/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150320.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 20, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 57
Headlines
500.COM LTD: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
996660 ONTARIO: Recalls Monticello Cooked Ham Due to Listeria
A&R LOGISTICS: Removes "Diaz" Suit to California District Court
AMERICAN WATER: Removes "Nop" Suit to New Jersey District Court
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Recording of Phone Calls
ANTHEM INC: Scott Glovsky Law Firm Files Class Action
ARAMARK HEALTHCARE: Accused of Race Discrimination & Retaliation
ARAMARK SCHOOLS: Illegally Terminated Black Worker, Suit Claims
ARMSTRONG AUTOMOTIVE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ARS NATIONAL: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
AT&T: Settles FTC Commission Suit Over Subscription Charges
BASF METALS: Faces Suit for Fixing Platinum and Palladium Prices
BAXTER CORPORATION: Recalls Sodium Chloride 0.9% Injections
BAXTER CORPORATION: Recalls Dextrose 5% Injections Due to Leak
BYRIDER FINANCE: Misclassifies Employees as "Exempt," Suit Claims
CHILD & FAMILY: Sued for Violating Overtime Provisions of FLSA
COMET USA: Recalls Efco Gas Trimmers Due to Fire Hazard
COMET USA: Recalls Efco Brand Gas Trimmers in Canada
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Faces Global Energy Bias Suit in New York
CONVERGYS CORPORATION: To Settle Class Action Against Hyundai
COOPERVISION INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Sale of Contact Lens
COSTCO: Recalls 270,000 Convertible Hand Trucks
CSOS LLC: Operator Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages and Damages
CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Violates FDCPA in New Jersey, Suit Claims
EBAY INC: Settles Class Action Over Good 'Til Cancelled Fees
ELECTROLUX: Recalls Sears Kenmore Electric Ranges
ELITE SALADS: Recalls Schmaltz Herring Products
ELITE SALADS: Recalls Schmaltz Herring Products
FCA US: Faces "Emmons" Suit in Ark. Alleging Product Liability
FORT COLLINS, CO: Faces Class Action Over Pandhandling Ordinance
FOSTER GARBUS: Faces "Wang" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Rosenberg" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Landau" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
FRANKLIN CORPORATION: Recalls Power Reclining Furniture Switches
FRED MEYER: Recalls Hooded Sweatshirts Due to Choking Hazard
FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Reply to Refiled Claim in Costa Rica
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal Pending in Philippines Case
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal Filed in Third Circuit Court
FRESH DEL MONTE: Hawaii Supreme Court Decision Pending in Appeal
HOLT AND COOPER: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
HUNTSMAN CORP: February 2016 Trial in Direct Purchaser Case
HUNTSMAN CORP: Indirect Purchasers Filed Amended Complaint
ICI SERVICES: Faces "Jenuwine" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
INES CROSBY: Accused of Fraud and Intimidation by Nomlaki Indians
JORANJES ENTERPRISE: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says
JP MORGAN VENTURES: Manipulates Price of Electricity, Suit Says
KJ SPORTSWEAR: Recalls Children's Pajamas Due to Burn Risk
KRAFT FOODS: Removes "Sanchez" Suit to California District Court
LEVELS OF DISCOVERY: Recalls Fly Boy Airplane Rockers
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Karlick" Suit Over Flooring Products
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Jegou" Product liability Suit in N.J.
MAGIC BURGERS: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Claims
MARS RETAIL: Recalls Youth Loungewear Pants Due to Burn Risk
MCELROY DEUTSCH: Accused of Retaliation and Wrongful Discharge
MORGAN'S HOTEL: Sued by Gay Worker Over Claim of Discrimination
NADINE BUTLER: "Clyce" Suit Transferred From W.D. to N.D. Texas
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Suspends Concussion Pilot Program
NATIONAL GRID: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Use of Communications
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NINE ENERGY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
OMEGA REFINING: Faces Class Suit Over Refinery Harmful Emissions
OUTSET MEDIA: Recalls Zig-Zag Xylo Trains Due to Choking Hazard
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: KB Partners Class Action Still Pending
PERFORMANCE SPORTS: "Hemberger" Suit Moved From Pa. to Conn.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Removes VIP Physical Suit to D. Massachusetts
REAL TIME: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Fla.
RUE LA LA: Settles Class Action Over Voucher Expiration Dates
SANTANDER CONSUMER: "James" Suit Moved to Maryland District Court
SCARPA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls F1 EVO Ski Boots Due to Injury Risk
SCARPA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls F1 Evo Ski Boots in Canada
SUPREME PRODUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says
SUSAN J SZWED: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Settles Shareholder Class Action
TAKATA CORP: "Boyd" Class Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: "Moore" Class Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL
TINNEL'S WEST: Recalls Jamaican Beef Patties Due to Milk
TOYSMITH: Recalls Wind-Up Diver Bath Toys Due to Pinching Hazard
TRANSILVANIA TRADING: Recalls Trader Joe's Cinnamon Almonds
UNC-CHAPEL: Faces Three More Lawsuits Over Fake-Class System
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Seeks Dismissal of Fraud Class Action
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Recalls Cheeky Teacups Due to Mislabeling
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Recalls Cheeky Teacups in Canada
VERIZON: Settles Family Shareplan Class Action for $36MM
VOCATION: Faces Third Class Action Over Funding Contract Breach
VOLVO CARS: Wants Judge to Sanction Plaintiffs' Attorney
WAL-MART STORES: Removes "Epps" Suit to Arkansas District Court
WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Misleading Spring Valley Advertisement
WELLS MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages Under FLSA
WESTINGHOUSE LIGHTING: Recalls Glass Holders Due to Shock Hazard
WICKHAM SECURITIES: Queensland Retirees Mull Class Action
WILBER & ASSOCIATES: Sent Deficient Collection Letters, Suit Says
WORLD WRESTLING: Levesque & Wilson Named Defendants in Class Suit
WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Haynes & Singleton Class Actions
* 200,000 People Signs Consumer Union's Petition v. Robocalls
* Senate Bill May Limit Damages for Big Tobacco
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had $56-Mil Undiscounted Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Made $148MM Fibro Cash Payments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Had 2,220 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 23 Filter Cases vs. Lorillard Inc. Set For Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Faces 2,220 PI Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on W.Va.'s Suit vs. 3M Co. Set for 1Q
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Has $140MM Accruals for Fibro Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Has $41-Mil. Fibro Insurance Receivables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Accrued $24-Mil. Aearo Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Has 13,300 Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $2.3-Bil. Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briefing Schedule Issued in Calif. Inmate's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Sterling" Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Trumps Down Insurer's Bid to Enforce
ASBESTOS UPDATE: JCI Wins Summary Judgment in "McAlvey" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Refuses to Transfer Garlock Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conference in "Brown" Suit Set for May 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Sroka" Suit Remanded to Maryland State Court
*********
500.COM LTD: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., a global investor rights firm, on
Feb. 27 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of 500.com Limited (NYSE:WBAI) American
Depository Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO
on or about November 22, 2013 and between November 22, 2013
through February 25, 2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for 500.com investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the 500.com class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-275.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.
According to the lawsuit, 500.com issued materially false and
misleading statements to investors by failing to disclose the risk
of provincial sports lottery administration centers voluntarily
suspending the acceptance of online purchase orders for lottery
products. On May 7, 2014, Jinghua Daily published an article
revealing that the China Welfare Lottery Administration Center and
CSLAC both said that they have never authorized any website or
agency to conduct online lottery sales to date and all online
lottery sales are illegal. On this news, shares of 500.com fell
$5.07 per share or over 15% from its previous closing price to
close at $28.61 per share on May 7, 2015. On January 17, 2015,
Sina.com published an article reporting that the certain Chinese
governmental authorities issued a notice requiring provincial
agencies to conduct self inspection with regards to unauthorized
online lottery sales. On this news, shares of 500.com fell $0.60
per share from its previous closing price to close at $17.52 per
share on January 20, 2015, further damaging investors. On
February 25, 2015, 500.com announced that certain provincial
sports lottery administration centers to which the Company
provides sport lottery sales services plan to temporarily suspend
accepting online purchase orders for lottery products, in response
to a notice issued by governmental authorities. On this news,
shares of 500.com fell $2.87 per share or over 22% to close at
$9.96 per share on February 25, 2015, further damaging investors.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 28, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-275.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.
