/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150319.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 19, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 56 Headlines ADECCO USA: May 7 Opt-Out Deadline in Class Action Settlement ADOBE SYSTEMS: July 8 Hearing in Antitrust Suit Settlement Set AJE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces "Gray" Suit Over Lenses Resale Price ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Lenses Resale Price AMERICAN REALTY: Sued by Twin Securities for Issuing False Report ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hummel" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mason" in D. Me. Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Pratt" Suit in Nevada Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces Class Action in Connecticut Over Data Breach ATLANTIC COAST: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime BANK OF AMERICA: Appellate Court Affirms Settlement Agreement BIRCHBOX INC: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Policies BP PLC: Plaintiffs Get Partial OK to Amend Securities Suit CABELA'S INC: No Remaining Liability for Visa Case Settlement COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Judge Awards $3.3MM in Heated Jackets Suit COMCAST CORP: Court Stays Grear Class Action Pending Arbitration COMMERCEWEST BANK: Settles Consumer Fraud Case for $4.9 Million CORPORATE RESOURCE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Reached Settlement in Canadian Actions CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Facing 2 Class Actions on Spansion Merger DEAN FOODS: No Schedule Yet in Tennessee Retailer Class Action DEAN FOODS: Parties in Indirect Purchaser Action to Defer Case DIGITAL TURBINE: Says Suit Against Coral Tell "Without Merit" DOW CHEMICAL: To File Supreme Court Appeal in Urethane Case DOW CHEMICAL: Quebec Case Stayed Pending Ontario Suit Outcome DR LENNART: Plaintiffs in Blackfeather Directed to Cure Defects DUN & BRADSTREET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cates" Suit Says ECOTALITY INC: June 26 Final Hearing on Securities Settlement EFT HOLDINGS: Second Amended Complaint Filed in "Li" Action EFT HOLDINGS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Li v. Qin EPL OIL: Del. Chancery Court Dismissed Class Action Lawsuit ESPERANZA FOOD: "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FIRSTENERGY CORP: Still Facing Class Action Over Air Emissions FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs in Truck Sales Action File Appeal GEO GROUP: Workers Seek to Recover Overtime and Minimum Wages GNC HOLDINGS: Parties Reached Settlement of Hydroxycut Claims GNC HOLDINGS: Final Hearing Held in DMAA/Aegeline Claims Deal GNC HOLDINGS: California Wage and Break Suit Dismissed GNC HOLDINGS: Court Granted Motion to Decertify FLSA Class GNC HOLDINGS: Court Granted Motion to Certify in "Naranjo" Case GNC HOLDINGS: No Approval Yet on Vargas and Hickok Case Accord GNC HOLDINGS: Trial Postponed in "Olive" Case GOLD STAR: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GOOGLE INC: Faces Suit in Calif. for Not Paying Overtime Wages HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Class Cert. Bid in "McCormick" Case Denied HARRY & DAVID: Faces "Lemmon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HESS CORPORATION: Suit Over Zip Code Requirement Policy HMSHOST CORP: FLSA Plaintiffs Can't Appeal Decertification Order HULU LLC: Court May Dismiss Class Suit Over Online Video Privacy HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Appeal IMS HEALTH: To Defend Against Suit in Korea INTEL CORP: May 29 Hearing on New Class Certification Motion INTEL CORP: March 2015 Hearing on Preliminary Approval Motion INTEL CORP: Filed Opposition to Plaintiff Appeal in McAfee Case JANSSEN PHARMA: Marketing Executive Grilled at Risperdal Trial JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Issues $5.7MM Verdict in Pelvic Mesh Suit KISSIMMEE UTILITY: 11th Cir. Upholds "Ferentinos" Case Dismissal KROGER CO: Judge Approves Settlements in Listeria Outbreak Suits LENNOX INT'L: Defendant in Class Action on Evaporator Coils LIEN ENFORCEMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims LIFE TIME: July 30 Final Hearing Set in TCPA Suit Settlement LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Caiola" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Tyrrell" Suit Over Toxic Flooring MAC LIQUORS: Faces "David" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Case Remains Stayed MASIMO CORP: Further Amended Complaint Filed in Surfactant Trial MATSON INC: Settlement Reached in Horizon Lines Merger Action MCNEIL CONSUMER: Pleads Guilty Over Metal Particles in Tylenol MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST: Okla. Court Vacates Order in "Cellino" Case NASDAQ OMX: Appeal in Facebook Litigation Still Pending NASDAQ OMX: Filed Motion to Dismiss in Barclays Litigation NASDAQ OMX: No Ruling Yet on Bids to Dismiss "Lainer" Suits NATIONAL PREARRANGED: Jury Awards $491MM Damages in Funerals Case NEXTEL: Class Certification in Discrimination Suit Reversed NEW YORK, NY: To Remain a Defendant in Firefighter Suit OMNIVISION TECH: June 5 Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal OVATION LENDING: Order Denying Dismissal Bid Certified for Appeal PORTLAND GENERAL: Customers' Class Actions Remain Pending POULSEN PIZZA: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RANGER CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Piceno" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT REGIONS FINANCIAL: Awaiting Approval of Class Action Settlement REGIONS FINANCIAL: Seeks Appellate Review on Class Certification SANTANDER CONSUMER: To Pay $9.4MM for Illegally Repossessing Cars SERVICE CORP: Subsidiary Faces "Samborsky" Class Action SERVICE CORP: "Moulton" Action to Proceed v. Stewart Enterprises SEWERAGE & WATER: Summary Judgment Bid in Crutchfield Case Denied SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES: Mag. Judge Findings Adopted in "Makaneole" TARGA RESOURCES: Class Action Parties Working on Settlement Docs TARGA RESOURCES: Parties to Atlas Lawsuits Agreed to Settle TCP INTERNATIONAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports TRINIDAD DRILLING: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT UBER TECH: Jury Must Decide Misclassification Suits, Judges Say UBER TECH: NFBC Has Standing to Pursue Discrimination Suit UNION PACIFIC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Railroad Conspiracy Case USG CORP: Settled Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation VENTAS INC: Parties to HCT Action Entered Into MOU VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Opposed Motion to Dismiss WALGREEN CO: Falsely Marketed Food Products, "Tsang" Suit Claims WASTE MANAGEMENT: To Seek Initial Approval of Florida Case Deal WELLS FARGO: Counsel in Sales Practice Case to file Memorandum WEST BUSINESS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages WEST PUBLISHING: McGuireWoods Back to Court Over Legal Fees WHEELS AMERICA: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime YUM! BRANDS: Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit Appeal to 6th Cir. YUM! BRANDS: Hearing Held on Taco Bell's Motion to Dismiss YUM! BRANDS: Discovery to Continue in "Rodriguez" v. Taco Bell YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut" Agreed to Deal ZILLOW INC: Plaintiffs' Brief Due in Securities Case Appeal ZILLOW INC: Class Action Parties Conduct Confirmatory Discovery * Women Workers' Compensation Claims Reduced Due Gender Reasons ********* ADECCO USA: May 7 Opt-Out Deadline in Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Troy L. Nunley signed on March 10, 2015, a stipulation and order regarding hearing on plaintiffs' motions for final approval class action settlement and for attorney fees and cost in the case captioned KEN MILLER, JEREMIE TODD, and CHRISTOPHER FRANKLIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADECCO USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-01321-TLN- CKD, (E.D. Cal.). The stipulation provides that: * March 16, 2015 is the deadline for Defendants to provide the claims administrator with class members' contact information. * March 23, 2015 is the deadline for the claims administrator to mail class notice and claim form. * May 7, 2015 is the deadline for class members to file objections, opt-out or submit claim forms. * May 21, 2015 is the date for filing of Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney Fees and Cost. * June 18, 2015 is the hearing date on the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney Fees and Cost. The Notice of Class Action Settlement is approved as to form and content. A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at http://is.gd/UKMIN8from Leagle.com. R. DUANE WESTRUP, PHILLIP R. POLINER -- ppoliner@westtrupassociates.com -- CAT N. BULAON -- cbulaon@westtrupassociates.com -- WESTRUP & ASSOCIATES, Long Beach, California Attorneys for Plaintiffs KEN MILLER, JEREMIE TODD AND CHRISTOPHER FRANKL. Fraser A. McAlpine -- Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C., Attorneys for Defendant CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC. Charles F. Barker -- cbarker@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, Attorneys for Defendant ADECCO USA, INC. ADOBE SYSTEMS: July 8 Hearing in Antitrust Suit Settlement Set -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement with defendants Adobe Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Intel Corporation in IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, CASE NO. 11-CV-02509-LHK, (N.D. Cal.). According to Judge Koh, the consideration -- a total of $415 million -- is substantial, particularly in light of the risk that the jury could find no liability or award no damages. When combined with the $20 million received from Plaintiffs' previous settlements with Defendants Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Intuit, the result for the Class in this litigation will total $435 million. The Settlement's Plan of Allocation provides a neutral and fair way to compensate Class members based on their salary and alleged injury. The proposed Settlement includes a class definition identical to the Class defined as all natural persons who work in the technical, creative, and/or research and development fields that were employed on a salaried basis in the United States by one or more of the following: (a) Apple from March 2005 through December 2009; (b) Adobe from May 2005 through December 2009; (c) Google from March 2005 through December 2009; (d) Intel from March 2005 through December 2009; (e) Intuit from June 2007 through December 2009; (f) Lucasfilm from January 2005 through December 2009; or (g) Pixar from January 2005 through December 2009 (the "Class Period"). Excluded from the Class are: retail employees, corporate officers, members of the boards of directors, and senior executives of all Defendants. Class Members have until May 21, 2015, to opt out of the Class. The Court found that notice to the Class is appropriate and that the Plan of Allocation is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate such that it is preliminarily approved, subject to further consideration at the final hearing. The appointed Gilardi & Co., LLC, as administrator. Class Counsel and counsel for Plaintiff Michael Devine must file their respective motions for payment of attorneys' fees, costs, and for Plaintiff Service Awards, no later than May 7, 2015. A final hearing on the Settlement Agreement will be held before the Court at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 9, 2015, in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, of the Northern District of California, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113. Objections, along with any statements of intent to appear, must be postmarked no later than May 21, 2015, and mailed to the addresses provided by the Notice Administrator in the Notice. Upon entry of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, all Class Members who have not personally and timely requested to be excluded from the Class will be enjoined from proceeding against Adobe, Apple, Google, and Intel and all other Released Parties with respect to all of the Released Claims, consistent with the Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Court's March 3, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/UYL4Atfrom Leagle.com. AJE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Sonia Diaz v. Aje Management Corp., El Viejo Jobo Restaurant, Inc., Ariel Espinal and Juan Arias, Case No. 1:15-cv-01602 (S.D.N.Y., 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 restaurant located at 231 Sherman Avenue, New York, NY 10034. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. Lawrence Office Park Building 2, Suite 220 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces "Gray" Suit Over Lenses Resale Price -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy L. Gray and Danyelle D. Westphal, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Cooper Vision, Inc., and Abb Optical Group, Case No. 2:15-cv-02642 (D. Kan., March 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those products. The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the business of making eye care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas V. Bender, Esq. Dirk Hubbard, Esq. Brooke Blake Edenfield, Esq. WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN &VAUGHAN, P.C. 2500 City Center Square, 1100 Main Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 421-6620 Facsimile: (816) 421-4747 E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com - and - Mark P. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LAW CENTER, P.S.C. P.O. Box 1876, 601 Washington Street Paducah, KY 42003 Telephone: (270) 442-1422 Facsimile: (270) 443-8788 E-mail: mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Lenses Resale Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Miller, Caitlin O'neill and Tyler Brandafino, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Cooper Vision, Inc., and ABB Optical Group, Case No. 3:15- cv-01028 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and internet- based retailers that prevent them from discounting those products. The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the business of making eye care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Burke, Esq. John T. Jasnoch, Esq. Jennifer J. Scott, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 707 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com jjasnoch@scott-scott.com jscott@scott-scott.com AMERICAN REALTY: Sued by Twin Securities for Issuing False Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Twin Securities is the lead plaintiff in the latest federal class action accusing directors of American Realty Capital Properties of causing securities to plummet by issuing misleading statements. ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hummel" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- F. Matthew Hummel and Marissa Nasca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01027 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. Noah M. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111-4018 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com - and - Andy Katz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDY KATZ 2150 Allston Way Ste 400 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 985-9050 Facsimile: (510) 900-6070 E-mail: andykatzlaw@gmail.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mason" in D. Me. Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Mason, and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00086 (D. Me., March 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin K. Grant, Esq. MCTEAGUE, HIGBEE, CASE, COHEN, WHITNEY & TOKER, P.A 4 Union Park, P.O. Box 5000 Topsham, ME 04086 Telephone: (800) 210-8740 Facsimile: (207) 725-1090 E-mail: bgrant@mcteaguehigbee.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Pratt" Suit in Nevada Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bobby Pratt, Renee Nelson Pratt, and Jeri Hadel, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00401 (D. Nev., March 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Hamilton, Esq. Marc C. Naron, Esq. HAMILTON LAW 5125 S. Durango Dr., Ste. C Las Vegas, NV 89113 Telephone: (702) 818-1818 Facsimile: (702) 974-1139 E-mail: ryan@hamlegal.com mnaron@hamlegal.com ANTHEM INC: Faces Class Action in Connecticut Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Stapleton, writing for Law.com, reports that in her complaint filed Feb. 20, former Anthem customer Wilma J. Peterman alleges negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act. Although similar would-be class action suits related to the data breach have been filed in Alabama, California, Georgia and Indiana, Peterman's claim is the first to be filed in Connecticut. She asks U.S. District Judge Victor Bolden in New Haven to certify class action status. According to the lawsuit, an unknown number of affected Anthem customers have collective claims exceeding $5 million. An Anthem spokeswoman has said in published reports that the company does not comment on pending litigation. The Milford law firm Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff is representing Peterman. One of the lawyers named in the complaint, David Slossberg, said he had not yet made a decision on whether he wanted to provide comment for this article. Anthem disclosed a data breach on Feb. 4, saying 80 million customer records -- including names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers (SSN) -- were accessed by cyberthieves who hacked into their computer system. The information available to the hackers, including "personally identifiable information, or PII," and "personal health information, or PHI," would allow hackers to set up fraudulent financial accounts or tax returns in a customer's name in order to claim a fraudulent refund, the lawsuit suit says. "Anthem should have at least encrypted customers' and employees' sensitive information, rendering such information less useful or even non-identifiable to cyberthieves," the lawsuit says. "Yet Anthem did not even take that step. It stored its customers and employees most sensitive information, including SSNs, and income information in plain text, readily identifiable and usable by anyone." The company has offered two years of credit monitoring services to any impacted customers. Ms. Peterman -- who purchased credit insurance after the breach was announced -- claims those services would provide inadequate protection. Laying Low The hack creates a much greater concern for Anthem customers than other recent breaches, in which debit and credit card information was stolen. In those cases, consumers can simply cancel their cards. In this case, the personal information would allow hackers to obtain new cards using the personal information stolen, extending the at-risk period for consumers, the complaint says. Criminals will be able to borrow money or obtain credit which will not be detected "until it's too late," the lawsuit states. "Hackers tend to lay low when data breaches are exposed," the suit continues. "They often wait until consumers are less likely to be on the lookout for fraudulent activities." Despite the increasing instances of large cyberattacks affecting millions of people, lawsuits filed over the breaches have struggled right out of the starting gate -- often dismissed because the plaintiffs couldn't show that they were actually injured by the hack. That hasn't stopped the lawsuits from pouring in, particularly as the breaches have gotten bigger . The data breach against Anthem Inc., for example, has already fueled more than 40 class actions. The Peterman lawsuit claims Anthem violated CUTPA by not disclosing to customers "that it did not have reasonable best practices, safeguards and data security in place." Like several other cases, Peterman's lawsuit asserts that Anthem failed to comply with the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, because it had inadequate policies and procedures in place to prevent unauthorized disclosures of medical information. In defending previously filed lawsuits, Anthem has insisted that medical records weren't taken and they offered free credit- monitoring and identity-theft repair for two years to repair any damage. Anthem has not yet responded in court. Court papers indicated it has hired Craig Hoover, head of the global class action group at Hogan Lovells in Washington, to defend some of the lawsuits that have been filed. ATLANTIC COAST: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Rivera, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Atlantic Coast Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Ace Lube Centers, LLC, a/k/a Jiffy Lube Service Center #2603, and Alex Damas, Case No. 9:15-cv-80288 (S.D. Fla., March 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Atlantic Coast Enterprises, LLC provides oil change and related services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Scott Dwoskin, sq. 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 BANK OF AMERICA: Appellate Court Affirms Settlement Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Bedell, writing for Law.com, reports that The Appellate Division, First Department, delivered a resounding victory on March 5 to institutional investors who backed an $8.5 billion settlement of claims against Bank of America stemming from the 2008 mortgage crisis. The appeals court modified a lower court ruling which had approved the settlement in large part but had disallowed a release of some claims against Bank of America. The panel allowed the bank to be released from those claims and then affirmed the modified settlement agreement in The Bank of New York Mellon v. Retirement Board, 651786/11. Justice David Saxe, writing for the unanimous panel, faulted then- Supreme Court Justice Barbara Kapnick's January 2014 holding that Bank of New York Mellon as trustee charged with representing investor interests in the pooled mortgage trusts, had abused its discretion in waiving certain claims based on its lead counsel's advice. A group of dissident investors, initially led by insurance giant AIG, had challenged the settlement, arguing the claims were worth between $30 billion and $50 billion. The objectors alleged Mellon had placed its own interests above those of the investors by focusing on its own liability exposure. In a rarely utilized proceeding under CPLR Article 77, the parties sought resolution of the conflict in Manhattan's Commercial Division. Justice Kapnick, now a First Department justice, held a nine-week bench trial in 2013 and then approved most of the settlement. But she ruled that Mellon had improperly relied on the advice of lead counsel, Jason Kravitt -- jkravitt@mayerbrown.com -- a partner at Mayer Brown, who had argued that the investors should not attempt to force Bank of America to buy back mortgages that it had modified in an effort to mitigate further losses. Bank of America inherited the liabilities when it bought Countrywide in July 2008, as it was spiraling into insolvency. The investors claimed that Countrywide had misled them by failing to disclose the risks of mortgage default. The Mayer Brown securitization group, led by Mr. Kravitt, pioneered the legal structures used by the residential mortgage backed securities industry, and had represented banks that issued investment certificates backed by the loan pools, thus creating a conflict of interest, the dissidents asserted. Justice Saxe said Mr. Kapnick had correctly rejected those arguments because "the nature of the asserted conflict was disclosed and waived, and had no impact on the propriety of the advice on which the trustee relied." But Mr. Kapnick also should have credited Justice Kravitt's judgment with respect to the decision not to pursue the repurchase demand on Bank of America, the opinion said. Mellon had "reasonably embraced a negotiating strategy that did not specifically seek recovery for the claimed failure to repurchase modified loans," he added. Justice Kravitt had argued that the documentation under which the mortgage loans had been sold to the trusts did not unequivocally support a buyback obligation. And because government policy in the wake of the financial meltdown favored stemming mortgage defaults, Kravitt argued Bank of America would have a viable defense. Mr. Kapnick had faulted Justice Kravitt for not hiring an independent legal expert to assess the viability of demanding Bank of America repurchase the modified loans. But Saxe, who was joined by Justices David Friedman, Rolando Acosta, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, and Judith Gische, said that decision was within the trustee's discretion. By rejecting Mellon's decision to waive the claims, Mr. Kapnick had "disregarded the standard of deference due to a trustee's exercise of discretionary judgment," and was "improperly imposing a stricter and far less deferential standard, one that allows a court to micromanage and second guess the reasoned, and reasonable, decisions of a trustee," Saxe held. The objecting investors had failed to make a showing that, "based on the particular circumstances, the reliance on such counsel's assessment was unreasonable and in bad faith." The settlement resolves claims by investors who put $424 billion into the trust interests sold by Countrywide and backed by 1.6 million residential mortgages it had originated in the years before the 2008 financial crisis. The institutional investors favoring the June 2011 settlement represented holders of 24 percent of the total amount invested in the 530 trusts. AIG settled its claims separately with Bank of America while the appeal was sub judice, garnering an additional $650 million, or 7.5 percent, over what it will get in the global settlement. BIRCHBOX INC: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Birchbox, Inc., a New York Corporation, Case No. 3:15- cv-00498 (S.D. Cal., March 4, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful practice of making automatic renewal or continuous service offers to consumers in and throughout California and at the time of making the automatic renewal or continuous service offers, failed to present the automatic renewal offer terms, or continuous service offer terms, in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled. Birchbox, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 28 E. 28th Street, New York, New York, 10016, which sells samples of make-up and personal care products on a monthly subscription basis to consumers throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd A. Seaver, Esq. Victor S. Elias, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com velias@bermandevalerio.com - and - Julian Hammond, Esq. HAMMOND LAW, PC 1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com BP PLC: Plaintiffs Get Partial OK to Amend Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the derivative/putative class action in IN RE: BP p.l.c. SECURITIES LITIGATION. IN RE: BP p.l.c. ERISA LITIGATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10-CV-4214, MDL NO. 10-MD-2185, (S.D. Tex.) seek leave to amend their complaint, brought pursuant to the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). They allege that certain corporate entities and individuals associated with the BP Group violated their fiduciary duties to the participants of four employee benefits plans offered before and after the disastrous Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20, 2010. According to District Judge Keith P. Ellison amended memorandum and order dated March 4, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/8Xkafqfrom Leagle.com, "the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint insofar as it requests leave to amend Count II, denominated as the "disclosure claims" against all Defendants. In light of Fifth Circuit case law, amendment of Count II would be futile. As to Counts I and III -- denominated as the "prudence claims" and "monitoring claims," respectively -- Plaintiffs' Motion is granted in part." Plaintiffs have 28 days to file an amended complaint in accordance with the memorandum and order. Defendants may then move to dismiss the amended complaint within the time allotted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, but may not raise any arguments addressed and resolved in the course of this order, Judge Ellison added. CABELA'S INC: No Remaining Liability for Visa Case Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Cabela's Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that at December 27, 2014, there was no remaining liability for the Visa Litigation Settlement. In June 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a class of retail merchants, sued Visa and several member banks, and other credit card associations, alleging, among other things, that Visa and its member banks have violated United States antitrust laws by conspiring to fix the level of interchange fees. On July 13, 2012, the parties to this litigation announced that they had entered into a memorandum of understanding, which subject to certain conditions, including court approval, obligated the parties to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve the claims brought by the class members. On December 13, 2013, the settlement received final court approval. The settlement agreement required, among other things, (i) the distribution to class merchants of an amount equal to 10 basis points of default interchange across all credit rate categories for a period of eight consecutive months, which otherwise would have been paid to issuers like Cabella's wholly- owned bank subsidiary, World's Foremost Bank, (ii) Visa to change its rules to allow merchants to charge a surcharge on credit card transactions subject to a cap, and (iii) Visa to meet with merchant buying groups that seek to negotiate interchange rates collectively. To date, WFB has not been named as a defendant in any credit card industry lawsuits. Based on the information in the proposed settlement, management determined that the 10 basis point reduction of default interchange across all credit rate categories for the period of eight consecutive months from July 29, 2013, through March 28, 2014, would result in a reduction of interchange income of approximately $12,500 in the Financial Services segment. Therefore, a liability of $12,500 was recorded as of December 29, 2012, to accrue for this settlement. At December 28, 2013, the remaining liability related to the settlement was $4,687, reflecting the reduction of 10 basis points of interchange fees, adjustments relating to plaintiff opt-outs of the settlement, and reevaluation of the merchant charge volume based on Visa interchange reduction assessments. The remaining liability was settled in the first half of 2014; therefore, at December 27, 2014, there was no remaining liability for this settlement. COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Judge Awards $3.3MM in Heated Jackets Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a federal judge awarded Columbia Sportswear $3.3 million in its lawsuit against a company that allegedly supplied faulty components for Columbia's electrically heated jackets. Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued the default judgment against Fibretronic Limited. The Hong Kong-based company filed no court documents and did nothing to challenge Columbia over the lawsuit filed in September 2013. Columbia had sought $9.4 million in damages. The lawsuit said Fibretronics' heating components -- placed in the wrist cuffs -- included wires that were improperly aligned and created an electrical short. "The short created a hot spot that melted fabric in the jacket," according to the complaint filed by Columbia. There were no reports of injuries from overheated cuffs, but Columbia and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued product recalls related to the jackets. In January 2013, the company announced it did not plan to offer new electrically heated products for the 2013-14 winter season. A company spokesperson told The Oregonian newspaper that Columbia has suspended its electronics program. The spokesperson declined to comment about the prospects of collecting the court award. Columbia introduced its Omni-Heat Electric technology in apparel in 2011. The battery-powered, push-button heat in apparel was introduced after similar technology was offered in Columbia boots and gloves. A court document Columbia filed in the case said the company ended up with about 6,400 electrically heated jackets in its inventory, nearly all of them stored at its Port of Portland warehouse. The company secured an order allowing it to destroy all but 70 jackets -- 10 each of seven defective models -- for future use if needed in court proceedings. COMCAST CORP: Court Stays Grear Class Action Pending Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered the parties in TOYER GREAR and JOCELYN HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMCAST CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant, NO. C 14-05333 JSW, (N.D. Cal.) to arbitrate, and stayed the action pending completion of the arbitration. Plaintiffs are Comcast customers who "access the Internet in their household via the wireless router leased from Comcast as part of its Xfinity Wi-Fi Service." Harris signed the contract with Comcast. Although Grear did not sign the contract, she pays the household utility bills, including the Comcast bill. According to Plaintiffs, Comcast has begun to lease wireless routers to its customers, including Plaintiffs, that are equipped to provide its customers with a Wi-Fi signal for their homes. These new routers also include an additional signal that can be accessed by the public. Each of Plaintiffs' claims for relief are premised on the theory that Comcast did not obtain their authorization to use their wireless router to broadcast these additional "hotspots" to the public. Comcast filed the motion to compel arbitration. In his March 3, 2015 order granting arbitration, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/iwssxWfrom Leagle.com, Judge White wrote that "it is undisputed that the contract with Comcast includes a residential services agreement (the "RSA"), which contains an arbitration provision (the "Arbitration Provision"). Although Comcast permits its customers to opt-out of the Arbitration Provision, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs have not opted out." The Court vacated the hearing scheduled for March 13, 2015, and ordered the parties to file joint status reports every 120 days in which they advise the Court of the status of the arbitration proceedings and when they expect that the stay may be lifted or the case may be dismissed. The parties' first joint status report is due 120 days from the date of the Order. Toyer Grear, Plaintiff, represented by Gillian Leigh Wade -- gwade@milsteinadelman.com -- Milstein Adelman, LLP, Brian Tse-Hua Ku -- brian@kumussman.com -- Ku and Mussman, P.A., Joseph Henry Bates, III -- hbates@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Louis I Mussman -- louis@kumussman.com -- Ku and Mussman, P.A., Michael Ryan Casey -- ryan@kumussman.com -- Ku and Mussman, P.A. & Sara Dawn Avila -- savila@milsteinadelman -- Milstein Adelman, LLP. Joycelyn Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Gillian Leigh Wade, Milstein Adelman, LLP, Brian Tse-Hua Ku, Ku and Mussman, P.A., Joseph Henry Bates, III, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Louis I Mussman, Ku and Mussman, P.A., Michael Ryan Casey, Ku and Mussman, P.A. & Sara Dawn Avila, Milstein Adelman, LLP. Comcast Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael James Stortz -- Michael.Stortz@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Michael W. McTigue, Jr. -- Michael.McTigue@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Seamus Cotter Duffy -- Seamus.Duffy@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Tracy Schloss Combs -- Tracy.Combs@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP. COMMERCEWEST BANK: Settles Consumer Fraud Case for $4.9 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that CommerceWest Bank has agreed to a $4.9 million federal settlement of a consumer fraud case involving unauthorized withdrawals from customer accounts. With the agreement, the bank will avoid criminal prosecution in the case. The Justice Department on March 10 announced the deal with CommerceWest, a small bank with operations in Southern California. The settlement resolves a criminal charge and a civil lawsuit against the bank. Under terms of the agreement, CommerceWest, based in Irvine, California, admitted that it failed to report to the government suspicious activity in its accounts by payment processor V Internet Corp. The bank won't be prosecuted on condition it gives up its claim to about $2.9 million seized by law enforcement authorities from the CommerceWest accounts of V Internet. In addition, CommerceWest will pay a $1 million civil penalty and will forfeit $1 million to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service's consumer fraud fund. The Justice Department said CommerceWest enabled fraud by allowing V Internet, on behalf of fraudulent merchants, to make millions of dollars of unauthorized withdrawals from customer accounts. The merchants included a telemarketing company and a company that charged customers for a payday loan referral fee they didn't authorize, according to the government. The Justice Department alleged that CommerceWest ignored clear warning signs that V Internet and the merchants were defrauding bank customers as the scheme ran from December 2011 through July 2013. "We will hold financial institutions accountable when they choose unlawfully to look the other way while fraudsters use the bank's accounts to steal millions of dollars from American consumers," Benjamin Mizer, an acting assistant attorney general in the department's civil division, said in a statement. CommerceWest's chairman and CEO, Ivo Tjan, said in a statement the bank is pleased that the investigation is over. The bank said it doesn't believe that any employee "knowingly assisted with or willfully ignored signs of fraud" allegedly committed by V Internet. CommerceWest said it has improved its compliance program for reporting suspicious activity to the authorities, and that three compliance officers are no longer employed at the bank. CORPORATE RESOURCE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------- Janez Demsar, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Corporate Resource Services, Inc., John P. Messina, Sr., Michael J. Golde, Joseph Cassera, Robert Cassera, James Altucher, James Foley, Karen Amato, Thomas J. Clarke, Jr., Larry Melby, and Sylvan Holzer, Case No. 1:15-cv- 01632 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Corporate Resource Services, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in New York, New York, which provides diversified technology, staffing, recruiting, and consulting services in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis Paul McConville, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Reached Settlement in Canadian Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Cypress Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that the Company has reached a settlement in the pending class action claims in three Canadian provinces relating to the original SRAM class action case that was resolved in the United States in 2010. "As with the case in the United States, we are confident that we have not engaged in any antitrust activity, however given that we are the last remaining defendant and the cost of continued litigation would far exceed the cost of a nominal settlement, we have agreed to settle the case," the Company said. CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Facing 2 Class Actions on Spansion Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cypress Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that after the Company's announcement of the merger with Spansion in December 2014, two separate putative class action complaints were filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty against the Spansion board of directors and naming Cypress as a defendant for aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek to injunctive relief and unspecified damages. "We believe these actions are meritless and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. The possible range of monetary loss that might occur in the future in this matter, if any, is unknown at this time," the Company said. DEAN FOODS: No Schedule Yet in Tennessee Retailer Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Foods Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the trial court has not yet issued a schedule for further proceedings in the Tennessee Retailer class action. A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer action") was filed on August 9, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that the Company, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry who are also defendants in the retailer action, lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the defendants' conduct also artificially inflated wholesale prices for direct milk purchasers. Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was granted in part and denied in part in August 2010. Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, and renewed their request for summary judgment in September 2010. In March 2012, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all remaining counts and entered judgment in favor of all defendants, including the Company. Plaintiffs appealed the court's decision in April 2012. In January 2014, the appeals court reversed the judgment for the defendants, including the Company, on one of the original five counts in the Tennessee retailer action. In February 2014, the Company requested that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consider its decision en banc; the Sixth Circuit declined to do so. The Sixth Circuit returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Company filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the case on August 1, 2014. The Supreme Court denied the petition on November 17, 2014. The trial court has not yet issued a schedule for further proceedings. DEAN FOODS: Parties in Indirect Purchaser Action to Defer Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Foods Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the indirect purchaser class action have jointly proposed that further proceedings in this case be deferred until after the Court rules on additional summary judgment and class certification issues in the Tennessee retailer action. On June 29, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "indirect purchaser action"). The allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve state law claims. Because the allegations in the indirect purchaser action substantially overlap with the allegations in the retailer action, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the outcome of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action. On August 16, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit. On January 17, 2013, these same plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "2013 indirect purchaser action"). The allegations are similar to those in the voluntarily dismissed indirect purchaser action, but involve only claims arising under Tennessee law. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2013. On June 14, 2013, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs responded to the Company's motion to dismiss and filed an amended complaint. On July 1, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 11, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the non-Tennessee plaintiffs' claims. The Company filed its answer to the surviving claims on October 15, 2014. The parties have jointly proposed that further proceedings in this case be deferred until after the Court rules on additional summary judgment and class certification issues in the Tennessee retailer action. DIGITAL TURBINE: Says Suit Against Coral Tell "Without Merit" ------------------------------------------------------------- Digital Turbine, Inc. 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 lawsuit filed against Coral Tell Ltd., is without merits and a finding of liability on Digital Turbine's part remote. On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the amount of NIS 19.2 million or $5.3 million was filed in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa District Court against Coral Tell Ltd., an Israeli company which owns and operates a website offering advertisements and Coral Tell Ltd is currently being sued in a class action lawsuit regarding phone call overages and has served a third party notice against Logia and two additional companies for Digital Turbine's alleged involvement in facilitating the overages. The suit relates to a service offered by the Coral Tell website, enabling advertisers to display a virtual cellular number in the advertisement instead of their real cellular number. The plaintiff claims that calls were charged for the connection time between two segments of the call, instead of the second segment alone; that the caller was charged even if the advertiser did not answer the call (as the charge began upon initiation of the first segment); and that the caller was charged for text messages sent to the advertiser, although the service did not support delivery of text messages. "We have no contractual relationship with this company. We believe the lawsuit is without merits and a finding of liability on our part remote. After conferring with advisors and counsel, management believes that the ultimate liability, if any, in the aggregate will not be material to the financial position or results or operations of the Company for any future period; and no liability has been accrued," the Company said. On November 25, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the parties to submit their position as to whether the defendant (applicant) has a right to appeal the Israeli District's Court decision or must request the Israeli Supreme Court to grant a right to appeal. On December 25, 2013, after reviewing the parties' positions, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the respondents (Cellcom, Logia, Ethrix) to submit their response to defendant's petition to grant the right to appeal, by January 26th, 2014. Appellant responded thereafter and the appeal is now under review and pending judgment. Usually, in petitions such as this the Israeli Supreme Court makes a judgment based on the parties' written responses. DOW CHEMICAL: To File Supreme Court Appeal in Urethane Case ----------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical 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 will file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2015, seeking judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court and requesting that the Supreme Court ultimately correct fundamental errors in the Circuit Court opinion related to the urethane class action. On February 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") as part of a previously announced antitrust investigation of manufacturers of polyurethane chemicals, including methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, toluene diisocyanate, polyether polyols and system house products. The Company cooperated with the DOJ and, following an extensive investigation, on December 10, 2007, the Company received notice from the DOJ that it had closed its investigation of potential antitrust violations involving these products without indictments or pleas. In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the products that were the subject of the DOJ antitrust investigation. These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District Court") or have been tolled. On July 29, 2008, the District Court certified a class of purchasers of the products for the six-year period from 1999 through 2004. Shortly thereafter, a series of "opt-out" cases were filed by a number of large volume purchasers; these cases are substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded the time period to include 1994 through 1998. In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial in the District Court with the Company as the sole remaining defendant, the other defendants having previously settled. On February 20, 2013, the jury returned a damages verdict of approximately $400 million against the Company, which ultimately was trebled by the District Court under applicable antitrust laws -- less offsets from other settling defendants -- resulting in a judgment entered in July 2013 in the amount of $1.06 billion. The Company appealed this judgment to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Tenth Circuit" or "Court of Appeals"), which heard oral arguments on the matter on May 14, 2014. On September 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the District Court judgment. On October 14, 2014, the Company filed a petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc (collectively the "Rehearing Petition") with the Court of Appeals, which the Circuit Court denied on November 7, 2014. The Company will file a petition for writ of certiorari ("Writ Petition") with the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2015, seeking judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court and requesting that the Supreme Court ultimately correct fundamental errors in the Circuit Court opinion. While it is unknowable whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will accept the Writ Petition for review, there are several compelling reasons why the U.S. Supreme Court should grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and if the petition for writ of certiorari is accepted, the Company believes it is likely that the District Court judgment would be vacated. Specifically, it is the Company's position that the Tenth Circuit decision violates the law as expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court as set out in Wal- Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). The Tenth Circuit also did not follow accepted law from other federal circuits on dispositive case issues, including legal precedent from the U.S. First, Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth and D.C. Circuit Courts. Finally, the erroneous law applied by the Tenth Circuit is not supported by any other circuit court. The Company has consistently denied plaintiffs' allegations of price fixing and, the Company will continue to vigorously defend this litigation. As part of the Company's review of the jury verdict, the resulting judgment and the Court of Appeals' opinions, the Company assessed the legal and factual circumstances of the case, the trial record, the appellate record, and the applicable law including clear precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on this review and the reasons stated, the Company believes the judgment and decisions from the Court of Appeals are not appropriate. As a result, the Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will occur and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to these matters. While the Company believes it is not probable a loss will occur, the existence of the jury verdict, the Court of Appeals' opinion, and subsequent denial of Dow's Rehearing Petition indicate that it is reasonably possible that a loss could occur. The estimate of the possible range of loss to Dow is zero to the $1.06 billion judgment (excluding post-judgment interest and possible award of class attorney fees). On September 30, 2014, the "opt-out" cases that had been consolidated with the class action lawsuit for purposes of pre- trial proceedings were remanded from the District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. DOW CHEMICAL: Quebec Case Stayed Pending Ontario Suit Outcome ------------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical 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 there are two separate but inter-related matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. In March 2014, the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Dow filed its Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal in March 2014, which was subsequently denied. The Quebec case has been stayed pending the outcome of the Ontario case. The Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will occur and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to the opt-out litigation or the Canadian matters. DR LENNART: Plaintiffs in Blackfeather Directed to Cure Defects --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in MICAH BLACKFEATHER, and MATHEW J. HOUNSHELL, Plaintiffs, v. DR. LENNART ABEL, and CMHIP STAFF, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-CV-00454-GPG, (D. Col.) are inmates at the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo, Colorado. Plaintiffs have submitted to the court a document titled "Motion to Initiate Class Action Lawsuit, Temporary Restraining Order, Unbias Judge". As part of the court's review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(b), the court determined that the document is deficient. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher ordered the Plaintiffs to cure the deficiencies within 30 days from the date of this order. Any papers that Plaintiffs file in response to the order must include the civil action number on the order. The Court further ordered that Plaintiffs must obtain the court- approved Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 and Prisoner Complaint forms (with the assistance of a case manager or the facility's legal assistant), along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. Any Plaintiff who fails to cure the designated deficiencies within 30 days from the date of the order will be dismissed as a party to the action without further notice. The dismissal will be without prejudice. A copy of the court's March 4, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/b0yrhzfrom Leagle.com. Micah Blackfeather, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Mathew Hounshell, Plaintiff, Pro Se. DUN & BRADSTREET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cates" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Tranis Cates and Andrew Allison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-01617 (D.N.J., March 4, 2015), seeks to stop its practice of making unsolicited calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. is a leading source of commercial data, analytics, and insight on businesses, and owns and operates a commercial database containing information on more than 235 million companies from around the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Ari Scharg, Esq. Alicia Hwang, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com ascharg@edelson.com ahwang@edelson.com - and - Stefan L. Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC 1072 Madison Avenue, Suite 1 Lakewood, NJ 08701 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com ECOTALITY INC: June 26 Final Hearing on Securities Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Samuel Conti entered a preliminary approval of the settlement in In re ECOTALITY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, MASTER FILE NO. 13-03791-SC, (N.D. Cal.). The Court certified the Class defined as: all Persons who purchased ECOtality common stock beginning on April 16, 2013 and through and including August 12, 2013, and were damaged thereby. Excluded from this definition are (a) all Defendants and their immediate families, (b) ECOtality's former and current officers and directors and their immediate families, and (c) any entity in which these excluded persons have a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Class are those Persons who validly and timely request exclusion from the Class pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation and its related Exhibits. Any Person falling within the definition of the Class may, upon request, be excluded from the Class. Any such Person must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion postmarked no later than May 19, 2015. A hearing will be held before the Court on June 26, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 1, San Francisco, CA 94102, to determine whether the settlement of the Litigation on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and should be approved by the Court; whether a Final Order should be entered; whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved; and to determine the amount of the Fee and Expense Award and the amount of expenses that should be paid to Lead Plaintiff for his representation of the Class. The firm of Gilardi & Co. LLC has been appointed to supervise and administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of claims. A copy of the Court's March 6, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/VdbyWVfrom Leagle.com. EFT HOLDINGS: Second Amended Complaint Filed in "Li" Action ----------------------------------------------------------- EFT Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a second amended complaint was filed in the case Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of one or more of the Company's products against the Company and Jack Qin in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A first amended complaint was filed on July 11, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the Court dismissed all class claims with prejudice. On November 19, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from the October 10, 2014 Order. On January 7, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims for breach of warranty with prejudice and all claims against Jack Qin without prejudice, and clarified that Plaintiff cannot seek disgorgement or state claims based on any stock-related fraud. On January 30, 2015, a second amended complaint was filed alleging individual claims for unfair competition, false advertising and fraud. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. The case is currently pending. The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. EFT HOLDINGS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Li v. Qin ------------------------------------------------------ EFT Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a second amended complaint was filed in the case Li, et al. v. Qin, et al. On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. Qin, et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Company's products against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A first amended complaint was filed on July 11, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the Court dismissed all class claims with prejudice. On November 19, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from the October 10, 2014 Order. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs' corporate waste and gift claims, and Plaintiffs' Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act claims based on alleged corporate looting and operation of a pump-and- dump scheme. The Court further dismissed Plaintiffs' deception and common law fraud claims with respect to all defendants except the Company and Jack Qin. On January 30, 2015, a second amended complaint was filed alleging individual claims for operation of an endless chain scheme, deception and common law fraud, and RICO violations. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory, treble and punitive damages. The case is currently pending. The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. EPL OIL: Del. Chancery Court Dismissed Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- EPL Oil & Gas, Inc. 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 Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered an order dismissing a class action lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice. The Company said, "In March and April, 2014, three alleged stockholders (the "Plaintiffs") filed three separate class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of our stockholders against our Company, our directors, Energy XXI, EGC, and Clyde Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of EGC ("Merger Sub" and collectively, the "defendants"). The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated these lawsuits on May 5, 2014. The consolidated lawsuit is styled In re EPL Oil & Gas Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9460-VCN, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "lawsuit")." "Plaintiffs alleged a variety of causes of action challenging the Agreement and Plan of Merger between Energy XXI, OpCo, Merger Sub, and EPL (the "merger agreement"), which provided for the acquisition of EPL by Energy XXI. Plaintiffs alleged that (a) our directors allegedly breached fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger and (b) we along with Energy XXI, OpCo, and Merger Sub allegedly aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs sought to have the merger agreement rescinded and also sought damages and attorneys' fees. On January 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice of dismissal. On January 20, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered an order dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice. ESPERANZA FOOD: "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Bernardo Genao Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated waiters, cooks, prep cooks and dishwashers employed by Defendants v. Esperanza Food Corp. and Pedro Pichardo a/k/a Marcos Pichardo, Case No. 1:15-cv-01137 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 54-5 5 Myrtle Avenue, Ridgewood, New York, 11385. 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 FIRSTENERGY CORP: Still Facing Class Action Over Air Emissions -------------------------------------------------------------- Firstenergy Corp. and Firstenergy Solutions Corp. said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in July 2008, three complaints representing multiple plaintiffs were filed against FG in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant. Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a "safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner." One complaint was filed on behalf of 21 individuals and the other is a class action complaint seeking certification as a class with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives. FG believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations made in these complaints, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss. FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs in Truck Sales Action File Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the Medium/Heavy Truck Sales Procedure Class Action have sought further review in the Ohio Supreme Court, Ford Motor 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. This action pending in the Ohio state court system alleges that Ford breached its Sales and Service Agreement with Ford truck dealers by failing to publish to all Ford dealers all price concessions that were approved for any dealer. The trial court certified a nationwide class consisting of all Ford dealers who purchased from Ford any 600-series or higher truck from 1987 to 1997, and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability. During 2011, a jury awarded $4.5 million in damages to the named plaintiff dealer and the trial court applied the jury's findings with regard to the named plaintiff to all dealers in the class, entering a judgment of approximately $2 billion in damages. We appealed, and on May 3, 2012, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs, vacated the damages award, and remanded the matter for a new trial. The retrial in September 2013 resulted in a verdict in Ford's favor. On February 7, 2014, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, but on December 11, 2014, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the order granting a new trial and reinstated the verdict in Ford's favor. Plaintiffs have sought further review in the Ohio Supreme Court. GEO GROUP: Workers Seek to Recover Overtime and Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the Geo Group, one of the nation's largest private prison companies, stiffs employees for overtime and minimum wages, a class action claims in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. GNC HOLDINGS: Parties Reached Settlement of Hydroxycut Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the consolidated class actions reached a settlement, which was approved by the Court on October 15, 2014 and which did not require the Company to make any payments. In 2009, the FDA issued a warning on several Hydroxycut-branded products manufactured by Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc. ("Iovate") based on 23 reports of liver injuries from consumers who claimed to have used the products between 2002 and 2009. As a result, Iovate voluntarily recalled 14 Hydroxycut-branded products. Following the recall, the Company was named, among other defendants, in multiple lawsuits related to Hydroxycut-branded products in several states. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated pretrial proceedings of many of the pending actions in the Southern District of California (In re: Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2087), and Iovate previously accepted the Company's tender request for defense and indemnification under its purchasing agreement with the Company in these matters. In all, GNC was named in a total of 93 lawsuits related to Hydroxycut, including 87 individual, largely personal injury claims and six putative class action cases. All of the personal injury cases were resolved through a global settlement agreement and the allocation of settlement funds by a special master. Settlement payments were made exclusively by Iovate, and dismissals of the personal injury actions were entered on November 18, 2014. The parties in the consolidated class actions reached a settlement, which was approved by the Court on October 15, 2014 and which did not require the Company to make any payments. GNC HOLDINGS: Final Hearing Held in DMAA/Aegeline Claims Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a final hearing with regard to the proposed settlement related to the DMAA/Aegeline Claims was scheduled for February 26, 2015. Prior to December 2013, the Company sold products manufactured by third parties that contained derivatives from geranium known as 1.3-dimethylpentylamine/ dimethylamylamine/ 13-dimethylamylamine, or "DMAA," which were recalled from the Company's stores in November 2013, and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael trees. As of December 31, 2014, the Company was named in the following 27 lawsuits involving products containing DMAA, including 25 personal injury cases and two putative class action cases: Personal Injury Claims: * Shirley Davila Trustee Ad Litem for the Estate of Jessica Davila v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc. and USPLabs, Court of the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, PA (Case No.12-0602113), filed June 18, 2012 * Leanne Sparling and Michael Sparling on behalf of Michael Sparling, deceased v. USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al. Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 2013-00034663- CU-PL-CTL), filed February 13, 2013 * Justin Carolyne, et al. v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC508212), filed May 22, 2013 *Everine Van Huoten vs. USP Labs, LLC and GNC Holdings, United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 13 CV 00635 LEK KSC), filed November 19, 2013 * Jeremy Reed, Timothy Anderson, Dan Anderson, Nadia Black, et al. v. USPLabs, LLC, et al., GNC, Superior Court for California, County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2013-00074052-CU-PL-CTL), filed November 1, 2013 * Kenneth Waikiki v. USP Labs, Doyle, Geissler, USP Labs OxyElite, LLC, et al. and GNC Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 3-00639 DMK), filed November 21, 2013 * Nicholas Akau v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14- 00029), filed January 23, 2014 * Malissa Igafo v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14- 00030), filed January 23, 2013 * Calvin Ishihara v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14- 00031), filed January 23, 2014 * Gaye Anne Mattson v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al., United States District for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14-00032), filed January 23, 2014 * Jamie Franco v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. CV-14-00592), filed January 24, 2014 * Roel Vista v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al. United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. CV-14-0037), filed January 24, 2014 * Michelle Cayton v. GNC Holdings, Inc., et al., USP Labs, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC555230) filed August 19, 2014 * Dominic Little v. GNC Corporation, USP Labs, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC534065), filed January 23, 2014 * Thomas Park v. GNC Holdings, Inc., USP Labs, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2014-110924), filed September 8, 2014 * Nicholas Olson, Adrian Chavez, Rebecca Fullerton, Robert Gunter, Davina Maes and Edwin Palm v. GNC Corporation, USP Labs, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of Orange (Case No. 2014- 00740258) filed August 18, 2014 * Susan Straub and the Estate of Shane Staub v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., USP Labs, LLC, Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (Case No. 140502403), filed May 20, 2014 * Karina Lujon v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., USP Labs LLC, District Court of Dallas County, 298th Judicial District (Case No. DC-13-05677-M), filed March 25, 2014 * Janice Favella, Christiano Mariano, Chanelle Valdez v. GNC Corporation and USP Labs LLC, United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 14-cv-00363) filed October 24, 2014 * Nichole Davidson v. GNC Corporation and USP Labs LLC, United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 14-cv- 00364) filed October 24, 2014 * Christine Mosca, Gina Pia, Kimberlynn Tom, Faituitasi Tuioti, Irineo Rabang, Tihane Laupola v. GNC Corporation and USP Labs LLC, United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 14-cv-00366) filed October 24, 2014 * Keahi Paveo v. GNC Corporation, USP Labs, LLC, United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 14-cv-00367) filed October 24, 2014 * Phetsamone Senevoravong v. GNC Holdings, Inc., USP Labs, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Case No. 14-cv-02419) filed October 31, 2014 * John McCutchen v. GNC Corporation, USP Labs, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC559542), filed October 6, 2014 Putative Class Action Claims: * Michael Campos, Jennifer Southwick, and others v. USPLabs, LLC and GNC Corp., United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 13CV2891 DMS BLM), filed December 5, 2013 * Richard Carlson, Brianne Nicole Payne v. USPLabs, LLC and GNC Corp., United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Case No. 4:13-cv-00627-RH-CAS), filed November 13, 2013 The Company previously was named in a third putative class action case in the United States District Court for the Disctrict of New Jersey, which was dismissed with prejudice in December 2014. The two remaining class action claims were consolidated and, in October 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida preliminarily a settlement agreement among the parties. A final hearing with regard to the proposed settlement, which does not require any payment by the Company, was scheduled for February 26, 2015. The proceedings associated with the majority of the individual personal injury cases in which the Company has been named, and which generally seek indeterminate money damages, are in the early stages, and any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. "We are contractually entitled to indemnification by our third- party vendor with regard to these matters, although our ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims against us is dependent upon the creditworthiness of our vendor and/or its insurance coverage and the absence of any significant defenses available to its insurer," the Company said. GNC HOLDINGS: California Wage and Break Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court entered a final order dismissing the so-called California Wage and Break Claim action with prejudice. In November 2008, 98 plaintiffs filed individual claims against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, alleging that they were not provided all of the rest and meal periods to which they were entitled under California law, and that the Company failed to pay them split shift and overtime compensation to which they were entitled under California law. The plaintiffs also allege derivative claims for inaccurate wage statements, failure to pay wages due at termination, and penalty claims under the California Labor Code. The cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and in June 2013, a trial was conducted that resulted in a verdict in favor of the Company with respect to the claims of seven of the plaintiffs. Subsequently, a number of other plaintiffs were dismissed from the action pursuant to stipulation and/or Court order. The remaining plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with the Company in December 2014, and on December 8, 2014, the Court entered a final order dismissing the action with prejudice. GNC HOLDINGS: Court Granted Motion to Decertify FLSA Class ---------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to certify a California class and granted the Company's motion for decertification of the FLSA class in the case filed by Charles Brewer. In July 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 11CV3587). In October 2011, Mr. Brewer filed an amended complaint alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations on behalf of sales associates and store managers. In January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") class with respect to one of Plaintiff's claims. On November 12, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to certify a California class and granted the Company's motion for decertification of the FLSA class. As any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. GNC HOLDINGS: Court Granted Motion to Certify in "Naranjo" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to certify a class of approximately 900 current and former managers in the case filed by Elizabeth Naranjo. In February 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG 12619626), alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break, and overtime violations. On October 22, 2014, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to certify a class of approximately 900 current and former managers. "As any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements," the Company said. GNC HOLDINGS: No Approval Yet on Vargas and Hickok Case Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in the case filed by Dominic Vargas and Anne Hickok remains subject to Court approval. On June 29, 2010, Dominic Vargas and Anne Hickok, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation and the Company in federal court (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:05- mc-02025). The two-count complaint alleged, generally, that plaintiffs were required to perform work on an uncompensated basis and that the Company failed to pay overtime for such work. The parties to the case reached a tentative settlement on December 3, 2014. The settlement remains subject to Court approval. GNC HOLDINGS: Trial Postponed in "Olive" Case --------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that trial postponed in the case Jason Olive v. General Nutrition Corp. In April 2012, Jason Olive filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC482686), for misappropriation of likeness in which he alleges that the Company continued to use his image in stores after the expiration of the license to do so in violation of common law and California statutes. Mr. Olive is seeking compensatory, punitive and statutory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The trial in this matter previously scheduled for December 2014 was postponed and no new trial date has been set. As of December 31, 2014, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. GOLD STAR: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Andres Rodriguez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Gold Star, Inc., First Class Parking Services, Corp., First Class Parking Systems LLC, Sebastian Lopez, Jorge Zuluaga, Case No. 1:15-cv-20902 (S.D. Fla., March 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. The Defendants are engaged in the business that specializes in valet parking services in Miami, serving private events, hotels, and restaurants. 