figure at "zero" because, among other things, Pfizer disclosed a dividend cut to fund its purchase of Wyeth on the day of the January 2009 stock drop central to the litigation. Dividend cuts tend to trigger intense sell-offs. Both sides also noted that if fewer people claim, the recovery for claimants will grow. And, they noted, institutional investors will be active in the proposed settlement, claiming most of the potential recovery. "It's a terrific settlement," Mr. Dowd said. Judge Hellerstein also ordered the sides to craft a new opt-out notice that explains clearly how the litigation came to its current stage. He said that he has received letters from the public complaining that they had received notice too late or found the notices to be unclear. The sides warned that anyone who opted out at this stage likely would forgo any recovery because the relevant statutes of limitations have elapsed for an alleged fraud that took place more than six years ago. Judge Hellerstein said that should be made clear -- and he swept aside concerns raised by Pfizer's counsel that a new rash of opt- outs could threaten the settlement. "It's important to us that we buy complete peace here," Farina said. In reply, Judge Hellerstein said that if Pfizer "wants to blow up the settlement, so be it. I'll try the case." Investors say that Pfizer made misleading disclosures in marketing four drugs: Bextra, which Pfizer voluntarily pulled off the market in 2005 amid safety concerns; anti-psychotic treatment Geodon; anti-epileptic treatment Lyrica; and antibiotic Zyvox. Pfizer also concealed kickbacks to physicians to promote sales, the investors claim. The plaintiffs are represented by Michael J. Dowd of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Pfizer is represented by Steven M. Farina of Williams & Connolly LLP. The case is Jones et al. v. Pfizer Inc. et al., case number 1:10- cv-03864, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. POINCIANA MANAGEMENT: "Manuel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Magdalena Manuel, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Poinciana Management, Inc., and Robert Spiegel, Case No. 9:15-cv-80282 (S.D. Fla., March 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Poinciana Management, Inc. provides property management and other real estate-related services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Scott Dwoskin, Esq. Steven Leo Schwarzberg, Esq. SCHWARZBERG , ASSOCIATES Phillips Point-East Tower 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1120E West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 253-2211 E-mail: edwoskin@schwarzberglaw.com steve@schwarzberglaw.com PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Against McCaffree Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Principal Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that McCaffree Financial Corp. Employee Retirement Program ("McCaffree") filed on March 18, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against Principal Life. The complaint alleged, among other things, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of prudence and prohibited transactions under ERISA. McCaffree seeks a nationwide class action on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of defined contribution retirement plans that invested in any Principal Separate Account in the last six years. McCaffree seeks disgorgement of all fees it alleges Principal Life improperly retained in addition to other general claims for relief. Principal Life has filed a motion to dismiss the case and on December 11, 2014, the court granted the motion. McCaffree filed a notice of appeal on December 22, 2014. Principal Life will continue to aggressively defend the case. PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Cruise and Mullaney Class Actions Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Principal Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Cruise and Mullaney cases were dismissed on December 15, 2014. On December 2, 2009 and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company; Principal Life; Principal Global Investors, LLC; Principal Management Corporation; and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC (the "Cruise/Mullaney Defendants"). The lawsuits alleged the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants failed to manage the Principal U.S. Property Separate Account ("PUSPSA") in the best interests of investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal freeze" on September 26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue" to honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became available. The two lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed complaints asserting similar claims, have been consolidated and are now known as In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation. Plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the denial of class certification was denied by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 31, 2013. The case was dismissed on December 15, 2014. QUICKEN LOANS: Must Face TCPA Class Action ------------------------------------------ Emily Field, Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, report that a Florida federal judge on Feb. 25 nixed Quicken Loans Inc.'s attempt to duck a proposed Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action accusing it of using contact information bought from a credit reporting bureau to call consumers' cellphones, saying the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the calls were autodialed. U.S. District Judge Robert Scola rejected Quicken's argument that lead plaintiff Christopher Legg didn't plead standing under the TCPA since he didn't claim that Quicken made calls to his phone using an automatic telephone dialing system. The judge noted that Mr. Legg referred to Quicken's use of an autodialer at least 15 times in his complaint and specifically alleged the types of calls. "Defendant claims that these allegations are not sufficient under the TCPA and that plaintiff 'must allege' how defendant's equipment meets the criteria for an 'ATDS under the TCPA,'" the judge said. "But this is a far too exacting standard -- defendant does not point to statutes or case law that requires such specificity and it is too high of a burden to expect a plaintiff to know the type of equipment a defendant uses." The judge said that Mr. Legg's allegations are a "short and plain statement of the claim," sufficient to put Quicken on notice. Mr. Legg alleges that Quicken called his cellphone from at least six numbers between January and February of 2013, according to the judge, and describes the content of the calls. The calls included pre-recorded messages or connections to a Quicken representative aggressively marketing its financial products, the judge said. The judge also rejected Quicken's argument that Legg's complaint should be dismissed because he didn't claim he was the subscriber of the cellphone service. According to Judge Scola, Legg doesn't have to allege he is the subscriber to state a claim under the TCPA; he only has to claim that he is the called party, which he did. "Defendant's argument may be applicable at the summary judgment stage if Plaintiff is unable to show that he is the subscriber of the cellphone at issue, but there is no requirement that a plaintiff plead that he or she is the subscriber," the judge said. Christopher Legg claims that Quicken obtained "trigger leads" -- contact information for people who recently had their credit history investigated by rival mortgage lenders -- and then violated the TCPA by calling them using an autodialer, which can randomly and sequentially generate telephone numbers and dial them by itself. Quicken made cold calls to more than 100 people who were not customers of the company in January 