996660 ONTARIO: Recalls Monticello Cooked Ham Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 12, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: 996660 Ontario Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
996660 Ontario Ltd. is recalling Monticello brand Cooked Ham,
product of Italy, from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume and
retailers, restaurants and institutions should not to sell or use
the recalled product described below.
The following product was sold in Ontario and Quebec.
Starting on November 13, 2014, this product was sold clerk-served
from deli counters with or without a label or coding, and some
product packages may not bear the same brand or product name as
described below, or a brand at all. Consumers who are unsure if
they have purchased the affected product are advised to contact
their retailer.
Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.
Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.
There have been no confirmed illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.
This recall was triggered by company test results. The Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.
The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.
Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC
---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ ---
Monticello Prosciutto Variable LOT: 044295 None
Cotto BEST BEFORE:
Cooked Ham 05/20/2015
A&R LOGISTICS: Removes "Diaz" Suit to California District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Santiesteban Diaz v. A&R
Logistics, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2015-00000715-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00520-DMS-RBB to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arose from issues relating to labor/management
relations.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Diane Elizabeth Richard, Esq.
ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
600 B Street, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: drichard@robbinsarroyo.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ruth Segal, Esq.
LYNBERG AND WATKINS
888 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2516
Telephone: (213) 624-8700
Facsimile: (213) 892-2763
E-mail: rsegal@lynberg.com
AMERICAN WATER: Removes "Nop" Suit to New Jersey District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Nop v. American Water Resources,
Inc., et al., Case No. CAM-L-136-15, was removed from the Camden
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Camden). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-01691-RBK-AMD to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the Truth-in-
Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
26 Newton Avenue
Woodbury, NJ 08096
Telephone: (856) 845-1968
E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net
- and -
Paul DePetris, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL DEPETRIS
703 Stokes Rd., Suite 9
Medford, NJ 08055
Telephone: (609) 714-2020
E-mail: paul@newjerseylemon.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael P. Daly, Esq.
Daniel E. Brewer, Esq.
Garrett D. Trego, Esq.
DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
One Logan Square, Suite 2000
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6999
Telephone: (215) 988-2700
Facsimile: (215) 988-2757
E-mail: michael.daly@dbr.com
daniel.brewer@dbr.com
garrett.trego@dbr.com
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Recording of Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Aguilar, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-01714
(C.D. Cal., March 9, 2015) arises from the Defendant's alleged
intentional recording of telephone calls without the Plaintiff's
prior consent.
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that does
business in California. The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP APC
4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
ANTHEM INC: Scott Glovsky Law Firm Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Scott Glovsky recently filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of California Anthem customers who had their
private information stolen in a massive data breach. The Vasquez
v. Blue Cross of California dba Anthem Blue Cross complaint
alleges that sometime between December 2014 and February 2015,
unauthorized parties were able to gain access to Anthem's data
storage system because Anthem failed to encrypt their customer's
sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers,
addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and employment
information. Because Anthem failed to encrypt this information,
its past and current customers now face the risk of identity
theft, whereby thieves use ill-gotten information for illegal
pursuits like opening a credit card or applying for a tax refund
under the victim's name.
Through this lawsuit, our firm and plaintiffs Manuel Vasquez and
Bethany Noel seek redress for Anthem's failure to institute proper
safeguards to keep their customers' data safe.
The Law Offices of Scott Glovsky is accepting additional Anthem
customers who have been subject to this data breach. If you would
like to learn more, please call (626) 243-5598 or visit our
website at www.scottglovsky.com and fill out a free consultation
request form.
ARAMARK HEALTHCARE: Accused of Race Discrimination & Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vilora L. Williams v. Aramark Healthcare Support Services of
Texas, Inc. and Aramark Healthcare Support Services, LLC, jointly
and severally, Case No. 3:15-cv-00763-M (N.D. Tex., March 8, 2015)
alleges violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, as amended by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, race
discrimination, hostile work environment with mental abuse,
retaliation, failure to promote, failure to comply with
affirmative action, defamation and wrongful termination.
Vilora L. Williams, a resident of Dallas County, Texas, is a 63-
year-old, African American, dark skin toned, female, employee with
over seven years of service with Aramark and its affiliates.
Aramark Healthcare Support Services of Texas, Inc., is a Texas
Corporation headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and with
local offices located in Dallas, Texas. Aramark Healthcare
Support Services, LLC., is a Delaware Limited Liability Company
headquartered in Philadelphia, and with local offices located in
Dallas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hiram McBeth, III, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF HIRAM MCBETH
6060 N. Central Expressway, Suite #560
Dallas, TX 75206
Telephone: (972) 498-8702
Facsimile: (972) 680-4411
E-mail: hirammcbeth@hotmail.com
ARAMARK SCHOOLS: Illegally Terminated Black Worker, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan K. Fabre v. Aramark Schools Facilities, LLC, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00138-JJB-SCR (M.D. La., March 9, 2015) alleges that the
Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiff due to his race
(African-American) and sex (male).
Mr. Fabre is an African-American, and worked for the Defendant
from December 21, 2009, until December 6, 2013, when he was
illegally terminated. He contends that similarly situated
employees outside of the protected classes have been afforded
favorable terms and conditions of employment, while he was
subjected to arbitrary adverse treatment up to and including
termination.
Aramark Schools Facilities, LLC, is a corporation doing business
in the state of Louisiana.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan M. Scheuermann, Esq.
DAN M. SCHEUERMANN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
600 America Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 344-9381
Facsimile: (225) 344-9384
Email dan@dmsattorney.com
ARMSTRONG AUTOMOTIVE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry W. Baez v. Armstrong Automotive of Okee, Inc. and Michael
Armstrong, individually, Case No. 2:15-cv-14074-RLR (S.D. Fla.,
March 9, 2015) seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid
overtime wages under the laws of the United States.
Armstrong Automotive of Okee, Inc. is a Florida corporation,
having its main place of business in Okeechobee-County, Florida,
where the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant. Armstrong
Automotive is a full service automotive repair business that also
provides regular or routine auto care for vehicles. Michael
Armstrong is the President/Owner of the Company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ARS NATIONAL: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sluvie Spielman, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
consumers v. ARS National Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01212
(E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791-4400
Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
AT&T: Settles FTC Commission Suit Over Subscription Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABC15 reports that another phone-service provider, AT&T settled a
lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission.
It involves those Third party services like ringtones, wallpaper
and horoscopes that you can subscribe to for your phone. The FTC
alleged AT&T charged customers up to $9.99 monthly for
subscriptions they never authorized.
And they say the company made those charges difficult to find on
the bill. If you paid for unauthorized third-party charges after
January 1, 2009, you can file a claim for part of the $105 million
dollar settlement.
The deadline to file a claim is May 1. AT&T admitted no
wrongdoing in settling this case.
BASF METALS: Faces Suit for Fixing Platinum and Palladium Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Bailey, Thomas Galligher, KPFF Investments, Inc., and Ken
Peters v. BASF Metals Limited, Goldman Sachs International, HSBC
Bank USA, N.A., Standard Bank PLC, and London Platinum and
Palladium Fixing Company Ltd., Case No. 1:15-cv-01712 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 9, 2015) accuses the Defendants of manipulating the London
Platinum and Palladium Price Fixing, which sets the benchmark
prices for platinum and palladium.
BASF Metals Limited, a subsidiary of BASF SE, has its principal
place of business in London, England. BASF also maintains
precious metals trading operations in Iselin, New Jersey. Goldman
Sachs International is a financial services company and a
subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., with its principal
place of business in London. Goldman Sachs also maintains
precious metals trading operations in New York City.