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 GOOGLE INC: Faces Suit in Calif. for Not Paying Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Google stiffs workers for overtime and minimum wages and violates other labor laws, a class claims. The case is captioned Rosa Gutierrez v. Google Inc. and is filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara. HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Class Cert. Bid in "McCormick" Case Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- From 1955-1957, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. purchased six semi-rural parcels on Osage Road, Duncan, Oklahoma (the "Site"). For the next 50-60 years, Halliburton performed a variety of tasks on the Site, including work for the United States Department of Defense cleaning out missile motor casings. This work involved removing solid rocket propellant, consisting primarily of ammonium perchlorate, from the missile casings using a high pressure water jet. As the missile motor casings were cleaned, water from the hydrojet and the dislodged propellant was run through screens to separate the solid materials from the cleaning water. The solid propellant was collected and periodically burned in pits on the Site, and the cleaning water was ultimately discharged into evaporation ponds. Over time, perchlorate from these operations reached the groundwater under the Site and migrated off-site. On October 31, 2011, plaintiffs filed the instant action, asserting causes of action for private nuisance, public nuisance, negligence, trespass, strict liability, and unjust enrichment. On March 4, 2013, Plaintiffs moved the Court to certify a class, consisting of two sub-classes, with respect to Halliburton's liability to the class for damages to their properties, as well as as for appointment of class counsel. Halliburton also filed on filed motions to exclude plaintiffs' experts. In an order entered March 3, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ub8oXWfrom Leagle.com, Chief District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange found that even though there may be common questions of law or fact regarding certain elements of plaintiffs' causes of action, the vast number of important individualized issues relating to Halliburton's ultimate liability as to all of plaintiffs' causes of action overwhelm any common questions. "The Court finds a trial on whether Halliburton released perchlorate into the groundwater, as well as the current and future scope and extent of that groundwater contamination, is unlikely to substantially aid resolution of the ultimate determination of Halliburton's liability," Judge Miles-LaGrange said. "Proof of these class wide facts would neither establish Halliburton's liability to any class member nor fix the level of damages awarded to any plaintiff; the common facts would not establish a single plaintiff's entitlement to recover on any theory of liability, or even show that a single plaintiff is aggrieved. Simply put, the individual issues would dwarf whatever common issues there may be, such that a vast array of mini-trials would be required for each class member if certification were granted." Additionally, the Court found that a class action in relation to Halliburton's liability is not superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Even if the Court were to certify common issues, the subsequent separate proceedings necessary for each plaintiff would undo whatever efficiencies such a class proceeding would have been intended to promote, the Court said. Accordingly, the Court concluded that class certification should not be granted. The Court also denied as moot Halliburton's Motion to exclude plaintiffs' experts Kevin J. Boyle and Halliburton's and Richard Laton. The case is MITCHELL McCORMICK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. CIV-11-1272-M, (W.D. Okla). HARRY & DAVID: Faces "Lemmon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- David Lemmon, Thaddeus Kilgore, Jr., William Landis, III, Gregory Gross, Richard Owens, Jeffrey Rath, and Kyle DeBrosse v. Harry & David Operations, Inc. and Harry & David, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv- 00779 (S.D. Ohio, March 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are Delaware Corporations, which are engaged in the business of selling gourmet fruit and food gifts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory R. Mansell, Esq. MANSELL LAW LLC 1457 S High St Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 610-4134 Facsimile: (513) 826-9311 E-mail: Greg.Mansell@Ohio-EmploymentLawyer.com HESS CORPORATION: Suit Over Zip Code Requirement Policy ------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Diviacchi, individually and as a representative of other persons similarly situated v. HESS Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-10655 (D. Mass., March 4, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' standard business routine of requiring consumers to disclose their zip code for any credit card transaction. HESS Corporation is a Delaware with a principal place of business at 1185 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036, which owns and operates gas stations and mini-mart facilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valeriano Diviacchi, Esq. DIVIACCHI LAW OFFICE 111 Beach Street Boston, MA 02111-2532 Telephone: (617) 542-3175 Facsimile: (617) 542-3110 E-mail: val@diviacchi.com HMSHOST CORP: FLSA Plaintiffs Can't Appeal Decertification Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- Easton Stevens brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., against HMSHost Corporation, Host International, Inc., and Host Services of New York, alleging that he and other assistant managers employed by defendants were misclassified as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements. Although the plaintiff sought to conduct this case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and received conditional certification to do so on June 15, 2012, the Court revoked that certification after discovery had concluded by order dated August 27, 2014, on the grounds that the members of the opt-in class were not sufficiently similarly situated to one another to warrant proceeding on a collective basis. Plaintiff now moves the Court for an order that would certify the Decertification Order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that it is untimely and meritless. "[P]laintiff's motion to certify the Decertification Order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [Section] 1292(b) is denied. Plaintiff's motion for a stay pending the resolution of his now-dismissed appeal pursuant to the collateral order doctrine is denied as moot," wrote Senior District Judge I. Leo Glasser in his memorandum & order entered March 4, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/djHYbWfrom Leagle.com. The case is EASTON STEVENS, Plaintiff, v. HMSHOST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, NO. 10-CV-3571 (ILG) (VVP), (E.D. N.Y.). Easton Stevens, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Ian Berger -- bradberger29@gmail.com -- Berger Attorney P.C., Fran L. Rudich -- frudich@klafterolsen.com -- Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Jeffrey A. Klafter -- jak@klafterolsen.com -- Klafte Olsen & Lesser LLP, Michael Hayden Reed, Klafter Olsen and Lesser LLP & Seth R. Lesser -- slesser@klafterolsen.com -- Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP. Bassem Girgis, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP. Amanda Siebenaler, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP. Robert L. Vranck, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP. Luis D. Colondres Valentin, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP. Michael Miosek, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP. Albert Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP. Eranetta Gray, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP. Constantino Katseyeanis, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP. Jimmy Michael Tuttle, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP. Yahya Karimi, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP. Darrell E. McSweeney, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP. HMSHost Corporation, Defendant, represented by Patrick M. Muldowney -- pmuldowney@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Gregory Valentin Mersol -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler LLP, Jeffrey Vlasek -- jvlasek@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Margaret Rosenthal -- mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP. Host International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick M. Muldowney, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Gregory Valentin Mersol, Baker Hostetler LLP, Jeffrey Vlasek, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Margaret Rosenthal, Baker & Hostetler LLP. Host Services of New York, Defendant, represented by Patrick M. Muldowney, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Gregory Valentin Mersol, Baker Hostetler LLP, Jeffrey Vlasek, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Margaret Rosenthal, Baker & Hostetler LLP. HULU LLC: Court May Dismiss Class Suit Over Online Video Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------------- In grappling with online video privacy litigation invoking a decades-old privacy law, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler said at a hearing on February 26 that she will likely side with online streaming service Hulu that it did not disclose its users' identities and viewing preferences to Facebook, reports Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service. "It just doesn't feel like the Bork transmission of personal information," Beeler said, referring to the outing of Judge Robert Bork's video rental history after he was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. The incident led to the passage of the Video Protection Privacy Act in 1988, a law stipulating that personally identifiable information [PII] must remain private. Whether information identifying Facebook users was knowingly transmitted by Hulu to Facebook is the sole remaining claim against the service, which Hulu lawyer Victor Jih called "the chasm as big as the Grand Canyon that they can't cross." "There is no showing that we knew what Facebook would do with these transmissions and that they would use them to get PII," Jih said. "There's nothing there because that did not enter the consciousness of anyone, and that's what the VPPA requires." But plaintiff counsel Scott Kamber said one could reasonably infer that Hulu knew that it was conveying users' video viewing habits to Facebook. "We believe strongly that if this case does not show knowledge in the situation, that one cannot make a reasonable inference of knowledge from documents presented to the court there can never be a VPPA violation in the realm of the Internet," Kamber said. "That may sound bombastic, but I think there is clearly a Judge Bork disclosure here." Beeler addressed both sides at the start of the hearing on Hulu's motion for summary judgment February 26. "In the end the knowing standard that Hulu outlines I think is the correct one," she said. Turning to Kamber, she added: "I'm sorry if this feels like a wake," eliciting a laugh from Kamber. "As Monty Python said, I'm not dead yet," he said. Beeler's remark didn't stop the attorney from pressing the argument that Hulu knew full well Facebook was tracking user activity, and that there was a "fundamental understanding" as to how the exchange worked. "They knew everything about what they were doing," Kamber said. Hulu installed a Facebook "Like" button on its viewing pages. The plaintiffs, who have not been certified as a class, claim the button transmitted a Facebook user's "c_user" cookie containing his or her Facebook ID along with video watch information. Jih contended that Hulu had no idea what the cookies meant. "We don't know what it signifies at all," he said. Kamber countered this argument. "Hulu knows there's this functionality on the like button that IDs users to Facebook. They know Facebook can ID the user, and ID the videos the user is watching," he said, pointing to a feature on the Hulu watch page that shows the users' Facebook friends who also "liked" a certain video. "If Facebook can't know what video you're watching, they can't tell you which of your friends liked the video you're watching," he added. One thing Kamber did seem to have convinced Beeler about was the need for some paranoia. "I now use three browsers," the judge said, laughing. "I've learned a lot from this case." HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss --------------------------------------------------------- No ruling has been issued by the Geauga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas on Huntington Bancshares Incorporated's motion to dismiss a class action filed on behalf of all 88 counties in Ohio, Huntington 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 Huntington National Bank is a defendant in an action filed on January 17, 2012 against MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other financial institutions that participate in the mortgage electronic registration system (MERS). The putative class action was filed on behalf of all 88 counties in Ohio. The plaintiffs allege that the recording of mortgages and assignments thereof is mandatory under Ohio law and seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants are required to record every mortgage and assignment on real property located in Ohio and pay the attendant statutory recording fees. The complaint also seeks damages, attorney's fees and costs. Huntington filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which has been fully briefed, but no ruling has been issued by the Geauga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. Similar litigation has been initiated against MERSCORP, Inc. and other financial institutions in other jurisdictions throughout the country, however, the Bank has not been named a defendant in those other cases. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- No ruling has yet been issued by the District Court on The Huntington National Bank's motion to certify the District Court's decision for interlocutory review by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Huntington Bancshares 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. The Huntington National Bank is a defendant in a putative class action filed on October 15, 2013. The plaintiffs filed the action in West Virginia state court on behalf of themselves and other West Virginia mortgage loan borrowers who allege they were charged late fees in violation of West Virginia law and the loan documents. Plaintiffs seek statutory civil penalties, compensatory damages and attorney's fees. The Bank removed the case to federal court, answered the complaint, and, on January 17, 2014, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that West Virginia law is preempted by federal law and therefore does not apply to the Bank. Following further briefing by the parties, the Court denied the Bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings on September 26, 2014. On October 7, 2014, the Bank filed a motion to certify the District Court's decision for interlocutory review by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs have opposed the Bank's motion. No ruling has yet been issued by the Court. IMS HEALTH: To Defend Against Suit in Korea ------------------------------------------- IMS Health Holdings, 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 a group of approximately 1,200 medical doctors and 900 private individuals filed on February 13, 2014, a civil lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court against IMS Health Korea Ltd. ("IMS Korea") and two other defendants, the Korean Pharmaceutical Association ("KPA") and the Korean Pharmaceutical Information Center ("KPIC"). The civil lawsuit alleges KPA and KPIC collected their personal information in violation of applicable privacy laws without the necessary consent through a software system installed on pharmacy computer systems in Korea, and that personal information was transferred to IMS Korea and sold to pharmaceutical companies. The plaintiffs are claiming damages in the aggregate amount of approximately $6 million plus interest. "We believe the lawsuit is without merit, reject plaintiffs' claims and intend to vigorously defend IMS Health's position," the Company said. INTEL CORP: May 29 Hearing on New Class Certification Motion ------------------------------------------------------------ Intel Corporation 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 court set the hearing on plaintiffs' new motion for class certification for May 29, 2015. At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee state courts. "These actions generally repeat the allegations made in a now- settled lawsuit filed against us by AMD in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (AMD litigation). Like the AMD litigation, these class-action lawsuits allege that we engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by, among other things: providing discounts and rebates to our manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on exclusive or near-exclusive dealing that allegedly unfairly interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors; interfering with certain AMD product launches; and interfering with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting groups. The class actions allege various consumer injuries, including that consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher prices for computers containing our microprocessors. We dispute these class-action claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously," the Company said. All of the federal and state class actions other than the California class actions were transferred by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in Delaware for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL proceedings). The Delaware district court appointed a Special Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by the court. In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a motion for sanctions for our alleged failure to preserve evidence. This motion largely copies a motion previously filed by AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled. The plaintiffs in the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of a class of members who purchased certain personal computers containing products sold by the Company. In July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (Report) denying the motion to certify a class. The MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master's Report, and a hearing on those objections was held before the district court in July 2013. In July 2014, the district court affirmed the Special Master's ruling and issued an order denying the MDL plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In August 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which the Third Circuit denied on October 29, 2014. On December 29, 2014, Intel filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims of the remaining individual plaintiffs. The court is likely to rule on this motion in late 2015. All California class actions have been consolidated in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. "The plaintiffs in the California actions moved for class certification, which we are in the process of opposing. At our request, the court in the California actions agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the Delaware district court ruled on the similar motion in the MDL proceedings," the Company said. The plaintiffs asked the court for leave to retain a new expert and to amend their previous motion for class certification. The court granted plaintiffs' request on February 6, 2015 and set the hearing on plaintiffs' new motion for class certification for May 29, 2015. "Given the procedural posture and the nature of these cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these matters," the Company said. INTEL CORP: March 2015 Hearing on Preliminary Approval Motion ------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation 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 court has scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval for March 2015 in the High Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation. Between May and July 2011, former employees of Intel, Adobe Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar filed antitrust class-action lawsuits in the California Superior Courts alleging that these companies had entered into a conspiracy to suppress the compensation of their employees. The lawsuits were removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and in September 2011 the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, captioned In re High Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs' allegations reference the 2009 and 2010 investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) into employment practices in the technology industry, as well as the DOJ's complaints and subsequent stipulated final judgments with the seven companies named as defendants in the lawsuits. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants entered into certain unlawful agreements not to cold call employees of particular other defendants and that there was an overarching conspiracy among the defendants. Plaintiffs assert one such agreement specific to Intel, namely that Intel and Google entered into an agreement starting in 2005, not to cold call each other's employees. Plaintiffs assert claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act and seek a declaration that the defendants' alleged actions violated the antitrust laws, damages trebled as provided for by law under the Sherman Act or Clayton Act, restitution and disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and costs. In October 2013, the district court certified a class consisting of approximately 65,000 current or former employees of the seven defendants and set the matter for trial in late May 2014. The so- called "technical class" consists of a group of current and former technical, creative, and R&D employees at each of the defendants. In January 2014, Intel filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied in March 2014. In April 2014, Intel, Adobe, Apple, and Google reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit, but in August 2014, the district court denied preliminary approval of the settlement. In September 2014, defendants filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit ordered briefing and scheduled a March 2015 hearing date on the writ petition. Defendants have withdrawn the petition for writ of mandamus in light of the settlement agreement. In January 2015, Intel, Adobe, Apple, and Google reached a second agreement with plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit, which is subject to court approval. The court has scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval for March 2015. "We continue to dispute the plaintiffs' claims, but have agreed to settle this lawsuit to avoid the uncertainties, expenses, and diversion of resources from continued litigation. Our operating expenses for 2014 reflect accruals for this proceeding and we believe reasonably possible losses in excess of the accrued amount are not material to our financial statements," the Company said. INTEL CORP: Filed Opposition to Plaintiff Appeal in McAfee Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation 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 Intel, McAfee Inc., and McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to plaintiff's appeal in the McAfee Shareholder Litigation. The Company said, "On August 19, 2010, we announced that we had agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount." In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08. In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in February 2013. In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. Intel, McAfee, and McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to plaintiff's appeal in December 2014. "Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class-action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously," the Company said. JANSSEN PHARMA: Marketing Executive Grilled at Risperdal Trial -------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a senior marketing director at Janssen Pharmaceuticals was questioned on the company's promotion of the antipsychotic Risperdal as well as Janssen's knowledge of the drug's off-label use by children. In Cirba v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals on March 4, the second case in the Philadelphia Risperdal mass tort to go to trial, plaintiff William Cirba's attorney, Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter, called Carmen DeLoria of Janssen's global marketing division to the stand to discuss Risperdal and its place in the child and adolescent drug market. On Feb. 25, a jury awarded $2.5 million to the plaintiff in the first of roughly 1,250 Risperdal mass-tort cases in the city's courts, Pledger v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals. In Cirba, the plaintiff similarly alleges that his use of Risperdal caused gynecomastia, the growth of enlarged breasts. Cirba took Risperdal to treat oppositional defiant disorder at a time when the drug was not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in children, but was widely prescribed to them, according to Mr. Kline. One of the first assertions Mr. Kline made to Ms. DeLoria was Janssen knew that a significant amount of its business from Risperdal came from prescriptions to children and adolescents prior to its FDA approval for that use in 2006. Ms. DeLoria declined to categorize the business garnered from Risperdal as significant. "We were aware that a portion of our business was coming from children and adolescents," he said. Mr. Kline asked if Janssen's sales representatives presented the drug to child psychiatrists. According to Mr. DeLoria, they did. However, he stipulated that most doctors designated as child psychiatrists also treat adults and that there are very few practitioners focused solely on child psychiatry. According to Ms. DeLoria, the sales pitches were not directed toward child usage of Risperdal. Mr. Kline countered by arguing that until 2009, Janssen salespeople were given bonuses for sales related to pediatric use of the drug. Ms. DeLoria replied the bonuses were for sales in general and employees were not specifically given incentive to sell Risperdal to child psychiatrists. Turning to the marketing aspect of Risperdal, Mr. Kline put up on the projector portions of Janssen's business plan for the drug. A graph extracted from the business plan showed that in 2002, Risperdal made up 52.5 percent of the pediatric antipsychotic market. Another section of the business plan titled "Lessons Learned" went into details about the medical community and public's view of Risperdal and its relation to prolactin, the hormone that encourages breast growth. "You knew that there were problems with the perception of Risperdal and increased prolactin levels," Mr. Kline said. Ms. DeLoria responded the company knew doctors had misconceptions about the drug based on what Janssen's competitors had said. "You knew that competitors were saying bad things about Risperdal?" Mr. Kline asked. "Yes," Ms. DeLoria said. The "Core Strategies" section of the business plan recommended the drugmaker "establish Risperdal as having a favorable risk-benefit relative to other compounds." This included a reanalysis of clinical test data. According to Mr. Kline, this section appeared after a Janssen study found that Risperdal increased prolactin levels in users. Ms. DeLoria said the reanalysis was to be conducted for the purpose of correcting doctors' misconceptions about Risperdal fueled by competitor propaganda. Mr. Kline pointed to another section of the business plan that called for Janssen to "neutralize safety and tolerability concerns." "What do you mean by neutralize?" Mr. Kline asked. Ms. DeLoria said that it meant allaying misconceptions. However, Mr. Kline contended it was Janssen's intention to go back and produce data that cast Risperdal in a more favorable light. He added that Janssen was ultimately concerned about how its sales would be impacted. Mr. Kline highlighted another section of the Risperdal business plan, which read, "Without a proactive approach to education and public relations, we run the risk of negative press and market sale erosion." Further into the questioning, Ms. DeLoria defended the drug, claiming the reason it was so widely prescribed in the first place was because doctors recognized its effectiveness in treating their patients' symptoms. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Issues $5.7MM Verdict in Pelvic Mesh Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Johnson & Johnson lost a $5.7 million verdict on March 5 in the first test case over one of its newest pelvic mesh slings, which is among dozens of similar devices named in thousands of lawsuits across the country. The verdict, by a jury in Bakersfield, Calif., is the latest to hit Johnson & Johnson, whose Ethicon Inc. subsidiary has lost verdicts over its other mesh devices. The trial, which began on Jan. 26, was the first over Ethicon's TVT-Abbrevo device, which is used to treat urinary incontinence caused from sudden movements. The plaintiff, Coleen Perry, had alleged that she had pain and continued urinary problems after having the device implanted in 2011. The jury, in Kern County, Calif., Superior Court, found that the device was defectively designed and that Ethicon failed to warn doctors of its problems, according to a recording of the verdict on Courtroom View Network. Jurors also awarded $700,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. Johnson & Johnson immediately said it planned to appeal. "We have strong grounds for appeal as we believe the evidence showed that TVT Abbrevo midurethral sling was properly designed and Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and marketing of the product," Ethicon spokesman Matthew Johnson said. "TVT Abbrevo has been deemed safe and effective by regulators and practitioners alike." Peter de la Cerda at Edwards & de la Cerda of Dallas, one of the lead plaintiffs attorneys in the case, said, "We could not be happier for Mrs. Perry." He added, "The jury's verdict shows thoughtfulness for the serious and life-altering injuries she sustained from the TVT Abbrevo. The jury's verdict also sends a clear message to Ethicon Inc. and Johnson & Johnson -- the concerned citizens of California will not stand for these manufacturers' improper conduct in designing and marketing the TVT Abbrevo." Ethicon is one of seven manufacturers being sued over pelvic mesh devices. The verdict comes as Ethicon began trial on March 2 in a bellwether case from among more than 23,000 lawsuits in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Ethicon lost the first trial in that docket on Sept. 5 when a jury in Charleston, West Virginia, awarded $3.27 million. U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin dismissed the first bellwether case before trial ended for lack of evidence. On March 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that decision. KISSIMMEE UTILITY: 11th Cir. Upholds "Ferentinos" Case Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a controversy which has a long and winding history touching on state and federal courts, Anthony Ferentinos, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his amended complaint, alleging constitutional violations per 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985 and various state laws under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. The dismissal was explained as tied to his disregard of the court's orders and federal rules. Ferentinos argues that the district court abused its discretion in finding that he had "ignored" the district court's orders that his wife's estate and class-action claims needed to be counseled and to be filed separately. In addition, he argues that the district court abused its discretion in finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice, given that he had a limited amount of time to amend his complaint. The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, in an opinion dated March 5, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/goD9ocfrom Leagle.com, concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing with prejudice Ferentinos's 295-page amended complaint: a dismissal based on the judge's finding that Ferentinos "repeatedly ignored" orders that his wife's estate and class-action claims needed to be counseled and filed separately. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice: Ferentinos had been given more than sufficient opportunity to state a plausible cause of action in federal and state court and to cure the complaint's deficiencies. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the amended complaint, based on the judge's determination that the amended complaint was a "shotgun pleading" -- similar to the other pleadings Ferentinos earlier filed in federal and state court -- and obviously did not comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and 10. The district court's dismissal with prejudice of Ferentinos' amended complaint is therefore, affirmed. The case is ANTHONY E. FERENTINOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, ESTATE OF SANDRA FERENTINOS, Plaintiff, v. KISSIMMEE UTILITY AUTHORITY, JAMES WELSH, in Official and Individual Capacity, CHRIS GENT, in Official and Individual Capacity, RICHARD WOODS, in Official and Individual Capacity, FRED H. CUMBIE, JR., in Official and Individual Capacity, et al., MICHAEL ANDREWS, individual and official capacity, ANDREWS AGENCY, INC., in official capacity, FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FLORIDA SENATE, HON.DON GAETZ, President of the Florida Senate, HON.WILL WEATHERFORD, Speaker of the Fla House of Representatives, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14- 13429, NON-ARGUMENT CALENDAR. KROGER CO: Judge Approves Settlements in Listeria Outbreak Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steven K. Paulson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a Denver judge has wrapped up most of the wrongful-death lawsuits stemming from a 2011 listeria outbreak traced to a cantaloupe farm that killed more than 30 people and sickened more than 140 others. The Denver District Court judge approved settlements for the families of 30 of the 33 people who died. The relatives sued companies that handled or sold the melons. Twenty lawsuits from those who fell ill also were settled. Plaintiffs' attorney Bill Marler said details of proposed settlements are confidential. Medical expenses from those cases total more than $12 million, Mr. Marler said on March 11. "This was a very complex case, involving people in 20 courts in 12 states. It has been more than three years now," Mr. Marler said. Jeni Exley, daughter of Herb Stevens, whose death was linked to the outbreak, said she was satisfied with the settlement. Her father suffered for two years after he came down with listeria. She said he had a fever, was shaking and couldn't walk without a walker. He died in 2013 from complications linked to the disease. "It shouldn't have happened in the first place," Ms. Exley said. Ms. Exley's lawsuit was filed against Kroger Co.'s King Soopers brand, Frontera Produce Ltd. and Bio Food Safety Inc. Other lawsuits included Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Freshpack Produce Inc., and other retail outlets and grocery stores. Attorneys for the other relatives could not be located for comment. Two Colorado cantaloupe farmers pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges stemming from the deadly outbreak and were sentenced to five years of probation and six months of home detention. A federal magistrate also ordered brothers Eric and Ryan Jensen to each pay $150,000 in restitution and perform 100 hours of community service. They pleaded guilty in 2013 to introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce. According to federal regulators, conditions at Jensen Farms caused the outbreak. Investigators said the melons likely were contaminated in the farm's packing house because of dirty water on the floor and old, hard-to-clean equipment. LENNOX INT'L: Defendant in Class Action on Evaporator Coils ----------------------------------------------------------- Lennox International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a defendant in an attempted class action lawsuit which alleges that evaporator coils in the Company's residential air conditioning products are susceptible to a type of corrosion that can result in coil leaks, and asserts claims for relief. "We dispute the allegations in the lawsuit. The outcome related to this action is uncertain but we do not expect this lawsuit to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations," the Company said. LIEN ENFORCEMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Baktiar Hamasaed, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Lien Enforcement, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00496 (S.D. Cal., March 4, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls on the cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system Lien Enforcement, Inc. is a California corporation, which s specialized collection agency that focuses exclusively on collecting deficient balances of lien sold vehicles for the towing industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Sara Khosroabadi, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com sara@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com LIFE TIME: July 30 Final Hearing Set in TCPA Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Joan N. Ericksen granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement in In re: Life Time Fitness, Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation, NO. 14-MD- 2564 (JNE/SER), (D. Minn.). The Court conditionally certified this action as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class defined as: All persons within the United States who received a text message from Life Time Fitness, Inc. to a cellular telephone through the use of an online texting service from January 1, 2014, through April 15, 2014. The Court appointed Plaintiffs Noah Peterson, Paul Sarenpa, Catherine Gould, and Brandon Silva as Class Representatives of the Settlement Class. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on July 30, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., to determine, among other things, whether the Settlement Class meets all applicable requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and, thus, whether the Action should be certified as a class action for purposes of effectuating the Settlement. Settlement Class Members who wish to either object to the Settlement or opt out by submitting a Request for Exclusion must do so by the Objection Deadline and the Opt-Out Deadline of June 5, 2015. Settlement Class Members may not both object and request exclusion. If a Settlement Class Member submits both a Request for Exclusion and an Objection, the Request for Exclusion will control. No later than July 16, 2015, Plaintiffs must file papers in support of final approval of the Settlement and respond to any written objections. Defendant may, but is not required to, file papers in support of final approval of the Settlement, so long as it does so no later than July 16, 2015. These are the deadlines by which certain events must occur: April 6, 2015 Settlement Notice Date May 4, 2015 Deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Service Awards June 5, 2015 Opt-Out and Objection Deadline July 6, 2015 Claims Deadline July 16, 2015 Deadline for Parties to file: (1) List of Persons who submitted timely and proper Requests for Exclusion; (2) Proof of CAFA Notice and Class Notice; and (3) Motion and Memorandum in Support of Final Approval, including responses to any Objections July 30, 2015 9:30 a.m. Final Approval Hearing A copy of the Court's March 9, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/EizSwKfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiff's Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn J Wanta -- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP. Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by David T Butsch -- dbutsch@butschroberts.com -- Butsch Roberts & Associates, LLC, J Gordon Rudd, Jr -- gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Caiola" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Caiola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv- 00037 (E.D.N.C., 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: Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Scott C. Harris, Esq. Margaret J. Pishko, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com scott@wbmllp.com maggie@wbmllp.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Tyrrell" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------ John Tyrrell and Tracie-Linn Tyrrell husband and wife, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01615 (C.D. Cal., March 5, 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: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Ari Y. Brown, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com ari@hbsslaw.com - and - Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com MAC LIQUORS: Faces "David" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Nelson David, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mac Liquors, Corp., and Jose Rafael Angeles, Case No. 1:15-cv-01601 (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 work week. The Defendants own and operate liquor stores located at 23 Lenox Avenue, New York, New York, 10026. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. Lawrence Office Park Building 2, Suite 220 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Case Remains Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that the District Court granted the parties' joint request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on the appeal in the case filed by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The Company said, "On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The complaint alleges that we sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages if the court finds the alleged violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive relief. On April 14, 2014, we filed a motion to stay the case pending a decision on a related petition filed by us with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC granted some of the relief and denied some of the relief requested in the petition. Both parties appealed the FCC's decision on the petition. On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on the appeal. We believe we have good and substantial defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee that we will prevail." MASIMO CORP: Further Amended Complaint Filed in Surfactant Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------- Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that a further amended complaint was filed in the case filed by and on behalf of two participants in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial at the University of Alabama. The Company said, "On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in connection with pulse oximeters that we modified and provided at the request of study investigators for use in the trial. A previous version of the complaint also alleged a wrongful death claim, which the court dismissed on January 22, 2014. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, interest, attorney fees and injunctive and other relief. We believe we have good and substantial defenses to the remaining claims, but there is no guarantee that we will prevail." MATSON INC: Settlement Reached in Horizon Lines Merger Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Matson, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, that the defendants and the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action reached an agreement in principle providing for the settlement and dismissal, with prejudice, of the Consolidated Action. On February 13, 2015, Matson Navigation Company, Inc. ("Matson Navigation"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Matson, Inc. ("Matson"), entered into an Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to the previously disclosed Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 11, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Matson Navigation, Hogan Acquisition Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Matson Navigation ("Merger Sub"), and Horizon Lines, Inc. ("Horizon"). Three putative class actions were filed in connection with the Merger Agreement in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court"): (a) Joshua Loken v. Horizon Lines, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10399- VCL (filed on or around November 25, 2014) (the "Loken Action"); (b) J. Cola, Inc. v. Horizon Lines, Inc., C.A. No. 10412-VCL (filed on or around December 1, 2014) (the "Cola Action"); (c) Finn Kristiansen v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., C.A. No. 10418-VCL (filed on or around December 2, 2014) (the "Kristiansen Action"). On or around January 29, 2015, a fourth putative class action was filed in the Court: Frederick Schwartz v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., C.A. No. 10594-VCL (the "Schwartz Action"). On February 5, 2015, the Court consolidated the Loken, Cola, Kristiansen, and Schwartz Actions (the "Consolidated Action"). On February 13, 2015, the defendants and the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action reached an agreement in principle, which is subject to the court's approval, providing for the settlement and dismissal, with prejudice, of the Consolidated Action. Pursuant to such proposed settlement, Horizon agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to Horizon's stockholders through a supplement to Horizon's proxy statement and Matson and Horizon agreed to amend the Merger Agreement to reduce the termination fee that may be payable by Horizon to Matson under certain circumstances pursuant to Section 7.3(a) of the Merger Agreement from $17,149,600 to $9,500,000. The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders of Horizon in connection with the Merger Agreement. MCNEIL CONSUMER: Pleads Guilty Over Metal Particles in Tylenol -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Rubinkam and Maryclaire Dale, writing for The Associated Press, report that a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson pleaded guilty on March 10 to a federal criminal charge that it sold over- the-counter infant's and children's liquid medicine containing metal particles. McNeil Consumer Healthcare, of Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, acknowledged failing to take corrective action after discovering the adulterated bottles of Infants' and Children's Tylenol and Children's Motrin. The company agreed to pay $25 million to resolve the case. Metal particles, including nickel, iron and chromium, were introduced during the manufacturing process at McNeil's plant in Fort Washington. Prosecutors said McNeil knew about the problem for nearly a year but failed to take immediate steps to fix it. The company and prosecutors said in court on March 10 that no one was injured. "McNeil's failure to comply with current good manufacturing practices is seriously troubling," Acting Assistant Attorney General Mizer said in a statement after the judge accepted McNeil's plea. "The Department of Justice will continue to be aggressive in pursuing and punishing companies such as McNeil that disregard a process designed to assure quality medicines, especially OTC drugs for infants and children," he said. McNeil is a unit of Johnson & Johnson. The New Brunswick, New Jersey, health care giant has struggled with scores of product recalls since 2009. In this case, McNeil first learned of the particle problem in May 2009, when a consumer complained about black specks inside a bottle of Infants' Tylenol, according to court documents. McNeil subsequently found metal particles during production but continued making the liquid medicines for several more months. "There were investigative steps taken, but not all of the steps required under all of our internal operating procedures," company attorney Michael Schwartz told The Associated Press on March 10. McNeill eventually traced the problem to the machinery at its plant in Fort Washington and issued a recall. The Food and Drug Administration said the potential for serious medical problems was remote but advised consumers to stop using the medicine. The suburban Philadelphia plant -- which was linked to several recalls of Tylenol and other nonprescription drugs for children and adults -- was shuttered in April 2010 and rebuilt from the ground up, but it has yet to reopen. The company is operating under an agreement with the FDA requiring increased inspections and oversight at its factories. McNeil said on March 10 it has significantly improved its procedures. "McNeil has been implementing enhanced quality and oversight standards across its entire business to ensure we are best able to meet our commitment to consumers, patients and doctors who rely on our products," company spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said. MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST: Okla. Court Vacates Order in "Cellino" Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Supreme Court of Oklahoma issued a ruling on March 10, 2015, in the case captioned MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, FKA THE SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND OF OKLAHOMA, Petitioner, v. ANTHONY CELLINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF CLAIMANTS AND THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents, CASE NO. 111760. 2015 OK 12. The claimant, Anthony Cellino, was injured on the job on April 4, 1995, with re-injury on December 17, 1995. His claims were consolidated for purposes of his claim against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (the Fund). On March 13, 1997, he was awarded benefits against the Fund in the amount of $4,100. On May 30, 2000, he received a check from the Fund for $5,202.26. Then in August of 2003, Cellino filed a request for additional unpaid principal and interest based on an award from an order entered in 1997. The final payment of that order was made by the Fund in May of 2000. Cellino additionally sought class action status and relief for similarly situated claimants who are seeking interest on previously awarded benefits against the Fund, and whose final orders were entered after May 9, 1996. On July 29, 2009, Cellino filed a motion to compel discovery responses, which were answered by the Fund on August 10. The Fund filed its motion for summary judgment on August 14. One of the assertions was that the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to 85 O.S.Supp.1995, Section 43(B).2 The trial court granted the Fund's motion, but the three-judge panel remanded for further proceedings. After remand, the trial court issued its December 7, 2012, order certifying a class consisting of persons awarded benefits against the Fund after May 9, 1996, but which were not timely paid. A three-judge panel affirmed in part and modified in part the trial court order that certified the class action. The modifications were minor word changes that did not affect the substance of the court's order. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma retained the case. The Fund argues that Cellino's August 22, 2003, request for class certification is a "claim for compensation" and is subject to 85 O.S.Supp.1995, Section 43(B), if a final hearing is not requested within five years of the last payment of compensation. Cellino argues that Section 43(B) does not apply in cases such as this where a final determination of benefits has already been made and the request is for post-judgment interest on the final award. Regardless of how Cellino's August 22, 2003, request for class certification is characterized, that filing invoked the jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Court and sought an award from the Fund for "unpaid principal and post award interest due to him" and other similarly situated claimants. To adjudicate the claimant's request, the Workers' Compensation Court must make a final determination as to whether a class should be certified, and if so, the amount owed to each class member. The five-year time limitation found in Section 43(B) applies to this case. According to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, "We need to address only one issue in this Workers' Compensation matter and that is whether the claimant's request for class certification is a "claim for compensation" and subject to the five-year statute of limitations found in 85 O.S.Supp.1995, Section 43(B).1 We hold that the request is a claim for compensation and that the claimant failed to diligently prosecute this claim, which is now barred by the five-year limitation found in [Section] 43(B). . . The order of the Workers' Compensation Court is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss." A copy of the Supreme Court ruling is available at http://is.gd/svvYZrfrom Leagle.com. Philip W. Redwine, Douglas B. Cubberley, LAW OFFICES OF REDWINE & CUBBERLY, Norman, Oklahoma, for petitioner. Thomas A. Layon, THE LAYON LAW FIRM, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma for respondents. John B. Nicks, CRUTCHMER & BARNES, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for respondents. NASDAQ OMX: Appeal in Facebook Litigation Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is named as a defendant in a consolidated matter captioned In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 2389 (S.D.N.Y.). "Our appeal of the district court's order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint is currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, at No. 14-1457," the Company said. NASDAQ OMX: Filed Motion to Dismiss in Barclays Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case In re Barclays Liquidity Cross and High Frequency Trading Litigation, 14-md-02589 (S.D.N.Y). The Company is named as one of many defendants in City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a private alternative trading system. "On behalf of a putative class of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high-frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3, 2014," the Company said. "In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations. We then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015." On January 9, 2015, the court consolidated this case in a multi- district litigation proceeding under the heading In re Barclays Liquidity Cross and High Frequency Trading Litigation, 14-md-02589 (S.D.N.Y). The consolidated cases bring claims against Barclays PLC and Barclays Capital alleging that certain marketing materials about Barclays LX contained false or misleading statements. Although the Providence matter has been consolidated with the Barclays matter, separate motions to dismiss will be filed for each case. "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe the claims to be without merit and intend to litigate them vigorously," the Company said. NASDAQ OMX: No Ruling Yet on Bids to Dismiss "Lainer" Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a decision remains pending on the Company's motion to dismiss the Lainer complaints. The Company is named as one of many exchange defendants in Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v. Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were filed between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories under state law based on these alleged breaches. |On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaints. The court heard oral argument on the motion on January 16, 2015. A decision remains pending," the Company said. "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe the claims to be without merit and intend to litigate them vigorously." NATIONAL PREARRANGED: Jury Awards $491MM Damages in Funerals Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a St. Louis federal jury has awarded $491 million in damages in a 6-year-old lawsuit linked to the collapse years ago of a company that sold prepaid funerals but that federal investigators described as nothing more than an elaborate Ponzi scheme. The March 9 verdict ended a trial over the 2009 lawsuit by state life and health guarantee associations and a special receiver set up to wind down National Prearranged Services Inc., which was based in the St. Louis suburb of Clayton, the St. Louis Post- Dispatch reported. The damages include $391 million against PNC Bank and $100 million against the now-defunct Forever Enterprises holding company. Some banks and other companies connected to NPS have settled out of court or are arranging settlements for unspecified amounts. PNC, which pledged to appeal the verdict, wasn't involved with NPS but succeeded Allegiant Bank, a former trustee of NPS assets. NPS operated from 1992 to 2008, selling funeral plans in advance with the promise that the buyers' money would be kept safe until the time of the funeral. Customers typically paid a single sum of up to $10,000 to cover the cost of funeral services and related expenses. Prosecutors said that money should have been held in trust and increased at least three-fold in value but was instead used to enrich the company's officers and others. Dan Reilly, a Denver lawyer representing the guarantee associations, called the outcome "the final step in the process of protecting consumers in Missouri and other states." Frederick Solomon, PNC Financial Services Group's senior vice president, said in a statement that PNC "respectfully disagrees with the jury regarding the liability of its predecessor bank, Allegiant, and we intend to appeal this verdict." Forever Enterprises was not represented in court, the newspaper reported. Mr. Solomon also said that all of the consumers who bought prepaid funeral services will receive those services. Beginning in the early 1990s, the lawsuit's plaintiffs argued, liabilities exceeded trust assets, and NPS could pay for funerals only by using cash from new contracts. More than 97,000 victims who included customers, funeral homes, insurers and financial institutions lost money, federal officials have said. In November 2013, six NPC officials were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 18 months to 10 years for fraud. NEXTEL: Class Certification in Discrimination Suit Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a judge's decision to certify a class against Nextel for inducing the former law firm of Leeds, Morelli & Brown into settling an employment discrimination case that harmed plaintiffs has been reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The circuit said a lower court erred in finding that common issues predominated over individual ones in Johnson v. Nextel Communications, 14-454, finding instead that individual issues would "overwhelm" the rest of the case alleging that Nextel colluded with the former Leeds, Morelli & Brown, now Leeds Brown Law. Leeds Brown is no longer part of the case, but Nextel is, and the company was handed a win on March 4 by Judges Richard Wesley, Peter Hall and Gerard Lynch, with Judge Lynch saying, "This case arises from a novel approach to aggregate litigation that continues to provoke debate among experts of legal ethics." In litigation that began nearly 15 years ago, Leeds Morelli represented 587 plaintiffs and reached a dispute resolution and settlement agreement with Nextel that called for interviews with individual plaintiffs, non-binding mediation and, if mediation didn't work, binding arbitration. The settlement had Nextel paying $2 million up front to Leeds Morelli for persuading their clients to drop their lawsuits and submit to the process, another $1.5 million to the firm once half the claims were resolved and an additional $2 million once all claims were dismissed. The agreement set a 45-week schedule, and if Leeds Morelli couldn't resolve all the claims, Nextel would deduct $50,000 per month. The company also agreed to retain Leeds Morelli as a consultant for two years after complete resolution for a fee of $2 million. Both the company and the law firm obtained legal ethics opinions vouching for the propriety of the fee arrangement and the resolution process. Most of the cases were settled by 2006, when a group of Nextel employees sued both the company and the law firm on behalf of the entire class of Nextel employees represented by Leeds Morelli for breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice and breach of contract. Southern District Judge George Daniels dismissed the case in 2009, but the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal in 2011, saying the settlement agreement "created an enormous conflict of interest between" the law firm and its clients, and the complaint had adequately stated claims the plaintiffs could pursue (NYLJ, Sept. 28, 2011). Judge Daniels granted class certification against Nextel in 2013, finding 10 issues common to the class. But Judge Daniels denied a motion for certification of a sub-class against Leeds Morelli, prompting the parties then to move for a stipulated voluntary dismissal of claims against the firm, leaving Nextel alone to head back to the circuit for oral argument on Dec. 9, 2014. Judge Lynch said on March 4 that critical to the appeal were choice of law issues that were a part of the 2001 decision reinstating the case. The circuit in 2011 had said that, while any conflict of interest on the part of Leeds Morelli was non- consentable under New York law, a plaintiff could consent to that same conflict under the law of Colorado, where 164 of the 587 plaintiffs reside. Lynch said the lower court was mistaken in its analysis that led to its finding that New York law should apply. Instead, he said, the commission of the tort took place in states where the individual plaintiffs reside and "where he or she were promised representation" by the law firm, and all but six plaintiffs live outside of New York. In finding that the most significant relationship between the parties was outside New York, Lynch brushed aside the plaintiffs' argument that New York should prevail because it has an interest in regulating the conduct of attorneys licensed to practice in New York. "We are not persuaded that New York has a superior interest in regulating relationships entered into in 26 other states, under 26 states' substantive laws, simply because one of the parties was a New York law firm," he said. Judge Lynch said that once the court has determined that the law of each of plaintiff's 27 states will apply, "the case for finding the predominance of common issues and the superiority of trying this case as a class action diminishes to the vanishing point." Jennifer Connolly -- jenniferc@hbsslaw.com -- and Steve Berman, partners at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Washington, D.C. and Kenneth Thyne of Roper & Thyne in Totowa, New Jersey, represent the plaintiffs. Mark Harris -- mharris@proskauer.com -- and Lawrence Sandack -- lsandak@proskauer.com -- partners, and John Roberts, associate, at Proskauer Rose represent Nextel. Related Decisions: Johnson v. Nextel, 14-454 NEW YORK, NY: To Remain a Defendant in Firefighter Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Joel Stashenko, writing for Law.com, reports that New York City will remain a defendant in a suit filed on behalf of firefighters who were killed or injured in a 2004 Bronx fire, under a ruling by the Appellate Division, First Department. The panel agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that the state's Public Employee Safety and Health Act could subject the city to valid claims that the firefighters were placed at risk of death or serious physical harm by the city over the course of their employment. The court also said in Stolowski v. 234 East 178th Street LLC, 12893, that the city is not entitled to governmental function immunity since there is evidence that the city, directly or indirectly, contributed to the deaths and injuries by its decision in 2000 to remove personal firefighters' ropes. New ropes had not been provided to the firefighters by 2004, when two firefighters were killed and four seriously injured when they were forced to jump from a burning building in the Bronx, the court noted. "The failure to provide new ropes . . . raises issues of fact concerning whether the absence of ropes 'actually resulted from discretionary decision-making -- i.e., the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results,'" the unsigned First Department ruling said, quoting Valdez v. City of New York, 18 NY3d 69 (2011). Justices Angela Mazarelli, Rolando Acosta, Rosalyn Richter and Darcel Clark joined in the decision. Assistant Corporation Counsel Drake Colley argued for the city. Brian Shoot, a member at Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, and Andrew Turro -- aturro@msek.com -- member at Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein in Garden City, represented the plaintiffs. The ruling largely upheld the determination in March 2013 by Bronx Supreme Court Justice Larry Schachner, who also declined to grant the city summary judgment. OMNIVISION TECH: June 5 Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ronald M. Whyte granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement in In re OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05235-RMW, (N.D. Cal.). The Court certified the class defined as: all persons and entities that, during the period from August 27, 2010 to and through November 6, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired shares of OmniVision's publicly traded common stock in the open market, and were damaged thereby. A hearing will be held on June 5, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte in Courtroom 6 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, to determine, among other things, whether the proposed Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court, and whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered, dismissing the Action in its entirety and with prejudice. The Court approved the retention of Heffler Claims Group as the Claims Administrator to supervise and administer the notice procedure and the processing of claims under the supervision of Lead Counsel. A copy of the Court's March 3, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/NIgdqKfrom Leagle.com. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, STEPHEN R. BASSER -- sward@barrack.com -- SAMUEL M. WARD -- sbasser@barrack.com -- San Diego, CA, BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC, J. GERARD STRANCH, IV -- gerards@BSJFirm.com -- JAMES G. STRANCH, III -- jims@BSJFirm.com -- Nashville, TN, Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, Laborers' District Council and Contractors' Pension Fund of Ohio, and Woburn Retirement System and the Proposed Class. OVATION LENDING: Order Denying Dismissal Bid Certified for Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In DAVID LEONARD OROSCO, Plaintiff, v. OVATION LENDING, LLC, Defendant, NO. SA-14-CV-00897-RP, (W.D. Tex.), before the Court are Ovation Lending, LLC's motion to certify order for interlocutory appeal and stay action pending appeal filed on February 19, 2015, and Plaintiff's response filed on February 24. This case is one of six putative class action lawsuits filed in the Western District of Texas by Plaintiff's counsel against companies in the business of making property tax loans to homeowners. Plaintiffs allege these companies, regulated and licensed by the State of Texas as property tax lenders, violated the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act ("HOEPA") when making these loans. Defendants contend the lawsuits should be dismissed because Texas property tax loans are not consumer credit transactions subject to the provisions of TILA and HOEPA. According to District Judge Robert L. Pitman, as it stands now, there is a conflict between the courts as to whether plaintiffs in these lawsuits state a claim upon which relief can be granted under TILA and HOEPA. Because this threshold question is potentially dispositive, an appeal of the issue would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. "In light of these factors, this Court is of the opinion that the Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be certified for interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. In the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, this Court is also of the opinion that the action should be stayed pending resolution of the issue by the Fifth Circuit." "It is therefore ordered that the Court's Order dated February 9, 2015 denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is hereby certified for an immediate interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals," ruled Judge Pitman. "[P]roceedings in this case are hereby stayed pending further Orders of this Court." A copy of the Court's March 3, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/rfotFsfrom Leagle.com. David Leonard Orosco, Plaintiff, represented by Jon Dale Lowe -- jlowe@mdtlaw.com -- Martin & Drought, PC & Bernie Martinez. Ovation Lending, LLC, Defendant, represented by J. Christopher Creel, Law Firm of Daniel J. Young, PLLC, Jonathan D. Pauerstein -- jpauerstein@rpsalaw.com -- Rosenthal Pauerstein Sandoloski Agather LLP & Stephen K. Lecholop, II -- slecholop@rpsalaw.com -- Rosenthal Paurestein Sandoloski Agather LLP. PORTLAND GENERAL: Customers' Class Actions Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Class action lawsuits by electric service customers against Portland General Electric Company remain pending, PGE 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 two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in Marion County Circuit Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes of electric service customers. The class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan nuclear power plant. In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings until the Public Utility Commission of Oregon or OPUC responded to the 2002 Order denying all of the Utility Reform Project (URP)'s challenges. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the OPUC has primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy can be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices. The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part. The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded OPUC proceedings. The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court. The OPUC issued an order in 2008 (2008 Order) that required PGE to provide refunds, including interest from September 30, 2000, to customers who received service from the Company during the period from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. The Company recorded a charge of $33.1 million in 2008 related to the refund and accrued additional interest expense on the liability until refunds to customers were completed in the first quarter of 2010. The URP and the plaintiffs in the class actions separately appealed the 2008 Order to the Oregon Court of Appeals. On February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that upheld the 2008 Order. On May 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the appellants' request for reconsideration of the decision. On October 18, 2013, the Oregon Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' petition seeking review of the February 6, 2013 Oregon Court of Appeals decision. On October 2, 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, affirmed the February 6, 2013 Oregon Court of Appeals decision that upheld the OPUC's 2008 Order. On January 15, 2015, the Oregon Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition seeking reconsideration of the October 2, 2014 decision. The October 2, 2014 Oregon Supreme Court decision expressly noted that the plaintiffs in the class action must address any request to lift the abatement with the Marion County Circuit Court. PGE is evaluating how to proceed with respect to the class actions. PGE believes that the October 2, 2014 Oregon Supreme Court decision has reduced the risk of a loss to the Company in excess of the amounts previously recorded. However, because the class actions remain pending, management believes that it is still reasonably possible that such a loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to determine the amount of any such loss, or to estimate a range of potential loss. POULSEN PIZZA: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Hoffman, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Poulsen Pizza LLC, Dream Team Pizza LLC, and Dream Team Pizza KC LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02640 (D. Kan., March 5, 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 Domino's franchise restaurants in states including Kansas and Missouri. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Jack D. McInnes V, Esq. PAUL MCINNES, LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com RANGER CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Piceno" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Piceno, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Ranger Construction, Inc., and Satwant K. Kaler, Case No. 1:15-cv-01993 (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com REGIONS FINANCIAL: Awaiting Approval of Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class action was brought on behalf of retail purchasers of the bonds in September 2012, seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. In September 2014, the District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted class certification. The parties agreed to settlement terms in January 2015 and are awaiting approval of the settlement by the Court. REGIONS FINANCIAL: Seeks Appellate Review on Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Regions is seeking appellate review concerning the class certification which was denied in January 2015. In October 2010, a class-action lawsuit was filed by Regions' stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (the "District Court") against Regions and certain former officers of Regions ("the 2010 Claim"). The 2010 Claim alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including allegations that statements that were materially false and misleading were included in filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages. In June 2011, the District Court denied Regions' motion to dismiss the 2010 Claim. In June 2012, District Court granted class certification. In September 2014, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated certification in part and remanded the 2010 Claim to District Court for further consideration of the class certification issue. Following recertification in the District Court, Regions filed a petition for permissive appeal in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the class certification which was denied in January 2015. Regions is seeking appellate review. SANTANDER CONSUMER: To Pay $9.4MM for Illegally Repossessing Cars ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that a U.S. subsidiary of Spanish banking giant Banco Santander will pay $9.4 million to settle claims it illegally repossessed more than 1,100 cars leased by military servicemembers on active duty. Dallas-based Santander Consumer USA violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act when it repossessed the cars from 2008 to 2013, according to the United States federal lawsuit filed February 25. The law protects servicemembers from civil proceedings while they are serving. "One of those protections is the requirement that a court review and approve a lender's repossession of any motor vehicle owned by a servicemember if the servicemember took out the loan and made a deposit or an installment payment before entering military service," the complaint states. "The court may delay the repossession or condition the repossession on the refunding of all or part of the prior installments or deposits made by the servicemember. The court may also appoint an attorney to represent the servicemember, require the lender to post a bond with the court and issue any other orders it deems necessary to protect the rights of the servicemember." Prosecutors say Santander failed to obtain the court orders before repossessing 760 vehicles from January 2008 to February 2013, and tried to collect fees from another 352 repossessions from March 2010 to February 2013. In one case, a car belonging to 19-year-old Army Specialist Joshua Davis, of Florida, was repossessed while he was in basic training. "Defendant sold Specialist Davis' car at an auction, after seizing it during the middle of the night from outside his home, and then sent Specialist Davis a bill to pay a deficiency balance of over $9,000 (including nearly $800 in repossession fees), reported his deficiency balance to the major credit bureaus, and sold the deficiency balance to a third-party debt buyer," the complaint states. In another case, Army National Guard Sgt. Charles Beard, of California, had his federal class action lawsuit against Santander thwarted when an arbitration clause in the loan documents was exercised. "Requiring Sergeant Beard to resolve his dispute in a private, individual arbitration rather than a public class action lawsuit hindered the ability of Sergeant Beard to pursue relief for anyone but himself," the complaint states. Santander agreed to pay servicemembers $10,000 apiece and "any lost equity" for each of the 760 repossessed vehicles. It will pay servicemembers $5,000 for each of the 352 repossessions in which it sough fees. Santander spokeswoman Laurie Kight said the Department of Justice noted in the consent order the company "cooperated fully" with the federal investigation and has "taken steps to improve its servicing practices and compliance with the SCRA." "Since 2012, SCUSA has used systemic controls to prevent improper repossessions of vehicles, including those who were contracted with SCRA-eligible customers," Kight said February 26. "The majority of accounts found objectionable by the DOJ involved repossessions prior to 2012 and approximately one-third were accounts from other financial institutions that were converted to SCUSA accounts at a later date. The topic is separate and unrelated to the DOJ subpoena received in 2014 related to origination and securitization practices." The company has "set aside financial reserves" for the settlement that will not require adjustments to publicly reported numbers, she added. The Plaintiff is represented by: T. J. Johnson, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Northern District of Texas 1100 Commerce Street, Third Floor Dallas, TX 75242-1699 Telephone: (214) 659-8715 E-mail: tj.johnson@usdoj.gov - and - Vanita Gupta, Esq. ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION Steven H. Rosenbaum, Esq. CHIEF HOUSING AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT SECTION Elizabeth A. Singer, Esq. DIRECTOR, U.S. ATTORNEYS' FAIR HOUSING PROGRAM Daniel P. Mosteller, Esq. TRIAL ATTORNEY HOUSING AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT SECTION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW - NWB Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-0053 Facsimile: (202) 514-1116 E-mail: daniel.mosteller@usdoj.gov The case is United States of America v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00633-B, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. SERVICE CORP: Subsidiary Faces "Samborsky" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International 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 Charles Samborsky, et al, individually and on behalf of those persons similarly situated, v. SCI California Funeral Services, Inc., et al ; Case No. BC544180; in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District-Central Civil West Courthouse, was filed in April 2014 against an SCI subsidiary and purports to have been brought on behalf of employees who worked as family serv2ice counselors in California since April 2010. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for various violations of state laws regulating wage and hour pay. The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief. "We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit," the Company said. SERVICE CORP: "Moulton" Action to Proceed v. Stewart Enterprises ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and others, will continue against Service's subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual directors, Service 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. Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans, was filed as a class action in June 2013 against SCI and our subsidiary in connection with SCI's proposed acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination. "We filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer be party to the suit. The case will continue against our subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual directors. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages," the Company said. SEWERAGE & WATER: Summary Judgment Bid in Crutchfield Case Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in RONDA CRUTCHFIELD, ET AL., v. SEWERAGE & WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL., Section "C", CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV- 4801, (E.D. La.) bring this proposed class action lawsuit alleging that defendants' construction of the Dwyer Road Intake Canal inflicted damage to plaintiffs' and proposed class members' property in the surrounding area. The Dwyer Road Intake Canal is a federally funded project administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE"). This case was originally filed in Orleans Civil District Court. It was removed pursuant 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1) because Hill Bros. claims it is a government contractor immune from suit. Since April 1, 2014, the parties have engaged in discovery limited to class certification issues. On January 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to certify class action. Plaintiffs now move for partial summary judgment, arguing that Hill Bros.' claim of government contractor immunity should be dismissed. In an order and reasons entered March 4, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/K2QK2Sfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Helen G. Berrigan found that no discovery has been conducted on the issue of government contractor immunity -- the subject of the instant motion. "The lack of discovery on this issue is highlighted by the significant gaps in plaintiffs' evidentiary support for this motion," Judge Berrigan held. "As Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (SWB) points out, plaintiffs have not provided the Court with the contract that explicitly sets forth specifications approved by the Corps. They have also provided incomplete copies of the Corps' Scope of Work. The portion that plaintiffs attached merely requires the contractor to record and document vibrations exceeding 0.25 inches per second and notify the Government Resident Inspector of vibrations above that level. It does not state that vibrations exceeding 0.25 inches per second constitute a violation of the specifications. Plaintiffs also provide an excerpt from a Hill Bros. contract that states similar requirements, but the excerpt does not establish if these are specifications imposed by the Corps. Thus, contested issues of fact remain as to what the Corps' precise specifications regarding dewatering and vibration levels were and whether vibrations exceeding 0.25 inches per second actually constituted a violation of these specifications. Plaintiffs' reliance on incomplete documentation and hearsay supports that adjudication of this issue should be postponed until the parties have conducted further discovery." Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion is denied without prejudice, Judge Berrigan concluded. SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES: Mag. Judge Findings Adopted in "Makaneole" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In MICHAEL MAKANEOLE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES AMERICA, INC.; SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES AMERICA, LP; SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES SERVICES, LLC; SOLARWORLD POWER PROJECTS, INC., RANDSTAD PROFESSIONALS US, LP, and KELLY SERVICES, INC., Defendants, NO. 3:14-CV-01528-PK, (D. Ore.), Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation on December 8, 2014, in which he recommends the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Kelly Services, Inc.; grant Kelly Service's Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement pursuant to Rule 12(e); grant in part and deny in part the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Randstad Professionals U.S., LP; dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's Third Claim as to all Defendants; dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff's First and Second Claims as to all Defendants; and grant Plaintiff 30 days to file an Amended Complaint consistent with the Findings and Recommendation. The Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. District Judge Anna J. Brown, in an order entered March 9, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/4jd8CVfrom Leagle.com, adopted as modified Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court: * denies Kelly Services' Motion to Dismiss; * grants Kelly Services' Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement pursuant to Rule 12(e); * grants Randstad Professionals' Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff's First, Second, and Third Claims; * denies Randstad Professionals' Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees; * dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's First, Second, and Third Claims; and * grants Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint no later than April 6, 2015, to cure the deficiencies set out in the Findings and Recommendation. Michael Makaneole, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Arthur Schuck -- DSchuck@Wagelawyer.com -- Schuck Law, LLC & Karen A. Moore -- kmoore@wagelawyer.com -- Bailey Pinney & Associates LLC. Solarworld Industries America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Todd A. Hanchett -- todd.hanchett@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP, Victor Joseph Kisch -- victor.kisch@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP & John Baird Dudrey -- john.dudrey@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP. SolarWorld Industries America, LP, Defendant, represented by Todd A. Hanchett, Stoel Rives LLP, Victor Joseph Kisch, Stoel Rives LLP & John Baird Dudrey, Stoel Rives LLP. SolarWorld Industries Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Todd A. Hanchett, Stoel Rives LLP, Victor Joseph Kisch, Stoel Rives LLP & John Baird Dudrey, Stoel Rives LLP. SolarWorld Power Projects, Inc., Defendant, represented by Todd A. Hanchett, Stoel Rives LLP, Victor Joseph Kisch, Stoel Rives LLP & John Baird Dudrey, Stoel Rives LLP. Randstad Professionals US, LP, Defendant, represented by Clarence M. Belnavis -- cbelnavis@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP, John S. Snelling -- John.Snelling@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP & Toni J. Read -- Toni.Read@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP. Kelly Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerald L. Maatman -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Jr., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Joshua M. Henderson -- jhenderson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Michael W. Kopp -- mkopp@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Andrew S. Moses -- amoses@gordon-polscer.com -- Gordon & Polscer, LLC. TARGA RESOURCES: Class Action Parties Working on Settlement Docs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Targa Resources Partners LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties in the shareholder class action are currently working on settlement documentation. On January 28, 2015, a public shareholder of TRC (the "TRC Plaintiff") filed a putative class action and derivative lawsuit against TRC (as a nominal defendant), its directors at the time of the ATLS Merger (the "TRC Director Defendants"), and ATLS (together with TRC and the TRC Director Defendants, the "TRC Lawsuit Defendants"). This lawsuit is styled Inspired Investors v. Joe Bob Perkins, et al., in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the "TRC Lawsuit"). The TRC Plaintiff alleges a variety of causes of action challenging the disclosures related to the ATLS Merger. Generally, the TRC Plaintiff alleges that the TRC Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties. The TRC Plaintiff further alleges that the registration statement filed on January 22, 2015 fails to disclose allegedly material details concerning (i) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC's and the TRC Director Defendants' supposed conflicts of interest with respect to the ATLS Merger, (ii) TRC's financial projections, (iii) the background of the ATLS Merger, and (iv) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC's analysis of the ATLS Merger. Based on these allegations, the TRC Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the TRC Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the ATLS Merger unless and until TRC discloses the allegedly material omitted details. To the extent that the ATLS Merger is consummated before injunctive relief is granted, the TRC Plaintiff seeks to have the ATLS Merger rescinded. The TRC Plaintiff also seeks recissory damages and attorneys' fees. Only two of the TRC Lawsuit Defendants have been served at this time, these defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the TRC Lawsuit was March 2, 2015. The remaining TRC Lawsuit Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the TRC Lawsuit has not yet been set. Targa cannot predict the outcome of this or any other lawsuit that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this Annual Report, nor can Targa or Atlas predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the TRC Lawsuit. To resolve this matter, Targa published supplemental disclosures on February 11, 2015 and the parties are currently working on settlement documentation. TARGA RESOURCES: Parties to Atlas Lawsuits Agreed to Settle ----------------------------------------------------------- Targa Resources Partners LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties to the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits agreed to settle the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits on February 9, 2015. Between October and December 2014, five public unitholders of Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., (the "APL Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits against APL, Atlas Energy, L.P., Atlas Pipeline Partners GP, LLC, the general partner of APL ("APL GP"), its managers, TRC, the Partnership, the general partner and Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC (the "APL Lawsuit Defendants"). 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, though the Tulsa Lawsuit has since been voluntarily dismissed. The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum 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"). In October and November 2014, two public unitholders of ATLS (the "ATLS Plaintiffs" and, together with the APL Plaintiffs, the "Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits against ATLS, ATLS Energy GP, LLC, the general partner of ATLS ("ATLS GP"), its managers, TRC and Trident GP Merger Sub LLC (the "ATLS Lawsuit Defendants" and, together with the APL Lawsuit Defendants, the "Atlas Lawsuit Defendants"). These lawsuits are styled (a) Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and (b) Jeffrey Ayers v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "ATLS Lawsuits"). The ATLS Lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Energy, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019658, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit") and, together with the Consolidated APL Lawsuit, (the "Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits") though the Kane lawsuit has since been voluntarily dismissed. The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action challenging the Atlas Mergers. Generally, the APL Plaintiffs allege that (a) APL GP's managers have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) TRC, the Partnership, the general partner, Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC, APL, ATLS and APL GP have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The APL Plaintiffs further allege that (a) the premium offered to APL's unitholders is inadequate, (b) APL agreed to contractual terms that will allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire APL, and (c) APL GP's managers favored their self-interests over the interests of APL's unitholders. The APL Plaintiffs in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit also allege that the registration statement filed on November 19, 2014 fails, among other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning (i) Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated's analysis of the Transactions; (ii) Targa and Atlas' financial projections; and (iii) the background of the Transactions. Generally, the ATLS Plaintiffs allege that (a) ATLS GP's directors have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, Trident GP Merger Sub LLC, and ATLS have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The ATLS Plaintiffs further allege that (a) the premium offered to the ATLS unitholders is inadequate, (b) ATLS agreed to contractual terms that will allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire ATLS, (c) ATLS GP's directors favored their self-interests over the interests of the ATLS unitholders and (d) the registration statement fails to disclose allegedly material details concerning, among other things, (i) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.'s analyses of the Transactions; (ii) Targa and Atlas' financial projections; and (iii) the background of the Transactions. Based on these allegations, the Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Atlas Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Atlas Mergers unless and until APL and ATLS adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible terms for their respective unitholders. To the extent that the Atlas Mergers were consummated before injunctive relief was granted, the Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs sought to have the Atlas Mergers rescinded. The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs also sought damages and seek attorneys' fees. The parties to the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits agreed to settle the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits on February 9, 2015. In general, the settlements provide that in consideration for the dismissal of the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits, ATLS and APL will provide supplemental disclosures regarding the Atlas Mergers in a filing with the SEC on Form 8-K, which ATLS and APL did on February 11, 2015. The Atlas Lawsuit Defendants agreed to make such supplemental disclosures solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk, burden, and expense inherent in litigation and deny that any supplemental disclosure was or is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. The parties to the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits are drafting settlement agreements and expect to seek court approval of the settlements. TCP INTERNATIONAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel V. Leach, Jr., individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. TCP International Holdings Ltd., Ellis Yan, Brian Catlett, Solomon Yan, Jurgen Borgt, and Matthias Belz, Case No. 1:15-cv-01631 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. TCP International Holdings Ltd. is a Switzerland corporation, which designs, develops, manufactures, and markets lighting products and accessories to the commercial, industrial, and retail markets worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis Paul McConville, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com TRINIDAD DRILLING: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Walker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Trinidad Drilling, LP, Case No. 5:15-cv-00169 (W.D. Tex., March 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. Trinidad Drilling, LP is a Texas corporation that operates in an oil and gas drilling rigs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. BARON AND BUDD PC 3102 Oak Lawn Ave-Ste 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com UBER TECH: Jury Must Decide Misclassification Suits, Judges Say --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that two San Francisco federal judges say juries will have to decide whether drivers for Uber and Lyft were independent contractors, or employees of the ride-hailing companies with all of the protections and benefits the state affords regular workers. The rulings have potentially expensive ramifications for Uber and Lyft. Two former Lyft drivers and four current Uber drivers have filed two separate lawsuits alleging that they were misclassified as independent contractors and thus deprived of California's minimum wage, reimbursement for work-related expenses, and other protections. The plaintiffs seek class-action status on behalf of current and former drivers in California. Lyft and Uber dispute the claims and had asked the courts to issue summary judgments against the plaintiffs. But in respective rulings filed on March 11, U.S. District Judges Edward M. Chen and Vince Chhabria said only a jury could decide the issues because evidence could sway a reasonable jury in either direction. They agreed that California laws are "outmoded," and even suggested that laws may at some point be written specifically to address the so-called "sharing economy." But until then, the burden would be on Uber and Lyft to prove drivers weren't employees. Lyft and Uber declined to comment on the rulings. The ride-hailing companies each operate apps that link would-be riders up with nearby drivers. Payment is made via the apps and Uber and Lyft cut checks to drivers for the rides, after taking a commission of about 20 percent. Privately held Uber has raised nearly $6 billon since it started six years ago and is valued at about $40 billion. Its ride- hailing network is available in more than 250 cities in 50 countries. The company has faced legal and regulatory challenges, concerns about rider safety and the screening of its drivers, and criticism of how it has raised prices during storms and other high-demand periods. Smaller rival Lyft, known for previously putting pink mustaches on drivers' cars, is in 65 markets and recently raised $530 million in new funding. Reports value the 3-year-old company at over $2 billion. One plaintiff, Patrick Cotter, drove for Lyft for four months while also working for Facebook. He was fired after using a substitute vehicle to give rides, rather than the car Lyft approved. Another, Alejandra Maciel, drove for Lyft for six weeks in 2013 and was fired after getting passenger ratings in the bottom 5 percent of drivers. They contend Lyft owes them money because it should have paid them as employees, not independent contractors. Judge Chhabria wrote in his ruling that a central question is whether Lyft's right to control drivers' working environment -- its setting of rules for behavior while driving -- and fire them at will makes them employees instead of contractors. However, the flexibility afforded by the Lyft business model to drivers -- they set their own hours and can reject or ignore ride requests -- means reasonable people could differ on whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. "The jury in this case will be handed a square peg and asked to choose between two round holes," Judge Chhabria wrote, noting what he called "California's outmoded test for classifying workers." The Uber case involves plaintiffs Douglas O'Connor and Thomas Colopy, who drive mainly for Uber's "UberBlack" service -- which transports passengers in black sedans or other limousine- like vehicles -- and Matthew Manahan and Elie Gurfinkel, who drive principally for Uber's "uberX" service in their own cars. Judge Chen noted that each of them signed contracts with Uber that explicitly state that the relationship between the transportation providers and Uber "is solely that of independent contracting parties." But Judge Chen called Uber's argument that it is merely a technology company and not in the transportation business "strains credulity." "Uber is no more a 'technology company' than Yellow Cab is a 'technology company' because it uses CB radios to dispatch taxi cabs," Judge Chen wrote. However, he agreed that California's traditional employment test evolved in an economy very different from today's and that prior cases don't address all of the challenges presented by Uber's business mode. The two cases turn on a complex area of state law that will likely be the focus of more disputes, said law professor Eric Goldman, who is director of Santa Clara University's High Tech Law Institute. "There are lots of other sharing economy services that create new ways of people working together," he said. "This is going to come up for other online marketplaces." In the cases involving Uber and Lyft, Goldman said both judges seem skeptical of the companies' arguments that their drivers are independent contractors. "We'll have to see what the juries say," he added, "but certainly if I'm Uber and Lyft, I'm thinking carefully about my Plan B." UBER TECH: NFBC Has Standing to Pursue Discrimination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that a magistrate judge on March 3 said he probably won't throw out a suit that claims Uber drivers discriminate against blind passengers accompanied by seeing-eye dogs. Brought by the National Federation of the Blind of California (NFBC), the suit asks for injunctive relief and an award of damages to some of the named plaintiffs. At an afternoon hearing, Littler Mendelson attorneys representing Uber Technologies Inc. argued that the federation can't bring claims on behalf of both Uber users and nonusers of the platform. That matters, said Littler Mendelson shareholder Andrew Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- because Uber users agreed to arbitrate any claims against the company when they assented to Uber's terms of service. However, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins of the Northern District of California said at the start of the hearing that he believes the NFBC has at least "associational standing," allowing the organization to sue on behalf of others. Mr. Spurchise held hard to the notion that court-ordered relief is only available to the non-Uber users listed in the complaint. Holding otherwise would "break the sanctity" of the terms of service agreement that all Uber users sign, he told Cousins. But plaintiffs attorney Timothy Elder of TRE Legal Practice saw no problem. "We're seeking injunctive relief for [the plaintiffs] and for society, regardless of standing," Mr. Elder said. "All would benefit." A few nods of agreement and affirmative sighs came from the audience, which included seven service dogs. One dog audibly groaned throughout the trial, while another snored quietly. Two audience members traveled all the way from Houston. A few were in wheelchairs. Michael Nunez and Laurence Paradis of Disability Rights Advocates are also representing the plaintiffs. The NFBC sued Uber in September for allegedly discriminating against blind consumers. The complaint named several individuals who claimed they were stood up by Uber drivers after trying to get a ride with their service dogs. The suit alleges that one Uber driver went so far as to put a passenger's dog in the vehicle's trunk. Uber's attorneys at Littler Mendelson filed a motion to dismiss in December 2014. In addition to attacking the organization's standing, Littler Mendelson took issue with named plaintiff Michael Hingson, a blind man who said he avoided using the ride- hailing service because of negative feedback he'd heard from his friends. "Hingson has never personally been denied service, received a poor rating, or otherwise been discriminated against in his use of the uberX service," the motion to dismiss states. "In fact, he cannot even use the uberX service because he has not created a Uber user account or agreed to the user terms and conditions." Judge Cousins agreed with Uber's attorneys that Mr. Hingson does not have standing under the specific rules of the Disabled Persons Act. However, Judge Cousins challenged the notion that Mr. Hingson has no standing at all. TRE Legal Practice's Elder closed the hearing by reminding Cousins that the firm is seeking to improve the life of blind citizens in all areas, including transportation. He said that separating the plaintiffs into Uber users and nonusers is unnecessary and that the arbitration agreement is far from airtight. "I could get on my phone and book a ride for you down to San Jose, but you never agreed to an arbitration, did you?" Mr. Elder posited. Judge Cousins nodded in understanding and had a follow-up question: "But could you guarantee there wouldn't be any traffic?" UNION PACIFIC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Railroad Conspiracy Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- A group of mining companies can advance an antitrust suit against two railroad companies over allegedly exorbitant freight rates, reports Amanda Loviza-Vickery at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Six subsidiaries of the Oxbow Group are behind the complaint, which accuses Union Pacific Railroad Co. and BNSF Railway Co. of fixing competitive prices through a fuel surcharge and dividing the markets between themselves. Though U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman dismissed the original complaint, he found February 24 that the substantial revisions to the allegations cured the earlier errors. Along with the conspiracy not-to-compete and the fuel surcharge conspiracy claims, Oxbow also alleges that the two railroad companies' conspiring gave Union Pacific a monopoly in at least one region. The price-fixing allegations are virtually identical to a class action the same court, filed by direct and indirect purchasers of rail-freight transportation services, and the defendants wanted Friedman to dismiss any claims in Oxbow's suit that exceeded the other action. Though Friedman dismissed Oxbow Midwest Calcining LLC and Terror Creek LLC from a breach of contract charge on the suit, he otherwise kept the suit intact February 24. The defendants argued that because the Oxbow plaintiffs failed to specify to whom they paid fuel surcharges, their case cannot move forward. Friedman concluded, however, that this issue is not yet ripe because the defendants are jointly and severally liable for any injury suffered by the plaintiffs. The defendants further attacked the strength of the plaintiffs' conspiracy claims, and whether the market in which the conspiracy is alleged is a market in which the plaintiffs participate. Under the legal standard of taking the plaintiff's claims as fact, Friedman ruled that Oxbow has made a sufficient case that the defendants conspired in a way that impacted the market and the plaintiffs specifically. "Oxbow has sufficiently alleged the existence of a conspiracy, overt acts done in furtherance of that conspiracy, and an appreciable effect on interstate commerce," Friedman wrote. The case is Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case No. 11-1049 (PLF), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. USG CORP: Settled Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- USG Corporation said in its Amendment No. 1 on Form 8-K/A Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, that the Company and its subsidiaries, United States Gypsum Company and L&W Supply Corporation (collectively, the "USG Subsidiaries"), on February 11, 2015, entered into settlement agreements (the "Settlement Agreements") to settle all claims made against the Company and the USG Subsidiaries in the direct and indirect purchaser class actions consolidated in the lawsuit, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreements, which were entered into with counsel representing the direct purchaser and indirect purchaser classes in the lawsuit, the Company has agreed to pay a total of $48 million in cash to settle the claims made in the lawsuit. Of the $48 million settlement payment, $39.25 million will be allocated to the direct purchaser class settlement fund and $8.75 million will be allocated to the indirect purchaser class settlement fund. The Settlement Agreements remain subject to court approval. The Settlement Agreements, in which the Company and the USG Subsidiaries deny all wrongdoing, also include releases by participating class members of the Company and its subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related parties, for all conduct concerning any of the matters alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the lawsuit for the time period prior to and including November 30, 2014. Additionally, the Settlement Agreements grant the Company the right to terminate the Settlement Agreements in the event an agreed upon percentage of potential class members do not participate. A copy of the INDIRECT PURCHASER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is available at http://is.gd/1h7nPF A copy of the DIRECT PURCHASER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is available at http://is.gd/F1DmdJ VENTAS INC: Parties to HCT Action Entered Into MOU -------------------------------------------------- Ventas, 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 consolidated state court class action agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of HCT stockholders. The Company said, "In January 2015, we acquired publicly traded American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. ("HCT") in a stock and cash transaction (the "HCT Acquisition"), which added 152 properties (some of which are located on the same campus) to our portfolio. We funded the transaction through the issuance of approximately 28.4 million shares of our common stock, 1.1 million limited partnership units that are redeemable for shares of our common stock, cash and the assumption of debt." "In the weeks following the announcement on June 2, 2014 of our agreement to acquire HCT, a total of 13 putative class actions were filed by purported HCT stockholders challenging the transaction. Certain of the actions also purport to bring derivative claims on behalf of HCT. Among other things, the lawsuits allege that the directors of HCT breached their fiduciary duties by approving the transaction and that we and our subsidiaries, Stripe Sub, LLC and Stripe OP, LP, aided and abetted this purported breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek injunctive relief and damages." "Ten of these actions were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland and consolidated under the caption In re: American Realty Capital, Healthcare Trust, Inc. Shareholder & Derivative Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-003534, two actions were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, and one action was filed in the United States District Court of Maryland." On January 2, 2015, the parties to the consolidated state court action agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of HCT stockholders. In connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of understanding, each action and all claims asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval by each applicable court. The proposed settlement terms require HCT to make certain additional disclosures related to the merger, which were set forth in HCT's Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 2, 2015. The memorandum of understanding further contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to HCT's stockholders. If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of understanding. On January 5, 2015, the parties to the federal action also agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of HCT stockholders. In connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of understanding, each action and all claims asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval by each applicable court. The proposed settlement terms require HCT to make certain additional disclosures related to the merger,which were set forth in HCT's Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 5, 2015. The memorandum of understanding further contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to HCT's stockholders. If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of understanding. "We believe that each of these actions is without merit," the Company said. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Opposed Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiffs in a purported shareholder class action against Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated filed their opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss, Vertex 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 May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May 7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the Company's stock. On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff and the putative class. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 8, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 22, 2015. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. As of December 31, 2014, the Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action. WALGREEN CO: Falsely Marketed Food Products, "Tsang" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jenny Tsang, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co. and Walgreens.com, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-01153 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading marketing of Good & Delish(R) food products as containing Natural or All Natural ingredients and No Preservatives, when in fact they contain non-natural, chemically processed ingredients and preservatives such as Folic Acid, Citric Acid, Malic Acid, Mono- and Di-glycerides, Soy Lecithin, Xanthan Gum, and undisclosed Natural Flavors. Walgreen Co. is an Illinois corporation headquartered at 108 Wilmot Rd, Deerfield, IL 60015, which is one of the largest drug retailing chain in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: To Seek Initial Approval of Florida Case Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Waste Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company anticipates seeking preliminary court approval of the Florida case settlement during the first quarter of 2015, with the Alabama case settlement to follow. The Company said, "In October 2011 and January 2012, we were named as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, Alabama, respectively. These cases primarily pertain to our fuel and environmental charges included on our invoices, generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair and were contrary to the customer service contracts. We have reached a settlement in principal of both the pending Florida and Alabama cases, and we are currently working on documentation for the settlements. We anticipate seeking preliminary court approval of the Florida case settlement during the first quarter of 2015, with the Alabama case settlement to follow. The anticipated settlements will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." WELLS FARGO: Counsel in Sales Practice Case to file Memorandum -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an order on March 3, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/9wCiNDfrom Leagle.com, directing class counsel in JONATHAN FOLEY, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., s/b/m WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, F.S.B., f/k/a WORLD SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-12107-LTS, (D. Mass.) to file a memorandum. Pending before the Court in this case are plaintiff's claims against defendant Wells Fargo, which include alleged breach of the In re Wachovia Corporation "Pick-a-Payment" Mortgage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation class action settlement agreement and Massachusetts state law claims. Wells Fargo filed a motion to transfer, arguing that the Northern District of California retained exclusive jurisdiction over cases related to the settlement. The settlement agreement provided that "[t]he Parties agree that the Court shall retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the Lawsuit, the Parties, Settlement Class Members, and the Settlement Administrator in order to interpret and enforce the terms, conditions, and obligations under this Agreement." In approving the settlement, Judge Fogel stated that "[t]his Court will retain continuing jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the settlement agreement." The Order also acknowledged that "[c]lass counsel . . . stated on the record that they would be happy to speak with any class member about his or her loan modification efforts. Moreover, the Court expressly has retained jurisdiction over this matter. The Court concludes that these are the best safeguards that realistically could be expected in this type of settlement." Furthermore, "[c]lass members who do not qualify for HAMP or MAP2R modifications will receive a written explanation of the reasons for denial. Class counsel will be copied on all such denials and will follow up with Defendants to ensure that the loan modification program is functioning as intended." In light of these provisions and all of the considerations that bear on transferring a case involving foreclosure of real property, the Court requests that plaintiffs' class counsel in the In re Wachovia Corporation "Pick-a-Payment" Mortgage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation file within 14 days a memorandum addressing whether: 1) In their view, the Northern District of California possesses exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the settlement agreement, including plaintiff Jonathan Foley's claim of breach of the settlement agreement; 2) In the ordinary course, class counsel represents individual plaintiffs in claims for breach of the settlement agreement, including or excluding related state law claims; and 3) In this case, if transferred, class counsel would provide representation to plaintiff Jonathan Foley. Judge Sorokin directed the Clerk to mail a copy of this order to Jeffrey K. Berns, BERNS WEISS LLP, 20700 Ventura Blvd., Suite 140, Woodland Hills, CA 91364 and Lee A. Weiss, BERNS WEISS LLP, 585 Stewart Avenue, Suite L-20, Garden City, NY 11530. Counsel for defendant Wells Fargo was ordered to serve the Order on all class counsel in the In re Wachovia Corporation "Pick-a- Payment" Mortgage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. Jonathan Foley, Plaintiff, represented by Valeriano Diviacchi -- val@diviacchi.com -- Diviacchi Law Office. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by David M. Bizar -- dbizar@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw & Jeremy R. Bombard -- jbombard@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, LLP. WEST BUSINESS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Tiffanie Padan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. West Business Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00394 (D. Nev., March 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, penalties, fees and costs, and pre- and post- judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. West Business Solutions, LLC is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, which provides communications services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Don Springmeyer, Esq. Bradley S. Schrager, Esq. WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP 3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234 Telephone: (702) 341-5200 Facsimile: (702) 341-5300 E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com bschrager@wrslawyers.com WEST PUBLISHING: McGuireWoods Back to Court Over Legal Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that eight years after reaching a $49 million settlement in a closely watched antitrust case over the Barbri bar-review course, McGuireWoods was in court again on March 4 in a spat over legal fees in the case. McGuireWoods, which represented plaintiffs who sued the publishers of the bar-review course, went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to persuade the three-judge panel that law firm Kendrick & Nutley is not entitled to $1.8 million in fees for its work on the Barbri case. Kendrick & Nutley, which represented five objectors to the settlement, was awarded $236,000 for its work in persuading the court to reduce McGuireWoods' fees from $12 million to $500,000. Kendrick & Nutley now claims it is entitled to 20 percent of the $8.9 million -- $1.8 million -- that it says it saved in fees for the class. As objector counsel, Kendrick & Nutley had no role in the original settlement, which involved McGuireWoods and two other firms representing named plaintiffs in the case. Sidney Kanazawa -- skanazawa@mcguirewoods.com -- a partner in the Los Angeles office of McGuireWoods, told a panel that lawyers for objectors can't get fees based on a percentage of a settlement they had no involvement in. Further, he said, they don't face the same risks in the case as does class counsel. "When a guest comes to the table late and redistributes the food already on the table, they can't take credit for the bounty," he said at oral arguments. But C. Benjamin Nutley of Kendrick & Nutley, which is based in Pasadena, Calif., not far from the Ninth Circuit's courthouse, said his firm deserved the higher amount for its "outstanding" job in the case. "The short answer is, they didn't do as good of a job," he said of class counsel. The March 4 was the third time the case had come before the Ninth Circuit. The settlement, reached in 2007, resolved a class action on behalf of those who paid for the Barbri course during the nine years after Aug. 1, 1997. The case involved claims that West Publishing Corp. and Kaplan Inc. had conspired to monopolize the market for the Barbri bar-review course in violation of the Sherman Act, the federal antitrust law. The class included about 300,000 students who paid $1,000 on average in overcharges for the bar-review course between 1997 and 2006. In 2009, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case, noting a "disturbing appearance of impropriety" in the way the incentive awards were tied to the settlement amount. The incentive awards, which ranged from $10,000 to $75,000, were granted to the five named plaintiffs that McGuireWoods represented. In 2012, the Ninth Circuit upheld a subsequent ruling reducing McGuireWoods' fees, citing the firm's "egregious" ethical violation in failing to disclose to class members incentive awards for named plaintiffs tied to the amount of the settlement. The panel also upheld denial of fees to attorneys for 19 objectors, except for Kendrick & Nutley, which had raised the incentives conflict. Kendrick & Nutley already received $8,000 in fees for its work in eliminating the incentive awards. Its latest request pertains to its effort to reduce McGuireWoods' fees. The fee argument was more complicated, Mr. Nutley said in court. He called on the panel to send a message that lawyers for objectors should be rewarded when they do their job right. "They need to pay them when they're successful," he said of judges. But Circuit Judge Richard Tallman seemed skeptical that lawyers for objectors should be entitled to the same benchmark percentage of fees that typically gets applied to class counsel. "You have to acknowledge there is a difference in the risk that class counsel face from the beginning," he said. "I think it is a distinction with a difference." WHEELS AMERICA: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Morales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wheels America Dallas I, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00731 (N.D. Tex., March 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. Wheels America Dallas I, LLC is a Texas corporation, which provides wheel repair and rebuilding services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Richard Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER PLLC 1340 N. White Chapel Blvd, Ste 100 Southlake, TX 76092 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com YUM! BRANDS: Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit Appeal to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that lead plaintiff in a class action filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit. In early 2013, four putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain executive officers alleging claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future business and financial condition. The four complaints were subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. On August 5, 2013, lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment GmbH, filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company's stock between February 6, 2012 and February 4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint no longer includes allegations relating to misstatements regarding the Company's business or financial condition and instead alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants purportedly omitted information about the Company's supply chain in China, thereby inflating the prices at which the Company's securities traded. On October 4, 2013, the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On December 24, 2014, the District Court granted that motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice. On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit. The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in the Amended Complaint. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. YUM! BRANDS: Hearing Held on Taco Bell's Motion to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------- Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class was set for hearing on February 25, 2015. Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200. Some plaintiffs also seek penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory "waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees. These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members, and the class notice and opportunity to opt out of the litigation were mailed on January 21, 2014. Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one of the California Private Attorney General Act claims. On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the operative complaint and a motion to amend the class certification order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both motions, rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal period class but certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. On January 12, 2015, Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class. That motion was set for hearing on February 25, 2015. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. "We have provided for a reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of those currently provided for in our Consolidated Financial Statements. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of that currently provided for in our Consolidated Financial Statements cannot be made at this time," the Company said. YUM! BRANDS: Discovery to Continue in "Rodriguez" v. Taco Bell -------------------------------------------------------------- Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that discovery will continue as to plaintiff's remaining claims in the class action Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various violations of California labor laws including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200. This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the action in light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied on October 30, 2013. In April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of plaintiff's legal theory as to her discount meal break claim before conducting full discovery. A hearing on the parties' cross- summary judgment motions was held on October 22, 2014, and on October 23, 2014, the court granted Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment on the discount meal break claim and denied plaintiff's motion. Discovery will continue as to plaintiff's remaining claims. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut" Agreed to Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that the parties in the class action Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc. have negotiated a final settlement. In July 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law. In January 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery drivers. However, in March 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted state-law class action claims under the laws of 16 different states. Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time. In August 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend. Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In July 2011, the court granted Pizza Hut's motion with respect to plaintiffs' state law claims but allowed the FLSA claims to go forward. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification in August 2011, and the court granted plaintiffs' motion in April 2012. The opt-in period closed on August 23, 2012, and 6,049 individuals opted in. On February 28, 2014, Pizza Hut filed a motion to decertify the collective action, along with a motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order from the court that the FLSA does not require Pizza Hut to reimburse certain fixed costs that delivery drivers would have incurred regardless of their employment with Pizza Hut. On September 24, 2014, the parties entered into a Term Sheet setting forth the terms upon which the parties had agreed to settle this matter. Pursuant to the parties' original agreement, one issue, the mileage of an average round trip, remained outstanding and was to be submitted for arbitration. The parties have instead negotiated a final settlement, inclusive of that issue and without any contingencies. "The proposed settlement amount has been accrued in our Consolidated Financial Statements, and the associated cash payments will not be material," the Company said. ZILLOW INC: Plaintiffs' Brief Due in Securities Case Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- Zillow Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs' opening appellate brief was due to be filed by February 27, 2015. The Company said, "In November 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle against us and certain of our executive officers seeking unspecified damages. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in June 2013. The complaint purports to state claims for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased our common stock between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that during the period between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012, we issued materially false and misleading statements regarding our business practices and financial results." "In August 2013, we moved to dismiss the lawsuit. On October 20, 2014, the Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. Also on October 20, 2014, the Court entered a judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice." On November 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the October 20, 2014 judgment of dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiffs' opening appellate brief was to be filed by February 27, 2015. ZILLOW INC: Class Action Parties Conduct Confirmatory Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- Zillow Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in a class action lawsuit are currently conducting confirmatory discovery. In August 2014, four purported class action lawsuits were filed by plaintiffs against Trulia and its directors, Zillow, and Zebra Holdco, Inc. in connection with Zillow's proposed acquisition of Trulia. One of those purported class actions, captioned Collier et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., was brought in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, however on October 7, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a new complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging substantially the same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as the original complaint filed in California. On October 8, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a request for dismissal of the California case without prejudice. The other three of the purported class action lawsuits, captioned Shue et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Sciabacucci et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., and Steinberg et al. v. Trulia, Inc. et al., were brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery. All four lawsuits allege that Trulia's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Trulia stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Trulia through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair terms. All lawsuits seek, among other things, equitable relief that would enjoin the consummation of Zillow's proposed acquisition of Trulia and attorneys' fees and costs. The Delaware actions also seek rescission of the Merger Agreement (to the extent it has already been implemented) or rescissory damages and orders directing the defendants to account for alleged damages suffered by the plaintiffs and the purported class as a result of the defendants' alleged wrongdoing. On September 24, 2014, plaintiff in the Sciabacucci action filed (1) a motion for expedited proceedings, (2) a motion for a preliminary injunction, (3) a request for production of documents from defendants, and (4) notice of depositions. On October 13, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order consolidating all of the Delaware actions into one matter captioned In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation and appointed Rigrodsky & Long as lead counsel. On October 13 and 14, 2014, the motions were refiled under the consolidated case number. On November 14, 2014, plaintiffs again refiled their motion for a preliminary injunction challenging the proposed acquisition. On November 19, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, documenting the agreement-in-principle for the settlement of the consolidated litigation, pursuant to which Trulia agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures in a Form 8-K. The Memorandum of Understanding was filed with the Chancery Court that same day. The parties are currently conducting confirmatory discovery. * Women Workers' Compensation Claims Reduced Due Gender Reasons --------------------------------------------------------------- According to Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel -- citing a report by Melody Gutierrez in SF Gate -- women have been seeing their workers' compensation claims reduced for reasons related to their gender, such as being post-menopausal or pregnant. California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez was set to introduce a bill in San Francisco that would ensure women are not discriminated against for conditions such as pregnancies, breast cancer, menopause, osteoporosis or sexual harassment when it comes to workers' compensation claims. Ms. Gutierrez reports that the bill's supporters claim gender bias in workers' compensation is a big issue, and one that is "especially evident in the way breast cancer is treated among firefighters and police officers." For instance, female police officers who have to undergo double mastectomies for breast cancer linked to hazardous materials on the job are considered 0 to 5 percent disabled, Ms. Gutierrez reports, whereas a male officer with prostate cancer is considered 16 percent disabled and would be paid for the injury. The current workers' comp system in California was last reformed in 2004 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration. ********* 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 * * *