2013, using an autodialer after obtaining phone numbers from sources other than the recipients, such as Experian PLC and other credit reporting agencies that advertise the sale of trigger leads, the complaint alleges. Quicken is represented by Andrew Kemp-Gerstel -- AKG@LGPLaw.com -- J. Randolph Liebler and Melissa D. Goolsarran of Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo. Legg is represented by Scott David Owens and Patrick Christopher Crotty of The Law Office of Scott D. Owens and by Alexander H. Burke of Burke Law Offices LLC. The case is Christopher Legg v. Quicken Loans Inc., case number 0:14-cv-61116, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Class Action in Early Stages ---------------------------------------------------------- Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Ingrid Barahona California class action remains in the early stages of litigation. On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported class action lawsuit against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc. ("DBA"), and two third-party staffing companies (collectively, the "Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted for temporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona seeks damages and penalties under California law alleging that she and the putative class were the subject of unfair and unlawful business practices, including certain wage and hour violations relating to, among others, failure to provide certain rest and meal periods, as well as failure to pay minimum wages and overtime. Ms. Barahona alleges that she was jointly employed by the staffing companies and Radiant and DBA. Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their entirety, deny that they are liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative class members in any way, and are vigorously defending against these allegations based upon a preliminary evaluation of applicable records and legal standards. In addition, the Company believes that the plaintiff's class definition is overly broad and cannot meet California's class action certification requirements. On August 28, 2014, the Company filed an Answer to Ms. Barahona's First Amended Complaint, and the case remains in the early stages of litigation. The Company is unable to express an opinion as to the final outcome of the matter. REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Consolidated Class Suit Dismissed in December ----------------------------------------------------------------- Regado Biosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a consolidated class action lawsuit against the Company was dismissed without prejudice on December 10, 2014. On July 10, 2014, the first of two purported securities class action lawsuits was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers and directors. The lawsuits, which were consolidated on September 26, 2014, alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 3 trial of Revolixys in patients undergoing certain percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the potential risk of several allergic reactions following the administration of Revolixys and therefore made false or misleading statements about Revolixys' safety. This consolidated lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on December 10, 2014. REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Maiman" Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Regado Biosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a purported shareholder of the Company filed on February 2, 2015, a putative class-action lawsuit (captioned Maiman v. Regado Biosciences, Inc., Case No. 10606-CB) in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, challenging the proposed stock-for-stock Merger of the Company with Tobira. The complaint names as defendants: (i) each member of the Company's Board of Directors, (ii) the Company, (iii) Tobira, and (iv) Landmark Merger Sub Inc. Plaintiff alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by, among other things, (a) agreeing to merge the Company with Tobira for inadequate consideration, (b) implementing a process that was distorted by conflicts of interest, and (c) agreeing to certain provisions of the Merger Agreement that are alleged to favor Tobira and deter alternative bids. Plaintiff also generally alleges that the entity defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors. Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the consummation of the Merger and an award of costs and expenses, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees. The Company believes the litigation is without merit. RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Faces 10 Class Action Lawsuits on Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- On December 14, 2014, Riverbed Technology, Inc. (Riverbed) entered into a definitive agreement (Merger Agreement) to be acquired by the private equity investment firm Thoma Bravo for $21.00 in cash per outstanding common share (the Merger). Riverbed Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in connection with the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, ten purported class action lawsuits have been filed. Seven complaints, captioned Gary Merryman, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., et al., filed on December 19, 2014 and amended on January 21, 2015, Kamesh Bathla, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al., filed on December 22, 2014 and amended on January 14, 2015, Domenico Carlucci, Individually and On Behalf of All Others, Similarly Situated v. Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al., filed on December 23, 2014 and amended on January 15, 2015, First Financial Trust, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al., filed on December 23, 2014, Gerard Byrne, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Boustridge et al., filed on December 24, 2014, Richard Krol, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al., filed on January 8, 2015 and amended on January 15, 2015, and David Jessen v. Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al., filed on January 15, 2015, were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On January 30 and February 2, 2015, the Delaware actions were consolidated as In Re Riverbed Technology Inc. Shareholder Litigation. Two complaints, captioned Ken Steiger, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., et al., filed on January 16, 2015, and Louis Benson, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., et al., filed January 20, 2015, were filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, in the State of California. One complaint captioned Seth Olson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., et al., filed February 5, 2015, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. In general, the complaints assert that, among other things, the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by initiating a process that undervalues Riverbed, by agreeing to a transaction that does not adequately reflect Riverbed's true value, and/or by failing to disclose material information relating thereto, and that Riverbed, Newco, Merger Sub, Thoma Bravo, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, and/or Elliott aided and abetted the Board of Directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The federal complaint further asserts violations of federal securities laws related to the dissemination of the purportedly false and materially misleading proxy and seeks a declaration that certain provisions in the Company's amended and restated bylaws concerning forum selection and fee shifting are invalid. The complaints generally seek to enjoin the merger or, alternatively, seek rescission of the merger in the event the defendants are able to consummate it. "We intend to