Mclean, Virginia-based HSBC Bank USA, N.A., a subsidiary of HSBC
Holdings Plc, is a banking and financial services company.
London-based Standard Bank Plc, a subsidiary of Standard Bank
Group Limited, is a South African banking and financial services
company.
London Platinum and Palladium Fixing Company Ltd. is a U.K.
company headquartered in London. The LPPFC was formed "to take on
and continue the promotion, administration and conduct of the
London Platinum and Palladium Market Fixings." The LPPFC was
originally founded by and is currently owned and controlled by the
other Defendants.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net
mdellangelo@bm.net
zcaplan@bm.net
- and -
Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
Manisha M. Sheth, Esq.
Tyler G. Whitmer, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison A venue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
manishasheth@quinnemanuel.com
tylerwhitmer@quinnemanuel.com
BAXTER CORPORATION: Recalls Sodium Chloride 0.9% Injections
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 4, 2015
Posting date: March 9, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-52481
Firm identified a leak in the bag at the main seal near the
injection port caused during the bag sealing process.
Affected products : Sodium Chloride 0.9% INJ 900MG/100ML USP
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 00060208
Dosage form: Liquid
Strength: Sodium Chloride 900 mg / 100 mL
Lot or serial number: P313684
Recalling Firm: Baxter Corporation Inc.
7125 Mississauga Road
Mississauga, L5N 0C2
Ontario
CANADA
Marketing Authorization Holder: Baxter Corporation Inc.
7125 Mississauga Road
Mississauga, L5N 0C2
Ontario
CANADA
BAXTER CORPORATION: Recalls Dextrose 5% Injections Due to Leak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 4, 2015
Posting date: March 9, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-52479
Firm identified a leak in the bag at the main seal near the
injection port caused during the bag sealing process.
Affected products: Dextrose 5% INJ 5 g /100 mL USP
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 00060348
Dosage form: Liquid
Strength: Dextrose 5 g / 100 mL
Lot or serial number: P313031
Recalling Firm: Baxter Corporation Inc.
7125 Mississauga Road
Mississauga, L5N 0C2
Ontario
CANADA
Marketing Authorization Holder: Baxter Corporation Inc.
7125 Mississauga Road
Mississauga, L5N 0C2
Ontario
CANADA
BYRIDER FINANCE: Misclassifies Employees as "Exempt," Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Pollock, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Byrider Finance, LLC d/b/a Carnow Acceptance Company,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00334-LPL (W.D. Pa., March 9, 2015) is a
"collective action" instituted by the Plaintiff as a result of the
Defendant's alleged practice and policy of misclassifying
employees as "exempt" employees, and not paying them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Byrider Finance, LLC, doing business as Carnow Acceptance Company,
was a foreign limited liability company registered in Indiana.
The Company is a finance company headquartered in Indiana that
does business in over 30 states and offers financing to "buy here
pay here" customers of J.D. Byrider.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Sonia M. Whitehouse, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
920 Rockefeller Building
614 W. Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
sonia@lazzarolawfirm.com
CHILD & FAMILY: Sued for Violating Overtime Provisions of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Penta v. Child & Family Services, Inc., Nora Kent, and
Kristen Davies, Case No. 1:15-cv-10743-DJC (D. Mass., March 10,
2015) is brought for violation of the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages
Law, and for the resulting violations of the Massachusetts Wage
Act.
Mr. Penta is presently employed by CFS as a therapeutic mentor in
CFS's Cape Cod facility.
Child & Family Services, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation organized
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its
principal place of business located in New Bedford, Massachusetts.
The Individual Defendants are officers of the Company. CFS
operates a counseling and mental health services organization that
operates various facilities throughout the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan D. Meyerson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALAN DAVID MEYERSON
100 State Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 444-9525
Facsimile: (617) 934-7715
E-mail: alan@alandavidmeyerson.com
COMET USA: Recalls Efco Gas Trimmers Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Comet USA, Inc., of Burnsville, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,900 efco Gas Trimmers in the United States and
200 in Canada. This product was previously recalled in December
2013. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
The muffler on the engine can break during use and pose a fire
hazard.
The trimmers are used in residential and professional applications
for cutting grass and light brush. The cutting attachments include
a trimmer head and metal blade. The trimmers are about 72 inches
long and up to 28 inches wide. They are red and gray with either a
bike or loop handle configuration. Three models are recalled in
two engine sizes measured in cubic centimeters. They are 36cc
models 8371 S and 8371 T, and a 40.2cc model 8421 T engine
displacement. The brand "efco" and model number are printed on the
front of the engine and the brand name also appears on the wand.
The firm has received 11 reports of muffler failure, including two
resulting in singed hair.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/jyfsrM
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sols at
authorized efco dealers and Menard retail stores nationwide and
online from June 2009 to July 2014 for about $400.
Consumers should stop using the recalled trimmers immediately and
return them to an authorized efco dealer for a free replacement.
COMET USA: Recalls Efco Brand Gas Trimmers in Canada
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 10, 2015
Posting date: March 10, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Outdoor Living
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52467
Joint recall with Health Canada, the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (US CPSC) and Comet USA, Inc. (formerly
Emak USA, Inc.)
efco brand gas trimmers from Comet USA, Inc. (formerly Emak USA,
Inc.)
This recall involves certain efco brand gas trimmers. Three models
are recalled in two engine sizes measured in cubic centimeters
(cc). They are 36cc engine models 8371 S and 8371 T and a 40.2cc
engine model 8421 T engine displacement. The brand name "efco" and
model number are printed on the front of the engine and the brand
name also appears on the wand.
The trimmers are used in both residential and professional
applications for cutting grass and light brush. The cutting
attachments include a trimmer head and metal blade. The trimmers
are about 183 centimetres long (72 inches) and up to 71
centimeters wide (28 inches). The trimmers are red and gray in
colour and come with either a bike or loop handle configuration.
The muffler on the trimmer's engine can break during use and pose
a fire hazard.
Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these gas trimmers.
Comet USA has received eleven reports of incidents, including two
in Canada, and two resulting in singed hair. No serious injury or
property damage has been reported.
Approximately 200 units of the recalled trimmers were sold in
Canada and 1,900 units were sold in the United States.
The recalled trimmers were sold between June 2009 and July 2014 in
Canada and the United States.
Manufactured in China.
Manufacturer: Comet USA, Inc.
Burnsville, Minnesota
UNITED STATES
Consumers should stop using the recalled trimmers immediately and
return them to an authorized efco dealer for a free replacement
trimmer.
For more information, consumers may contact Comet USA by telephone
toll-free at 1-800-800-4420 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST Monday
through Friday, by email or by visiting the efco's website and
click on Recall Information at the bottom of the home page.
Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/zrUFnd
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Faces Global Energy Bias Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global Energy Efficiency Holdings, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison
Corp. of New York, Case No. 1:15-cv-01667-ER (S.D.N.Y., March 6,
2015) is a discrimination case brought pursuant to the provisions
of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended by the Civil Rights
Act of 1991, and New York contract law.
Global Energy Efficiency Holdings, Inc. is a New York corporation
headquartered in Bronx, New York. GEE is a minority owned
business, owned 100% by Latinos. GEE has been certified as a
minority owned business.
Consolidated Edison Corp. of New York is a New York corporation
headquartered in New York City.
According to the complaint, GEE is the owner, via assignment, of
certain energy efficiency incentives owed by Con Ed. The total
amount owed to GEE by Con Ed is $1,281,085.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armando Llorens, Esq.
FURGANG & ADWAR, L.L.P
1325 Avenue of the Americas, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 725-1818
E-mail: armando@furgang.com
CONVERGYS CORPORATION: To Settle Class Action Against Hyundai
-------------------------------------------------------------
Convergys Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an agreement in
principle was reached among Hyundai, the class action Plaintiffs
and Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. to settle a lawsuit.
In November 2011, one of the Company's call center clients,
Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai), tendered a contractual indemnity
claim to Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., a subsidiary of
the Company, relating to a putative class action captioned Brandon
Wheelock, individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of
similarly situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor America, Orange
County Superior Court, California, Case No. 30-2011-00522293-CU-
BT-CJC. The lawsuit alleges that Hyundai violated California's
telephone recording laws by recording telephone calls with
customer service representatives without providing a disclosure
that the calls might be recorded.
Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. is not named as a
defendant in the lawsuit, and there has been no determination as
to whether Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. will be
required to indemnify Hyundai. The Company believes Convergys
Customer Management Group Inc. has meritorious defenses to
Hyundai's demand for indemnification and also believes there are
meritorious defenses to Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit.
Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding dated April 29, 2014,
Hyundai, Plaintiff and Convergys Customer Management Group Inc.
agreed in principle to settle the lawsuit. As contemplated under
the agreement in principle, the three parties recently executed a
formal settlement agreement that is subject to approval by the
Court. As a result of the agreement in principle to settle the
lawsuit, the Company's accrued liability at December 31, 2014 is
representative of the best estimate of the loss expected to be
incurred with the resolution of Hyundai"s contractual indemnity
claim. The ultimate resolution of the indemnity claim is not
expected to have a material impact on the Company"s liquidity,
results of operations or financial condition.
COOPERVISION INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Sale of Contact Lens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Mangum, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CooperVision, Inc.; Alcon Laboratories, Inc.; Bausch +
Lomb; Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.; and ABB/Con-Cise
Optical Group LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01064 (N.D. Cal., March 6,
2015) is an antitrust class action brought to recover for the
injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs and the proposed members of
the class to their business or property as a result of the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in an unlawful
horizontal conspiracy to set minimum resale prices for their
disposable contact lenses.
CooperVision, Inc. is a United States company headquartered in
Pleasanton, California. Alcon is a United States company
headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, and is a division of Novartis
International AG. J&J is a United States company headquartered in
Jacksonville, Florida, and operates in the United States under the
"Vistakon" trade name.
B&L is a United States company founded in Rochester, New York, and
now headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey, and is now owned by
Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ABB is a United States company
headquartered in Coral Springs, Florida, that has its contact lens
manufacturing operation and one of its distribution centers in
Alameda, California.
During the Class Period, the Defendants and their predecessors
manufactured and sold disposable contact lenses in interstate
commerce in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
Jodie M. Williams, Esq.
Sarah B. Abshear, Esq.
THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
707 Broadway, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 687-6611
Facsimile: (619) 687-6610
E-mail: dmogin@moginlaw.com
jwilliams@moginlaw.com
sabshear@moginlaw.com
COSTCO: Recalls 270,000 Convertible Hand Trucks
-----------------------------------------------
Marilyn Moritz, writing for KSAT12, reports that more than 270,000
Cosco convertible hand trucks have been recalled due to an injury
hazard.
The wheel hub can separate or break and eject pieces during
inflation, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The recall involves Cosco Home and Office Products 3-in-1
convertible aluminum hand trucks sold from March 2009 to October
2011. The products have model numbers 12-301ABL and 12-301ABAL1.
The were sold at several retailers including Costco, Lowe's, The
Home Depot and Ace Hardware.
Consumers should contact Cosco (888)250-9299 or
www.coscoproducts.com for a free repair kit.
CSOS LLC: Operator Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages and Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Garza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CSOS, LLC f/k/a Cornell Solutions, LLC and KLX Energy
Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00115 (S.D. Tex., March 9, 2015)
seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed
to the Plaintiff and similarly situated operators of the
Defendants.
The Defendants operate an oilfield service company providing
pressure control, well testing, flowback, and other services to
the oilfield with significant operations in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
1150 Bissonnet
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (713) 751-0025
Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
adunlap@fibichlaw.com
litkin@fibichlaw.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 27 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
CTPartners Executive Search Inc. common stock during the period
between February 26, 2014 and January 28, 2015 (the "Class
Period").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 27, 2015. If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/ctpartners/
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges CTPartners and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
CTPartners provides retained executive search services.
CTPartners facilitates the recruitment and hiring of "C-level"
executives, other senior executives and board members.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
repeatedly highlighted the Company's reputation within the
industries in which it operated based on the "integrity" of its
employees and on the strength and qualifications of its search
consultants. Further, the Company represented that these
consultants were promoted based on "objective" and "transparent"
criteria related to their merits, and that this purported
meritocracy had been and would be a key to the Company's ongoing
success . Defendants, however, failed to disclose that CTPartners
allegedly operated as a "den of discrimination" that subjected
employees to crude, improper and discriminatory practices, which
threatened the Company's ability to raise capital, retain
employees or successfully execute its core business functions. As
a result of defendants' false statements, CTPartners common stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $23.15 per share on November 12, 2014.
On December 8, 2014, an article in The New York Post reported that
an "explosive" complaint had been filed with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Committee by a former CTPartners employee, which
reportedly detailed CTPartners as "a den of discrimination where
women are stripped of profitable accounts, held to a higher
standard than their male colleagues and subjected to lewd
behavior." That same day, CTPartners withdrew a stock offering
that had been announced less than 24 hours earlier. As a result
of this news, the price of CTPartners stock dropped $4.50 per
share, a decline of 24% from the prior closing price.
On January 21, 2015, CTPartners announced disappointing
preliminary fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2014 financial
results, including earnings per share that came in well below the
Company's original guidance. CTPartners stated the miss was due
to over $1.3 million in purportedly unanticipated expenses related
to increased management, administrative and business development
costs. On this news, the price of CTPartners stock dropped $3.63
per share, a one-day decline of more than 29%.
Then, on January 28, 2015, CTPartners withdrew its preliminary
fourth quarter and year-end guidance provided only one week
earlier and revised downward its earnings guidance for the first
quarter and full fiscal year 2015. The Company stated that the
downward revision was due to a $1.7 million increase in
"compensation expense" for employee bonuses. In addition,
CTPartners again withdrew a proposed stock offering, this one
announced only two days prior. On this news, the price of
CTPartners stock dropped $2.17 per share to close at $4.35 per
share on January 29, 2015, a one-day decline of more than 33%.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
CTPartners common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.
With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action judgment.
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Violates FDCPA in New Jersey, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shimon Seror, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc. v. John Does 1-
25, Case No. 3:15-cv-01748-AET-LHG (D.N.J., March 10, 2015)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS LAW LLC
1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 660-8169
E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com
EBAY INC: Settles Class Action Over Good 'Til Cancelled Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Figari & Davenport, LLP on Feb. 27 disclosed that eBay Inc. has
agreed to pay $6.4 million to settle a class action lawsuit
concerning the fees for certain eBay listings with the Good 'Til
Cancelled listing duration.
Keith Verges, Parker Young, and Ray Walker with Figari &
Davenport, LLP filed the lawsuit on behalf of named Plaintiffs and
a class of sellers who paid recurring Insertion Fees and Optional
Feature Fees on their Good 'Til Cancelled listings. The suit is
entitled Richard Noll and Rhythm Motor Sports, LLC v. eBay Inc.,
Case No. 5:11-CV-04585 (EJD), and alleges that eBay did not
adequately explain that fees for GTC listings would be charged on
a recurring basis every 30 days. eBay denies the allegations and
denies any wrongdoing.
If approved by the Court at a hearing set for June 11, 2015, the
settlement will provide a partial reimbursement of Insertion Fees
and Optional Feature Fees incurred after the initial 30-day period
of certain GTC listings placed between September 16, 2008 and June
19, 2012. If the settlement is approved, most class members will
not need to do anything and will receive an automatic
reimbursement by account credit or by check. However, sellers who
have closed their eBay accounts, or otherwise do not have their
current contact information on file with eBay, should visit the
settlement website to update their contact information.