vigorously contest these claims," the Company said. SAKS FIFTH: Seeks Dismissal of Return Policy Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Saks Fifth Avenue wants a proposed class action filed over its return policy tossed, arguing that the named plaintiff has failed to show she's sustained any damages. The upmarket department store chain filed its motion to dismiss in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Feb. 6. In December, Jennifer Shaouli filed a proposed class action against Saks over allegations that the retailer violated the state's False Advertising Act and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, or CLRA. Ms. Shaouli said she bought a pair of shoes at the Saks store at 9600 Wilshire Blvd. in Beverly Hills, Calif., on Jan. 18, 2014. The next month, Ms. Shaouli allegedly received a letter from Saks stating that any purchases she made after Feb. 25, 2014 at the store would not be accepted for returns, exchanges, credits or refunds. She also was allegedly told she could no longer shop at saks.com, and future transactions in Saks stores also could be restricted. She claims no signs or language were posted in the store making her aware of Saks return policy, which states it can decline requests to return, exchange, credit or refund merchandise if the customer had a high return rate or unreasonable return pattern. The store policy also states it can suspend a customer's ability to make purchases online, as well as refuse future transactions in stores. Ms. Shaouli sued, seeking full restitution. But lawyers for the retailer argue that Ms. Shaouli hasn't established she's sustained any damages and that she's failed to allege Saks refused any attempt by her to return merchandise. In addition, the retailer contends the plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages. "Plaintiff acknowledges that when she violated Defendant's existing return policy by returning $149,245 of merchandise purchased from Defendant over a 12-month period, Defendant sent her letters explaining that she had violated Defendant's established return policy and gave her two-weeks advance notice that it would restrict her ability to return merchandise purchased in the future," lawyers for Saks wrote in the 15-page motion. "At no time before, during or after that two-week warning period did Plaintiff ever attempt to return any outstanding unreturned merchandise, and Defendant never refused to accept any returns from Plaintiff. "Her failure to mitigate bars any damages she seeks on her Unfair Competition Law, CLRA and negligent misrepresentation claims." Ms. Shaouli's complaint also fails to allege that Saks violated any of the CLRA provisions at issue, based on their plain meaning, Saks argues. "There is no violation unless Defendant made representations or advertisements regarding goods and services themselves (not regarding any transaction for the goods or services)," lawyers for the retailer wrote. Saks argues that Ms. Shaouli lacks standing because she has been "fully aware" of the retailer's return policy for nearly a year. Saks is represented by David E. Fink -- dfink@kelleydrye.com -- and Ken D. Kronstadt of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP's Los Angeles office. Ms. Shaouli is represented by Beverly Hills attorney Paul L. Mankin IV. SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Morgan & Morgan Files Data Theft Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan & Morgan on Feb. 26 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit* against Shorter University over a September 2014 incident in which hundreds of current and former students' personal and medical information was allegedly stolen out of a filing cabinet in an unlocked room on campus. Filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, several plaintiffs, who are former members of Shorter University's athletic program, allege the school "failed to safeguard and secure personally identifiable" student information, including birth dates, Social Security numbers, and billing information, as well as "personal health-related information," according to court documents. On or around September 23, 2014, court documents say, records for as many as 900 current and former Shorter students were allegedly stolen from an unlocked filing cabinet in an unlocked room by "an unauthorized person." Plaintiffs, whose records were maintained by Shorter University from at least 2007 to 2014, had their personal medical records stored at Shorter after they underwent physical examinations, a prerequisite necessary to participate in Shorter's athletic program. Although the school sent letters to some individuals notifying them of the data breach, they did not reach every student subject to the theft, and some students did not receive any message that their information may have been stolen, according to allegations contained in court documents. As these plaintiffs prepared to file their tax returns, according to court documents, they were allegedly informed that someone had already used their Social Security number and other information to file their tax returns and claim their tax refunds. For any current students or Shorter alumni who believe their information may have been taken, however, attorney John Yanchunis offered some advice pertaining to getting ahead of the problem before it can get any worse. "Place a fraud alert with the credit reporting companies," Mr. Yanchunis said. "Get your free credit reports, and create an Identity Theft report by filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission and your local police department." To contact Morgan & Morgan about this data breach, please visit http://www.ForThePeople.com/free-case-evaluation About Morgan & Morgan Morgan & Morgan -- http://www.forthepeople.com/-- is one of the largest plaintiffs' law firms in the country with more than 20 offices throughout Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and New York. The firm handles cases nationally involving personal injury, medical malpractice, consumer class action, and securities fraud, as well as complex litigation against drug and medical device manufacturers. *Case no. 4:15-cv-00033, United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division SPANSION INC: Faces "Jeter" and "Stein" Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------- Spansion Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that Walter Jeter filed on December 17, 2014, a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara (No. 114CV274635) against Spansion Inc., its directors, Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, and Mustang Acquisition Corporation. On December 24, 2014, Shiva Y. Stein filed a similar class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara (No. 114CV274924) against the same defendants. On January 12, 2015, each of the plaintiffs filed substantially identical amended complaints. Both cases allege that the proposed merger was the result of a flawed process and provides insufficient value to Spansion's shareholders, and further allege that the disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 19, 2014 are materially incomplete and misleading. Plaintiffs in both cases assert claims against Spansion's directors for a breach of fiduciary duty and, as to Spansion Inc., Cypress Semiconductor Corporation and Mustang Acquisition Corporation, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Merger Agreement between Spansion Inc. and Cypress Semiconductor Corporation which was announced on December 1, 2014, or alternatively, rescission in the event the defendants are able to consummate it, damages and attorney fees and costs. Spansion Inc. and the other named defendants have not filed an answer or other responsive pleading to the complaints or the amended complaints. The Company has not accrued an amount