Further information regarding the allegations in the lawsuit, the
terms of settlement, and class members' options can be found on
the settlement website, www.ebaygoodtilcancelledclassaction.com or
by calling 1-888-487-6522.
ELECTROLUX: Recalls Sears Kenmore Electric Ranges
-------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Moritz, writing for KSAT12, reports that thousands of
Sears Kenmore electric ranges are being recalled by the
manufacturer, Electrolux, because they pose a danger of electrical
shock.
The recall involves certain 24-inch wide freestanding ranges with
model number 790.90152 with serial numbers from NF408 through
NF424 and model 790.90153 with serial numbers NF408 through NF427.
The ranges have smooth cooktops.
Sears and Kmart stores sold them last year. Consumers are urged
to unplug the recalled ranges and contact Sears at www.sears.com
or (888)281-3915 to schedule a free inspection and repair if it is
necessary.
ELITE SALADS: Recalls Schmaltz Herring Products
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Elite Salads International
Distribution: Alberta, Ontario, Possibly National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
The food recall warning issued on March 10, 2015 has been updated
to include additional distribution information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.
Elite Salads International is recalling Elite Salads brand
schmaltz herring products from the marketplace because they may
permit the growth of Clostridium botulinum. Consumers should not
consume the recalled products described below.
Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.
Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of
illness, people may die.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.
This recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities. The
CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to
the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.
The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.
Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC
---------- ---------- ---- product ---
-----------
Elite Salads Schmaltz 200 g All codes up 7 77739 10035 5
Herring to and
including
Best Before:
May. 08, 2015
Elite Salads Schmaltz 200 g All codes up None
Herring to and
including
15 MA 08
Elite Salads Schmaltz 454 g All codes up None
Herring to and
including
15 MA 08
Elite Salads Schmaltz 200 g All codes up 7 77739 10005 8
Herring to and
including
May. 08, 2015
Elite Salads Spicy 200 g All codes up None
Schmaltz to and
Herring including
15 MA 08
Elite Salads Spicy 200 g All codes up None
Schmaltz to and
Herring including
15 MA 08
Elite Salads Spicy 454 g All codes up None
Schmaltz to and
Herring including
15 MA 08
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/keKMfa
ELITE SALADS: Recalls Schmaltz Herring Products
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 10, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Elite Salads International Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9679
The food recall warning issued on February 20, 2015 has been
updated to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.
Elite Salads International is recalling Elite Salads brand
schmaltz herring products from the marketplace because they may
permit the growth of Clostridium botulinum. Consumers should not
consume the recalled products described below.
Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.
Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of
illness, people may die.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.
This recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities. The
CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to
the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.
The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.
Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC
---------- ---------- ---- product ---
-----------
Elite Salads Schmaltz 200 g All codes up 7 77739 10035 5
Herring to and
including
Best Before:
May. 08, 2015
Elite Salads Schmaltz 200 g All codes up None
Herring to and
including
15 MA 08
Elite Salads Schmaltz 454 g All codes up None
Herring to and
including
15 MA 08
Elite Salads Schmaltz 200 g All codes up 7 77739 10005 8
Herring to and
including
May. 08, 2015
Elite Salads Spicy 200 g All codes up None
Schmaltz to and
Herring including
15 MA 08
Elite Salads Spicy 200 g All codes up None
Schmaltz to and
Herring including
15 MA 08
Elite Salads Spicy 454 g All codes up None
Schmaltz to and
Herring including
15 MA 08
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/keKMfa
FCA US: Faces "Emmons" Suit in Ark. Alleging Product Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Emmons, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FCA US LLC f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 4:15-cv-00132-DPM (E.D. Ark., March 6, 2015)
asserts claims for motor vehicle product liability.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex G. Streett, Esq.
James A. Streett, Esq.
STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
107 West Main
Russellville, AR 72801
Telephone: (479) 968-2030
E-mail: alex@streettlaw.com
james@streettlaw.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON VINES, PLLC
2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
Facsimile: (888) 505-0909
E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com
- and -
Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
227 Second Avenue North, Suite 400
Nashville, TN 37201-1631
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: jleniski@branstetterlaw.com
FORT COLLINS, CO: Faces Class Action Over Pandhandling Ordinance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Duggan, The Coloradoan, reports that Fort Collins officials
might cut some provisions of the city's panhandling ordinance to
save the time and resources needed to defend them in court.
The City Council was scheduled to have special meeting at 4:00
p.m. on Feb. 27 to consider an emergency ordinance that would
revise the city's regulations on panhandling and remove provisions
that have been challenged in a lawsuit filed by the Colorado
branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.
By making much of the lawsuit's contentions moot, city staff would
have time to research the provisions, conduct public outreach on
the issue and consider what action to take next, according to a
city document.
Some of the seven provisions could be reinstated or amended
following the review, officials said.
Prohibitions on panhandling that have been challenged by the ACLU
and might be lifted include:
-- Soliciting at night
-- Soliciting an "at-risk" person, such as a someone with a
disability or a child or senior citizen
-- Continuing to ask someone for money or a gift after that
person has refused
-- Within 100 feet of an automatic teller machine
-- On a public bus
-- In a parking garage or lot
-- When a person being solicited is exiting or entering a parked
vehicle, inside a motor vehicle on a street, or in the outdoor
serving area of a business selling food or drink
Under the proposed revisions, panhandling would still be illegal
in Fort Collins if done in a manner that is:
-- Threatening, intimidating or obscene
-- Involves "fighting words"
-- Involves touching or grabbing by the panhandler
-- Obstructs a sidewalk or passage way in a public place.
The class action suit filed on behalf of four homeless individuals
and Greenpeace Inc. claims Fort Collins police have infringed on
the free-speech rights of individuals by warning them about
solicitation or citing others for some forms of panhandling.
Mark Silverstein, legal director of the state ACLU, stated in an
email to the Coloradoan that the city has always had the ability
to address "truly aggressive panhandling" by enforcing the
appropriate provisions of its ordinance. Those provision are not
being challenged.
"As for the provisions we challenged, which Fort Collins has been
enforcing in violation of the Constitution, it is disappointing
that the city has stated that it may very well reinstate and
reenact them," he stated.
A preliminary injunction hearing on the case was scheduled for
2:00 p.m. on March 2 in Denver in federal court. The impact of
the proposed changes, if approved by City Council, is not clear.
FOSTER GARBUS: Faces "Wang" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Young Mi Wang, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Foster, Garbus & Garbus, LVNV Funding, LLC and John Does 1 to
10, Case No. 2:15-cv-01767-MCA-JBC (D.N.J., March 10, 2015)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Rosenberg" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yitzchak Rosenberg, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Forster & Garbus LLP, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01181-SLT-RER (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791-4400
Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Landau" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Landau, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Forster & Garbus LLP, Case No. 1:15-cv-01213
(E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791-4400
Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
FRANKLIN CORPORATION: Recalls Power Reclining Furniture Switches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 12, 2015
Posting date: March 12, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52493
The affected switches are small black plastic rectangular boxes,
installed on various power reclining furniture manufactured by
Franklin Corporation.
The affected furniture can be identified by Style or Basic Change
(BC) number as indicated on the label under the footrest or on the
carton marker affixed to the carton.
Affected units have one or both of the following numbers:
Style Number: 41385, 41386, 42085, 42086, 42886, 43086, 48285,
48286, 57285, 57286, 59785, 59786
Basic Change (BC) Number: 05, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 35, 40, 44,
46, 47, 51, 88, AE, AFG, AG, AH, AI, AQ, AR, AX, AY, BM, BN, BO
Units with an oval shaped switch are not affected by this recall.
The switch used to operate the reclining furniture can overheat,
posing a fire hazard to consumers.
Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these products.
In the United States, Franklin has received two reports of
switches igniting and three reports of switches smoking on
showroom samples, resulting in minor property damage to the
flooring. No injuries have been reported.