related to this case as it is currently unable to predict the final outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Walter Jeter v. Spansion Inc., et. al., Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, (No. 114CV274635); Shiva Y. Stein v. Spansion Inc., el. al., Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara (No. 114CV274924). SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Disputes Boeing Indemnity Related to Harkness ----------------------------------------------------------------- Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. disputes The Boeing Company's position on indemnity related to the Harkness class action, Spirit said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company ("Boeing") et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "Harkness Class Action"). The defendants were served in early July 2007. The defendants included Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. Retirement Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita Technical and Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with Boeing and Boeing retirement and health plan entities. The named plaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of whom were or are employees of Spirit. The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and general contract law and brought the case as a class action on behalf of similarly situated individuals. The putative class consists of approximately 2,500 current or former employees of Spirit. The parties agreed to class certification. The sub-class members who asserted claims against the Spirit entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005, were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had at least 10 years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in jobs represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55, and who went to work for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005. Although there were many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs' claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under various theories, were (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed to determine that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early retirement "bridging rights" to pension and retiree medical benefits that were allegedly triggered by their separation from employment by Boeing and (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits were unlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed early retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded these individuals as a result of their separation from Boeing, thereby decreasing their benefits. The plaintiffs initially sought a declaration that they were entitled to the early retirement pension benefits and retiree medical benefits, an injunction ordering that the defendants provide the benefits, damages pursuant to breach of contract claims and attorney fees. On June 20, 2013, the district court entered an order dismissing all claims against the Spirit entities with prejudice. Plaintiffs' claims against Boeing entities remain pending in the litigation. Boeing has announced that the plaintiffs and Boeing agreed on June 12, 2014 to a settlement of this matter, subject to a fairness hearing. Boeing has notified Spirit that it believes it is entitled to indemnification from Spirit for any "indemnifiable damages" it may incur in the Harkness litigation, under the terms of the asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition between Boeing and Spirit (the "APA") and has filed suit against Spirit seeking a ruling that it is so entitled. Spirit disputes Boeing's position on indemnity. Management believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Awaiting Decision on Motion to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the class action commenced against Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas are currently awaiting a decision by the district judge on the defendants' motion to dismiss, Spirit said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The court- appointed lead plaintiffs - two pension funds that claim to represent a class of investors in the Company's stock - filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional defendants Spirit's Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J. George and former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations Alexander K. Kummant. The amended complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market price of the Company's stock by making false statements and omissions about certain programs' performance and costs. It contends that the alleged scheme was revealed by the Company's accrual of $590.0 million in forward loss charges on October 25, 2012. The lead plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all persons other than defendants who purchased Holdings securities between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012, and seek an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the putative class. In June 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims set forth in the Amended Complaint. The parties have fully briefed the defendants' motion, presented oral arguments before the court on February 6, 2015 and are currently awaiting a decision by the district judge. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these allegations, and management believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity. SWEET MAPLE: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Ramos, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Sweet Maple Cafe, LLC and Laurene J. Hynson, Case No. 1:15-cv-01913 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com TARGET CORP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Bobby Rouse, et al., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00048 (S.D. Tex., March 3, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation, minimum wages, liquidated damages, applicable penalties, attorneys' fees, costs of court, litigation expenses, expert witness fees, pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, and all other available statutory remedies and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Target Corporation is a Minnesota Corporation and is the second largest discount retailer that operates 1,793 stores in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rhonda Hunter Wills, Esq. WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC 1776 Yorktown, Suite 570 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 528-4455 Facsimile: (713) 528-2047 E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com TARGET CORP: Faces False Advertising Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Michael Mello, writing for Law360, reports that a Target Corp. herbal supplement buyer slammed the retailer with a putative class action in California federal court on Feb. 25 alleging it violated false advertising laws by selling store-branded Up & Up supplements like St. John's wort that contained no trace of the key ingredients listed on the labels. The Feb. 25 suit comes on the heels of a recent investigation by the office of New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman that said many store-brand herbal supplements from Target and other major retailers contained little or none of the herb purportedly in the bottle. In making the announcement, Mr. Schneiderman said mislabeled or mystery ingredients in the products could pose a serious harm to people with allergies. Linda Boss of Manteca, California, filed the lawsuit after buying Target's Up & Up brand St. John's wort for four years. The suit said she chose Up & Up instead of other brands specifically because of the ingredients. "Plaintiff and other consumers did not know or have reason to know that Target's herbal supplements did not contain the herbal ingredients listed on their labels," Ms. Boss' suit says. "Plaintiff and other consumers would [not] have purchased the herbal supplements had Target not misstated their true composition." Earlier in February, Mr. Schneiderman called on retailing giants Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Walgreen Co., GNC Corp. and Target to stop selling certain of their herbal supplements. Several lawsuits have already been filed against those retailers since the investigation was announced. Mr. Schneiderman said his office's investigation conducted DNA tests on supplements such as St. John's wort, echinacea and ginseng. In nearly 80 percent of the cases, the supplements did not have the herb purported to be the main ingredient. In some cases, the supplement contained ingredients not listed on the label. Ms. Boss' lawsuit points to the Schneiderman study a well as a study done by the Centre for Biodiversity Genomics at the University of Guelph in Canada. "The Guelph study focuses in part on St. John's wort -- the supplement plaintiff purchased here -- and found that the bottles labeled as St. John's wort contained none of the herb and instead contained rice and Senna alexandrina -- an Egyptian shrub often taken as a laxative," the lawsuit says. Ms. Boss's attorneys say there are potentially thousands of other consumers who purchased Target-brand supplements, providing the basis for a class action. The complaint notes Northern California must account for a sizeable chunk of Target's sales, as the retailer has 262 of its nearly 1,800 stores in California, making it a proper venue for a federal case. The complaint alleges Target's actions amount to deceptive business practice, false advertising and negligence. Ms. Boss claims Target's actions caused over $5 million in damages. She is seeking restitution and other monetary damages, attorneys fees and an order for corrective action on Target's part. Ms. Boss is represented by Adam E. Polk -- aep@girardgibbs.com -- Daniel C. Girard and Eric H. Gibbs of Girard Gibbs LLP. Counsel information for Target was not available. The case is Boss v. Target Corp. et al., case number 3:15-cv- 00855, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. TEMPUR SEALY: Plaintiffs in Norfolk & Benning Actions Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of the cases, Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 20, 2012; and Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012, Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The cases were filed on June 20 and 25, 2012, against the Company and two named executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased the Company's stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5, 2012. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements and concealment of material information concerning the Company's competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per diluted share and related financial performance for the Company's 2012 fiscal year. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorney's fees, expert fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. On November 2, 2012, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits and on March 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice the consolidated complaint. The Court issued its memorandum of opinion and entered final judgment on May 23, 2014. On June 6, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The outcome of these matters is uncertain, however, and although the Company does not currently expect to incur a loss with respect to these matters, the Company cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of the suit, an estimate of a range of losses or any minimum loss that could result in the event of an adverse judgment in this suit, or whether the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. TEMPUR SEALY: Says "Todd" Class Action Lacks Merit -------------------------------------------------- The case, Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013, lacks merit and is at a very preliminary stage, Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in the case but with an amended petition adding additional class representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable state laws. The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. This matter is at a very preliminary stage, and the outcome is uncertain. As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. TENNESSEE: Sued Over Alleged Student Voters Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- Nashville Student Organizing Committee, Justin Bautista-Jones, Tyshaunda Blanche, Jarrett Harper, Jahmelia Stenson, Justen Williams-Reed, Courtney Kirksey-Warren, Breonna Frierson, Makayla Spencer, Kree Kelly, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Tre Hargett, in his official capacity as Tennessee Secretary of State, Mark Goins, in his official capacity as Coordinator of Elections, Case No. 3:15-cv-00210 (M.D. Tenn., March 4, 2015), arises out of the Tennessee's strict voter ID law, which requires in-person voters to present one of a limited number of photo IDs, alleged to intentionally discriminates against out of-state college and university students, and has the purpose and effect of denying and abridging the right to vote on account of age. Tre Hargett is the Secretary of State for the State of Tennessee. Mark Goins is the Coordinator of Elections for the Office of the Tennessee Secretary of State's Division of Elections. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Johnston Jr., Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: djohnston@barrettjohnston.com - and - Jon Sherman, Esq. FAIR ELECTIONS LEGAL NETWORK 1825 K. St., NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 248-5346 Facsimile: (202) 331-1663 E-mail: jsherman@fairelectionsnetwork.com TIME WARNER: Parties Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties to the class action litigation related to the Comcast merger entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the New York Supreme Court and certain other conditions, to settle all of the outstanding litigation challenging the merger. Following the announcement of the Comcast merger on February 13, 2014, eight putative class action complaints challenging the merger were filed on behalf of purported TWC stockholders, seven in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York and one in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These complaints were captioned: Barrett v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Karl Graulich IRA v. Marcus, et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Wedeking v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Lassoff v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Thomas v. Marcus, et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Tangarone v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. Black, et al. (Del. Ch.); and Empire State Supply Corp. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). On March 25, 2014, the plaintiff in Tangarone v. Time Warner Cable Inc. voluntarily discontinued the action in the New York Supreme Court and re-filed the action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware under the caption Tangarone v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (Del. Ch.). Likewise, on March 26, 2014, the plaintiffs in Empire State Supply Corp. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. voluntarily discontinued the action in the New York Supreme Court, and re-filed the action on March 27, 2014 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware under the caption Empire State Supply Corp. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (Del. Ch.). On March 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. Black, et al. (Del. Ch.) filed an amended complaint. On April 2, 2014, the Court orally granted a motion to consolidate the pending actions in the New York Supreme Court under the caption Barrett, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), which the Court did formally by written order on April 15, 2014. On April 3, 2014, the plaintiffs in Barrett, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) filed a consolidated amended complaint. The various complaints name as defendants the Company, the members of the Company's Board of Directors, Comcast and Tango Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"). The complaints assert that the members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders during the Comcast merger negotiations and by entering into the Merger Agreement and approving the Comcast merger, and that Comcast and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints also allege that the Company and its Board of Directors failed to disclose in the registration statement related to the Comcast merger material facts relating to the merger. The complaints seek, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the shareholder vote on the Comcast merger, unspecified declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and costs and fees. On July 22, 2014, the parties to the litigation entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the New York Supreme Court and certain other conditions, to settle all of the outstanding litigation challenging the merger. The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in the lawsuits are without merit and, if the settlement does not receive final approval by the New York Supreme Court or otherwise is not consummated, intends to defend against the litigation vigorously. TIME WARNER: Defendant in Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the U.S. These actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order transferring the cases for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"), alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged practices. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011. On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. TIME WARNER: Downs and Jarrett Litigation Terminated ---------------------------------------------------- Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiffs in Michelle Downs and Laurie Jarrett, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. did not appeal the grant of summary judgment, terminating the litigation. On August 9, 2010, the plaintiffs in Michelle Downs and Laurie Jarrett, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. filed a second amended complaint in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that Insight Communications Company, L.P. violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by tying the sales of premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes, which is similar to the federal claim against the Company in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation, discussed above. The plaintiffs were seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged practices. On July 19, 2013, TWC filed a motion for summary judgment, which argued that Insight Communications Company, L.P. did not coerce the plaintiffs to lease a set-top converter box, a necessary element of the plaintiffs' claim. On July 29, 2014, the court granted TWC's summary judgment motion and entered judgment in TWC's favor. On August 26, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on December 1, 2014. The plaintiffs did not appeal the grant of summary judgment, terminating the litigation. TRT HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Disabled-Inaccessible Facility -------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Swartz v. TRT Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Omni Hotels, Case No. 1:15-cv-01604 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide facility that is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. TRT Holdings, Inc. owns and operates Omni Berkshire Place hotel located at 21 East 52nd Street at Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq. FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502 North Miami, FL 33181 Telephone: (305) 891-5199 Facsimile: (305) 893-9505 E-mail: Lfuller@fullerfuller.com - and - Paul F. Conzdal, Esq. 1330 Avenue ofthe Americas; Suite 23A New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 688-3637 Facsimile: (646) 924-3406 E-mail: condzalesq@msn.com TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Settled Occupant Safety Systems Products Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. settled, for immaterial amounts, certain purported class action lawsuits filed on behalf of vehicle purchasers, lessors, dealers and direct purchasers alleging that the Company and certain of its competitors conspired to fix and raise prices for Occupant Safety Systems products, TRW said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company said, "We have settled, for amounts that are immaterial to us, certain purported class action lawsuits filed on behalf of vehicle purchasers, lessors, dealers and direct purchasers alleging that the Company and certain of its competitors conspired to fix and raise prices for Occupant Safety Systems products. These lawsuits were filed on various dates from June 2012 through May 2014 in, or were consolidated in, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Once the court approves the settlements, those cases will be dismissed. We have also settled, for an amount that is immaterial to us, similar cases filed in various courts in Canada on behalf of vehicle purchasers, lessors, dealers and direct purchasers." TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., and other named defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") agreeing in principle to settle all pending class actions related to the merger in exchange for the Company's agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures, TRW said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. TRW said, "On September 15, 2014, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with ZF Friedrichshafen AG, a stock corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany ("ZF"), and MSNA, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Merger Sub") and a wholly owned subsidiary of ZF held directly by ZF North America, Inc. ("ZNA"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "ZF Merger") with the Company surviving the ZF Merger as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ZF. At a special stockholders meeting held on November 19, 2014, our stockholders adopted the Merger Agreement." Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement on September 15, 2014, seven purported stockholders of the Company initiated legal actions challenging the merger. On September 19, 2014, purported stockholder New Jersey Laborers Pension Fund filed a putative class action complaint in the Oakland County Circuit Court in the State of Michigan against the Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub, and the members of the Company's board of directors (the "Company Board"), in an action styled New Jersey Laborers Pension Fund vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 2014-143032-CB. On September 26, 2014, purported stockholder Joseph Bidwell filed a putative class action complaint in the Wayne County Circuit Court in the State of Michigan against the Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub, and the members of the Company Board, in an action styled Bidwell vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 14- 012463-CB. On October 3, 2014, purported stockholder Daniel Fumia filed a putative class action complaint in Wayne County Circuit Court in the State of Michigan against the Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub, and the members of the Company Board, in an action styled Daniel Fumia v. James F. Albaugh, Francois J. Castaing, Robert L. Friedman, Michael R. Gambrell, J. Michael Losh, David W. Meline, Jody G. Miller, MSNA, Inc., John C. Plant, Neil P. Simpkins, David S. Taylor, TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., ZF Friedrichshafen AG, ZF North America, Inc., No. 14-012818-CB. On October 6, 2014, purported stockholder Alan Abramson filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members of the Company Board, ZF and Merger Sub, in an action styled Abramson vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10203- VCL. On October 15, 2014, purported stockholder Zhao Nie filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub and the Company Board in an action styled Nie vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10236-VCL. On October 21, 2014, purported stockholder Luther Berry and purported stockholder I.U.O.E. Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund each filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members of the Company Board, ZF and Merger Sub, in actions styled Berry vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10264-VCL and I.U.O.E. Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10265-VCL, respectively. TRW said, "The complaints include claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual directors, alleging that the directors violated the duties of loyalty, good faith and due care owed to our stockholders. The complaints also include claims for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek, among other forms of relief, an order enjoining the transaction, rescinding the Merger Agreement to the extent it has already been implemented, and awarding attorneys' fees and costs." "On November 12, 2014, plaintiffs, the Company and other named defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") agreeing in principle to settle all pending actions in exchange for the Company's agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures, which were filed on the same date in a supplement to TRW's October 20, 2014 definitive proxy statement. Pursuant to the MOU, the parties intend to settle, subject to court approval, certain claims, while the other pending litigation will be dismissed. We anticipate the litigation will be resolved and will not interfere with or delay the closing, but until court approval is obtained and the cases are dismissed, some uncertainty remains. The settlement contemplated by the MOU is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant." UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Remains Party to 2 Suits on Endoscopy Center ---------------------------------------------------------------- UnitedHealth Group Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company remains party to two class actions brought on behalf of uninfected patients of the endoscopy center of Southern Nevada. In April 2013, a Las Vegas jury awarded $24 million in compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages against a Company health plan and its parent corporation on the theory that they were negligent in their credentialing and monitoring of an in-network endoscopy center owned and operated by independent physicians who were subsequently linked by regulators to an outbreak of hepatitis C. The trial court reduced the overall award to $366 million. In 2014, the Company settled this and all other pending suits brought by individuals allegedly infected by hepatitis C for an amount that is not material to the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Although the Company remains party to two class actions brought on behalf of uninfected patients of the endoscopy center seeking the cost of medical monitoring, the Company does not believe these matters are material to its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. VERDE ENERGY: Illegally Charges High Premium Rates, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shane C. Roberts, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00312 (D. Conn., March 3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful practice of charging high premium rate for electricity regardless of fluctuations in the underlying market price. Verde Energy USA, Inc. Delaware corporation with principal place of business is located at 101 Merit Seven Corporate Park, Norwalk, CT 06851, which is an independent electric supplier. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Izard Jr., Esq. IZARD NOBEL, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6295 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com VITESSE WORLDWIDE: "Sikiotis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Sikiotis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Vitesse Worldwide Chaufeeured Services, Inc. and Shahin Abaspour, Case No. 3:15-cv-00316 (D. Conn., March 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, penalty damages and attorney's fees brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Vitesse Worldwide Chaufeeured Services, Inc. is a Connecticut corporation with a principal place of business located at 25 Crescent Street, Stamford, Connecticut, which provides limousine services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Pantuso III, Esq. HAYBER LAW FIRM LLC 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 E-mail: apantuso@hayberlawfirm.com VONAGE HOLDINGS: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- Briefing on the appeal related to the class action lawsuit filed by Arthur Merkin and James Smith against Vonage America, Inc., is now complete, though oral argument has not yet been scheduled, Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 30, 2013 the case was assigned to a United States District Judge and a Magistrate Judge. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the Complaint. On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. On February 4, 2014, the Court denied Vonage's Motion to Compel Arbitration. On March 5, 2014, Vonage filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the decision denying Vonage's Motion to Compel Arbitration. On March 6, 2014, Vonage moved to stay the district court proceedings pending its appeal; the Court granted Vonage's stay motion on March 26, 2014. Briefing on the appeal is now complete, though oral argument has not yet been scheduled. WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Herbal Supplements ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Westney, Jonathan Randles and Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reports that an Oklahoma man hit Wal-Mart Stores Inc. with a proposed class action on Feb. 26 alleging that dietary supplements the company sells under a store brand don't contain the herbs listed on their labels, adding to the growing litigation nationwide against Wal-Mart and other retailers over similar products. Ron Coats alleges that Wal-Mart's Spring Valley brand dietary supplements didn't contain ginkgo biloba, ginseng, echinacea and other ingredients listed on their labels, in violation of state consumer protection law. Mr. Coats points to a recent investigation by the office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman that found the herbal supplements sold by Wal-Mart, Target Corp., Walgreen Co. and GNC Holdings Inc. either didn't contain labeled substances or contained ingredients that were not listed on the labels. "The quality and quantity of the herbal ingredients are not obvious and are hidden to [the] average consumer and would only manifest itself in a scientific test analysis such as conducted by the New York attorney general," the complaint says. Mr. Coats seeks to represent Oklahoma and national classes composed of Oklahoma residents and all consumers, respectively, who bought the Spring Valley