Approximately 5,397 units were sold in Canada by various furniture
stores and online.
The recalled products were sold from October 2013 to December
2014.
Manufactured in China.
Manufacturer: Logicdata
AUSTRIA
Distributor: Franklin Corporation
Houston, Mississippi
UNITED STATES
Consumers should immediately unplug the product and contact
Franklin Corporation to request a replacement switch.
For more information, consumers can contact Franklin Corporation
toll-free at 1-866-551-2706 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday or visit the Franklin website and click on the
"Power Switch Recall" button.
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/DXMbNh
FRED MEYER: Recalls Hooded Sweatshirts Due to Choking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fred Meyer, Inc., of Portland, Ore. dba Kroger of Cincinnati,
Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about 140,000 Children's
zipper hooded sweatshirts. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The sweatshirt zipper pull can detach, posing a choking hazard to
young children.
This recall involves Kids Korner brand boy's, girl's and toddler's
cotton/poly blend fleece zipper hooded sweatshirts with a front
zipper, two front pockets and knit ribbing around the wrists and
waist. The sweatshirts were sold in 62 different prints and solid
colors in infant, toddler to children's size 4. The size can be
found on a label sewn into the back seam of the neck. A white
label sewn into the lower left inside seam reads Inter-American
Products, Lahore, Pakistan and has style number ending in 8025,
8025P, 8128, 8128P, 8174P, 8251, 8326 or 8326P. Also on the label
are the following manufacture dates: March 2014, April 2014, June
2014 or November 2014 and batch numbers: 1, FLC-P5, FLC-P6 or FLC-
P8. To view photos of all recalled sweatshirts, visit the Recall
Alerts section on the firm's web site.
Kroger has received one report of a zipper pull detaching from the
sweatshirt. No injuries have been reported.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/P7y440
The recalled products were manufactured Pakistan and sold at
Dillons, Fred Meyer, King Soopers Marketplace, Kroger, Smith's and
Fry's Marketplace and other stores nationwide from June 2014
through February 2015 for between $8 and $10.
Consumers should immediately take the sweatshirt away from young
children and return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers without a sales receipt will be refunded current retail
price.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Reply to Refiled Claim in Costa Rica
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2014, that the Company's
subsidiaries filed an answer to the claim re-filed with the courts
of Costa Rica related to dibromochloropropane.
Beginning in December 1993, certain of the Company's U.S.
subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a number of
actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the
Philippines involving claims by numerous non-U.S. plaintiffs
alleging that they were injured as a result of exposure to a
nematocide containing the chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP")
during the period 1965 to 1990. As a result of a settlement
entered into in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP
claims against the Company's U.S. subsidiaries are pending or
subject to appeal in Hawaii, Louisiana, California, Delaware and
the Philippines.
The Company said, "On October 14, 2004, two of our subsidiaries
were served with a complaint in an action styled Angel Abarca, et
al. v. Dole Food Co., et al. filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of
more than 2,600 Costa Rican banana workers who claim injury from
exposure to DBCP. On January 2, 2009, three of our subsidiaries
were served with multiple complaints in related actions styled
Jorge Acosta Cortes, et al. v. Dole Food Company, et al. filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles on behalf of 461 Costa Rican residents."
"An initial review of the plaintiffs in the Abarca and Cortes
actions found that a substantial number of the plaintiffs were
claimants in prior DBCP actions in Texas and may have participated
in the settlement of those actions.
On June 27, 2008, the court dismissed the claims of 1,329
plaintiffs who were parties to prior DBCP actions. On June 30,
2008, the Company's subsidiaries moved to dismiss the claims of
the remaining Abarca plaintiffs on grounds of forum non conveniens
in favor of the courts of Costa Rica. On September 22, 2009, the
court granted the motion to dismiss and on November 16, 2009
entered an order conditionally dismissing the claims of those
remaining plaintiffs who allege employment on farms in Costa Rica
exclusively affiliated with the Company's subsidiaries. Those
dismissed plaintiffs re-filed their claim in Costa Rica on May 17,
2012.
On January 18, 2013, all remaining plaintiffs in California filed
Requests for Dismissal effecting the dismissal of their claims
without prejudice. On September 25, 2013, the Company's
subsidiaries filed an answer to the claim re-filed with the courts
of Costa Rica.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal Pending in Philippines Case
---------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2014, that in February
2011, a group of former banana cooperative workers from the
Philippines filed a complaint in the Philippines against two of
the Company's subsidiaries claiming injury from exposure to the
chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP"). The trial court dismissed
the complaint against the Company's subsidiaries on October 3,
2011. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the Court of
Appeals, which appeal is pending.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal Filed in Third Circuit Court
----------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2014, that a notice of
appeal was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, but the notice expressly limited the appeal to the
claims of 57 (out of the more than 2,400) plaintiffs.
On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were filed against one
of the Company's subsidiaries in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000
plaintiffs alleging exposure to the chemical dibromochloropropane
("DBCP") on or near banana farms in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama,
and Guatemala.
"We and our subsidiaries have never owned, managed or otherwise
been involved with any banana growing operations in Panama and
were not involved with any banana growing operations in Ecuador
during the period when DBCP was in use. The plaintiffs include
claimants who had cases pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which were dismissed
on September 17, 2012," the Company said.
On August 30, 2012, the Company's subsidiary joined a motion to
dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds that they
have first-filed claims pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The motion was
granted on March 29, 2013.
On September 21, 2012, the Company's subsidiary filed an answer
with respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who had not already
filed in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the court granted a motion
made by a co-defendant and entered summary judgment against all
plaintiffs based on the September 19, 2013 affirmance by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the
dismissal of related cases by the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana.
On July 7, 2014, the Company's subsidiary joined in a motion for
summary judgment as to all plaintiffs on the basis of the court"s
May 27, 2014 ruling. Plaintiffs agreed that judgment be entered in
favor of all defendants for the claims still pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware on the basis of
the summary judgment granted on May 27, 2014 and the district
court entered judgment dismissing all plaintiffs" claims on
September 22, 2014.
On October 21, 2014, a notice of appeal was filed with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but the notice
expressly limited the appeal to the claims of 57 (out of the more
than 2,400) plaintiffs.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Hawaii Supreme Court Decision Pending in Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2014, that in Hawaii,
plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the Hawaii Supreme
Court based upon the Hawaii Court of Appeals affirmance in March
2014 of a summary judgment ruling in defendants" favor at the
trial court level. The Hawaii Supreme Court accepted the petition
and oral argument was held on September 18, 2014 with respect to
whether the claims of the six named plaintiffs were properly
dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. The decision of the
Hawaii Supreme Court remains pending.
HOLT AND COOPER: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Hill, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. Holt and Cooper LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00412-KOB
(N.D. Ala., March 10, 2015) seeks relief over alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
UNDERWOOD & RIEMER, PC
21 S Section Street
Fairhope, AL 36532
Telephone: (251) 990-5558
Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
E-mail: epunderwood@gmail.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Riemer, Esq.
166 Government Street, Suite 100
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 432-9212
Facsimile: (251) 433-7172
E-mail: kjr@alaconsumerlaw.com
HUNTSMAN CORP: February 2016 Trial in Direct Purchaser Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC said in their
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that trial is scheduled for February 22, 2016, in the case filed
by direct purchasers who opted out of the class litigation.
"We were named as a defendant in consolidated class action civil
antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that we and
our co-defendants and other alleged co-conspirators conspired to
fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least
March 1, 2002 and the present. The other defendants named in this
matter were DuPont, Kronos and Cristal (formerly Millennium). On
August 28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all
U.S. customers who purchased titanium dioxide directly from the
defendants (the "Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003. We
and all other defendants settled the Direct Purchasers litigation
and the court approved the settlement on December 13, 2013. We
paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to our consolidated
financial statements," the Company said.