supplements labeled gingko biloba, St. John's wort, ginseng, garlic, echinacea and saw palmetto. Coats seeks compensatory and punitive damages, among other relief, claiming that the amount at issue exceeds $5 million. The complaint asserts claims against Wal-Mart of unfair and deceptive practices, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fraudulent concealment. The action follows two other recent suits targeting Wal-Mart and GNC in Florida and Ohio. In a suit filed in the Southern District of Florida, lead plaintiff Kelly Reyes said that GNC's Herbal Plus products that claim to contain gingko biloba, St. John's wort, ginseng and echinacea do not have any of the herbs in them. In a second suit filed in the Northern District of Ohio, lead plaintiff Dave Mager targeted GNC, Wal-Mart and nutritional supplement maker and distributor NBTY Inc. for selling mislabeled herbal supplements, including the GNC Herbal Plus line and Wal- Mart's Spring Valley. Those suits were the latest in a slew of complaints filed against Wal-Mart, Target, Walgreen and GNC days after Mr. Schneiderman announced his investigation. Mr. Schneiderman released information about the state's investigation on Feb. 3, providing the basis for the allegations in the plaintiffs' complaints. DNA testing was performed on at least three samples of each of the six herbal supplements that were tested, the attorney general said. Overall, only 21 percent of the herbal supplements New York regulators tested contained DNA from the plants listed on the products' label. Wal-Mart's line of supplements performed the worst, Mr. Schneiderman said, with only 4 percent of the retailer's products tested showing DNA from plants listed on the product labeling. Some of the herbal supplements contained rice, beans, wheat, citrus and other materials that regulators said is meant to act like filler in place of the actual active ingredient. Mr. Schneiderman is now investigating the retailers for possible violations of New York's business code, including deceptive business practices and deceptive advertising. Mr. Coats is represented by Wilfred K. Wright Jr. of Wright Law PLC and Allan Kanner -- a.kanner@kanner-law.com -- and Conlee Whiteley of Kanner & Whiteley LLC. Counsel information for Wal-Mart was unavailable. The case is Coats v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., case number 4:15-cv- 00096, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. WARNER MUSIC: Reply Date Not Set in Digital Music Downloads Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's reply date has not yet been set in the class action lawsuits related to the pricing of digital music downloads. On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of the State of New York served the Company with requests for information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served us with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music. Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble damages. On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing the case as to all defendants, including us. However, on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for Certiorari. Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and federal claims remain for the class of internet download purchasers. Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated amended complaint on August 31, 2011. Pursuant to the terms of an August 15, 2011 stipulation and order, the case is currently in discovery. Disputes regarding the scope of discovery are ongoing. Plaintiffs filed a Class Certification brief on March 14, 2014. The Company's reply date has not yet been set. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of the merits of the claims, this and any related litigation could continue to be costly, and divert the time and resources of management. The potential outcomes of these claims that are reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot presently be made. WARNER MUSIC: Deal in Music Download Suit Now Effective ------------------------------------------------------- Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in the music download putative class action suits was slated to become effective on February 25, 2015, after a 30-day appeals period. Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company in Federal Court in the Northern District of California between February 2, 2012 and March 10, 2012. The lawsuits, which were brought by various recording artists, all allege that the Company has improperly calculated the royalties due to them for certain digital music sales under the terms of their recording contracts. The named plaintiffs purport to raise these claims on their own behalf and, as a putative class action, on behalf of other similarly situated artists. Plaintiffs base their claims on a previous ruling that held another recorded music company had breached the specific recording contracts at issue in that case through its payment of royalties for music downloads and ringtones. "In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording artists have initiated suits seeking similar relief against all of the major record companies, including us. Plaintiffs seek to have the interpretation of the contracts in that prior case applied to their different and separate contracts," the Company said. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing similar motions in the remaining suits, on the various applicable response dates. Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs' counsel moved to be appointed as interim lead counsel, and other plaintiffs' counsel moved to consolidate the various actions. In a June 1, 2012 order, the court consolidated the cases and appointed interim co-lead class counsel. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated, master complaint on August 21, 2012. On December 31, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On January 23, 2014, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. As part of the settlement, the Company will make available $11.5 million (less attorneys' fees, costs, and costs of claims administration and class notice) to compensate class members for past sales of downloads and ringtones. Class members had until May 31, 2014 to file claims, opt-out or object to the Class Action Settlement. No class members made perfected objections to the settlement. Plaintiffs filed their motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement on November 26, 2014. On January 12, 2015, the Judge granted final approval of the settlement. The settlement will become effective on February 25, 2015, after a 30-day appeals period. The Company has recorded what it believes is an appropriate reserve related to these cases, which amount is not material. WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Faces "Doppelt" Class Action ------------------------------------------------- A purported stockholder of Windstream Holdings, Inc. ("Windstream") filed on February 9, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10629-VCN. Plaintiff alleges that Windstream's Board of Directors (the "Board") breached their fiduciary duties by causing Windstream to issue a proxy statement that allegedly omitted material information in connection with a special meeting of stockholders scheduled to be held on February 20, 2015 to vote on certain amendments to Windstream Corporation's charter and to approve a 1 for 6 reverse stock split (the "Special Meeting"), Windstream said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Special Meeting until additional public disclosures are made. Windstream and the Board believe the lawsuit is without merit and plan to vigorously defend against the claims made in the lawsuit. A hearing was scheduled for February 19, 2015. ********* 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 * * *