"On November 22, 2013, we were named as a defendant in a civil
antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the
Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out Litigation"). On
April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against us from the
other defendants sued and ordered our case transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently,
Kronos, another defendant, was also severed from the Minnesota
case and claims against it were transferred and consolidated for
trial with our case in the Southern District of Texas. Trial is
scheduled for February 22, 2016. It is possible that additional
claims will be filed by other Direct Purchasers who opted out of
the class litigation.
HUNTSMAN CORP: Indirect Purchasers Filed Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC said in their
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those
merchants and consumers of architectural coatings containing
titanium dioxide.
The Company is named as a defendant in a class action civil
antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by purchasers of products
made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers") making
essentially the same allegations as did the Direct Purchasers.
On October 14, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those
merchants and consumers of architectural coatings containing
titanium dioxide. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims
under the laws of 16 states, consumer protection claims under the
laws of 10 states, as well as unjust enrichment claims under the
laws of 20 states. The Opt-Out Litigation and Indirect Purchasers
plaintiffs seek to recover injunctive relief, treble damages or
the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of suit and
attorneys' fees.
"We are not aware of any illegal conduct by us or any of our
employees. Nevertheless, we have incurred costs relating to these
claims and could incur additional costs in amounts which in the
aggregate could be material to us. Because of the overall
complexity of these cases, we are unable to reasonably estimate
any possible loss or range of loss associated with these claims
and we have made no accruals with respect to these claims," the
Company said.
ICI SERVICES: Faces "Jenuwine" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Jenuwine v. ICI Services Corporation, a foreign corporation,
Accent Controls, Inc, a foreign corporation, The Logistics
Company, a foreign corporation, and Guy Miller, an individual,
Case No. 2:15-cv-10862-GER-MJH (E.D. Mich., March 8, 2015) is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, the Whistleblowers Protection Act, the Elliott-Larsen
Civil Rights Act, and Michigan common law.
The Corporate Defendants are foreign corporations doing business
in the City of Warren, Macomb County, Michigan, as federal
contractors performing services for the United States Department
of Defense at the U.S. Army Garrison in the City of Warren. Guy
Miller is a resident of Southeast Michigan and, during the
relevant time, was employed by ICI as its Project Manager at the
U.S. Army Garrison in the City of Warren.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Teresa J. Gorman, Esq.
TERESA J. GORMAN, PLLC
363 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 215
Troy, MI 48083
Telephone: (248) 457-6005
Facsimile: (248) 689-3268
E-mail: terigorman@aol.com
INES CROSBY: Accused of Fraud and Intimidation by Nomlaki Indians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians; and Paskenta Enterprises
Corporation v. Ines Crosby; John Crosby; Leslie Lohse; Larry
Lohse; Ted Pata; Juan Pata; Chris Pata; Sherry Myers; Frank James;
Umpqua Bank; Umpqua Holdings Corporation; Garth Moore; Garth Moore
Insurance and Financial Services, Inc.; Associated Pension
Consultants, Inc.; Haness & Associates, LLC; Robert M. Haness; The
Patriot Gold & Silver Exchange, Inc.; and Norman R. Ryan,
Defendants, and Quicken Loans Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case No.
2:15-cv-00538-GEB-CMK (E.D. Cal., March 10, 2015) is brought on
behalf of Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians' (the "Tribe") 300+
Tribal members, together with its principal business vehicle, the
Paskenta Enterprises Corporation.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold responsible a cadre of individuals
who, over the course of approximately 17 years, allegedly took
over control of the Tribal government and PEC. The Plaintiffs add
that through a concerted and systematic program of fraud,
coercion, intimidation, extortion, bribery and deception, these
individuals stole and otherwise diverted tens of millions dollars
in Tribal money for their own personal benefit, as well as for
those who substantially assisted them in this scheme.
The Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians is a federally recognized
Indian tribe headquartered in Corning, California. The Tribe has
owned and operated the Casino in Corning, California since 2002.
Paskenta Enterprises Corporation is a federally chartered
corporation owned by the Tribe.
Ines Crosby, a resident of Orland, California, was the Tribal
Administrator from 1996 until she was terminated on April 12,
2014. She is the mother of John Crosby, the sister of Leslie
Lohse, and the sister-in-law of Larry Lohse. John Crosby, a
resident of Redding, California, was the Tribe's Economic
Development Director from 2001 until he was terminated on
April 12, 2014. Leslie Lohse, a resident of Glenn, California,
was the Tribe's elected Treasurer from 1998 until she was
terminated on April 12, 2014. Larry Lohse, a resident of Glenn,
California, is the husband of Ms. Lohse and is not a Tribe member.
Mr. Lohse was the Tribe's Environmental Director from 2001 until
he was terminated on April 12, 2014. The other Individual
Defendants used to work for the Tribe or assisted in allegedly
defrauding the Tribe.
Umpqua Bank is an Oregon state chartered bank headquartered in
Roseburg, Oregon, with retail-banking branches in Northern
California, Oregon, Western Washington and Nevada. Umpqua
Holdings Corporation is an Oregon corporation and conducts
substantially all of its operations through its wholly owned
subsidiary Umpqua Bank.
The complaint alleges that Umpqua Bank and the rest of the Abettor
Defendants -- Garth Moore Insurance and Financial Services, Inc.,
Garth Moore, Associated Pension Consultants, Inc., Robert M.
Haness, The Patriot Gold & Silver Exchange, Inc., and Norman R.
Ryan -- assisted the Individual Defendants in effecting numerous
conversions of Tribal money.
Nominal Defendant Quicken Loans Inc. is a Michigan Corporation
with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. On
October 30, 2012, Quicken loaned the RICO Ringleader John Crosby
$417,000, as evidenced by a promissory note executed by the Mr.
Crosby. The Loan was secured by a Deed of Trust on the Deer
Hollow Property, which is owned by the Tribe. Quicken is named as
Nominal Defendant for the purpose of providing the Tribe the
ability to receive complete relief as to the Deer Hollow Property.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stuart G. Gross, Esq.
GROSS LAW, P.C.
The Embarcadero
Pier 9, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 671-4628
Facsimile: (415) 480-6688
E-mail: sgross@gross-law.com
- and -
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
krayhill@saverilawfirm.com
JORANJES ENTERPRISE: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Osiel S. Ramirez and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Joranjes Enterprise Inc. d/b/a Pizza Fiore, Jessi Enterprises,
Inc. d/b/a Deco Pizza, and Jorge Gonzalez, Individually, Case No.
1:15-cv-20952-JEM (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2015) seeks relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
JP MORGAN VENTURES: Manipulates Price of Electricity, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Woolsey, Carol Ball, and Rachel Reidinger, both
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation and JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00530-L-BGS (S.D. Cal., March 9, 2015) accuses
the Defendants of manipulating the price of electricity in the
California electricity market, to the detriment of California
retail electrical consumers.
Based in New York City, JPM Ventures is a Delaware Corporation
that is a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. The
Company is engaged in financial transactions relating to
commodities, including the generation and sale of electricity.
Defendant JPMorgan is a Delaware Corporation also headquartered in
New York City. JPMorgan touts itself as a "leading global
financial services firm with assets of $2.4 trillion," operating
in "more than 60 countries," and having 260,000 employees.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Siprut, Esq.
Todd McLawhorn, Esq.
SIPRUT PC
17 North State Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 236-0000
Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
tmclawhorn@siprut.com
- and -
Mitchel J. Olson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MITCHEL J. OLSON
1901 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 121
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Telephone: (858) 688-7975
E-mail: molson@lawmed.net
KJ SPORTSWEAR: Recalls Children's Pajamas Due to Burn Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
K.J. Sportswear California Inc., of Huntington Beach, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 9,200 Children's Pajamas.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
The pajamas fail to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injury to children.
This recall involves children's one-piece and two-piece Thor
pajama sets. The children's one-piece 94% polyester and 6% spandex
with "Thor" printed on the center front in three different color
patterns: blue and white, red and white, and pink and black. The
children's two-piece, long-sleeve and pant pajama set is 94%
polyester and 6% spandex with "Thor" printed on the center front
in three different color patterns: blue and white, red and white,
and pink and black. The pajamas were sold in sizes 6 to 12 months,
12 to 18 months and 18 to 24 months through youth large. This
recall includes both pajama styles with these tracking numbers on
the back of the neck label: 728141, 995755, 995756, 995757 and
995758.
No consumer incidents have been reported.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/mzJroD
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Authorized Thor motocross retailers nationwide from June 2013
through December 2014 for between $30 and $45.
Consumers should immediately take the recalled pajamas away from
children, stop using them and return them to K.J. Sportswear
California for a full refund.
KRAFT FOODS: Removes "Sanchez" Suit to California District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Sanchez v. Kraft Foods Group,
Inc., Case No. 259441, was removed from the Tulare County Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California (Fresno). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-00387-LJO-SMS to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arose from labor-related disputes.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
MARLIN AND SALTZMAN LLP
29229 Canwood Street, Number 208
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 991-8080
Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
E-mail: kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
- and -
Santos Gomez, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
2901 Park Ave., #B16
Soquel, CA 95073
Telephone: (831) 471-8780
Facsimile: (831) 471-8774
E-mail: santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Douglas J. Farmer, Esq.
Alex Santana, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-4869
Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
E-mail: douglas.farmer@ogletreedeakins.com
alex.santana@ogletreedeakins.com
LEVELS OF DISCOVERY: Recalls Fly Boy Airplane Rockers
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Levels of Discovery, of Overland Park, Kansas, announced a
voluntary recall of about 150 Fly Boy Airplane Rocker. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.
The red wooden knobs on the rocker's steering panel console can
detach, posing a small parts choking hazard to young children.
The Levels of Discovery Fly Boy Airplane Rockers are wooden
children's rocking chairs. The chairs have red wooden spindle
frames and red wing-shaped arm rests. Hinged to the front of the
chair is a light blue U-shaped airplane steering yoke and a
console with red wooden knobs with blue painted circular controls
and a red propeller. The light blue seat of the chair has a navy
blue fabric seat cushion and seat back with red buttons. "FLY BOY"
is printed on the top frame of the seat back with a printed
picture of a red airplane. The chairs weigh about 17 pounds and
measures 29 inches tall by 16 inches deep by 23 inches wide. Model
number RAB00038 is printed on the underside of the rocker seat.
The firm has received two reports of red knobs on the rocker's
steering panel detaching from the chair. No injuries have been
reported.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/8uZd7s
The recalled products were manufactured in China sold at
Independent juvenile product retail stores nationwide and online
at www.LevelsofDiscovery.com from June 2014 through November 2014
for about $160.
Consumers should immediately take the recalled rocker away from
young children and contact the firm to receive a replacement
console.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Karlick" Suit Over Flooring Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carinne D. Karlick and Andrew M. Karlick, wife and husband on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Lumber Liquidators Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00474-UN4 (M.D. Pa.,
March 9, 2015) alleges that the Defendant has been selling
composite laminate flooring products that emit formaldehyde at
levels known to pose serious health risks.
Lumber Liquidators Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Toano, Virginia.
Lumber Liquidators distributes, markets, and sells laminate wood
flooring products in Pennsylvania.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Noah Axler, Esq.
Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
DONOVAN AXLER, LLC
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 732-6067
Facsimile: (215) 732-8060
E-mail: naxler@donovanaxler.com
mdonovan@donovanaxler.com
- and -
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
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
ari@hbsslaw.com
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Jegou" Product liability Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Jegou and Ivy Jegou, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber
Liquidators Leasing, LLC, Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. and
Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01773-PGS-LHG
(D.N.J., March 10, 2015) asserts product liability claims.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Lopiccolo, Esq.
POULOS LOPICCOLO PC
1305 South Roller Road
Ocean, NJ 07757
Telephone: (732) 757-0165
E-mail: lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com
MAGIC BURGERS: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ramos, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. Magic Burgers, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-00493-SDM-EAJ
(M.D. Fla., March 6, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
MARS RETAIL: Recalls Youth Loungewear Pants Due to Burn Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Mars Retail Group, of Mount Arlington, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 19,000 Youth Loungewear Pants. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.
The youth loungewear pants fail to meet federal flammability
standards for children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injury
to children.
This recall involves youth loungewear pants. The youth loungewear
pants came in two prints, one with an allover boxed M&M'S(R)
character print and the second with an allover M&M'S(R) candy
print. Both youth loungewear pants are 100% cotton and were sold
in youth sizes small through XL. The recalled garments have a
label sewn inside the waistband with the product's identification
number that includes the last four digits as the date of
manufacture in MMYY format. The recalled youth loungewear pants
have identification numbers ending in 0711, 0212, 1112, 0313, 0413
or 0713.
No consumer incidents have been reported.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/qe98jH
The recalled products were manufactured in China sold at M&M'S
World stores nationwide from July 2011 through November 2014 for
about $22.
Consumers should immediately take the recalled youth loungewear
pants away from children, stop using them and return them to M&M'S
World(R) for a full refund.
MCELROY DEUTSCH: Accused of Retaliation and Wrongful Discharge
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elina Chechelnitsky v. McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter,
LLP, Case No. 1:15-cv-01777-LGS (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2015) is a
civil action for monetary damages and other relief based upon the
Defendant's alleged discrimination of the Plaintiff based on
gender, as well as the Defendant's retaliation and wrongful
discharge of the Plaintiff.
Ms. Chechelnitsky is a resident of New York City during her
employment at the McElroy Deutsch, where she worked as an
attorney.
McElroy Deutsch has been an entity duly organized and existing
under the laws of the state of New Jersey, with a Newark office
located at Three Gateway Center, in 100 Mulberry Street.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Megan S. Goddard, Esq.
NESENOFF & MILTENBERG, LLP
363 Seventh Avenue, Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 736-4500
Facsimile: (212) 736-2260
E-mail: mgoddard@nmllplaw.com
MORGAN'S HOTEL: Sued by Gay Worker Over Claim of Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Henry v. Morgan's Hotel Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01789 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2015) is brought to remedy alleged
discrimination in the terms, conditions and privileges of the
Plaintiff's employment on the basis of race and sexual
orientation, in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law,
as amended by the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act.
Mr. Henry, a resident of New York City, is a dark-skinned African
American man. He is an openly homosexual man and was employed by
the Defendant at its in-house restaurant located in its hotel,
Mondrian SoHo, in New York City.
Morgan's Hotel Group, Inc. is a corporation in the business of
owning and operating hotels, restaurants and other hospitality
venues.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gail I. Auster, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GAIL I. AUSTER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
17 Battery Place, Suite 711
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 864-3461
Facsimile: (212) 864-2228
NADINE BUTLER: "Clyce" Suit Transferred From W.D. to N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Clyce, et al. v. Butler, et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00588, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The Northern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00793-G-BN to the
proceeding.
Chance Clyce and his parents, Donna Clyce and Mark Clyce allege
that the Hunt County Juvenile Detention Center staff failed to
provide reasonable medical care to Chance for a life-threatening
methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus infection, which
resulted in Chance undergoing numerous surgical procedures and
suffering serious bodily injury.
Defendants Nadine Butler, Lesly Jacobs, Kevin Dubose, Conrad
Jones, David Reilly and Unknown Staff at the Hunt Co. Juvenile
Detention Center are represented by:
Christopher L. Lindsey, Esq.
Seth Byron Dennis, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 12548
Wm. P. Clements Bldg., 7th Floor
Austin, TX 78711-2548
Telephone: (512) 463-2080
Facsimile: (512) 936-2109
E-mail: christopher.lindsey@texasattorneygeneral.gov
seth.dennis@oag.state.tx.us
Defendants Frederick Farley, Kenneth Wright and Shanigia Williams
are represented by:
Jason Eric Magee, Esq.
ALLISON, BASS & ASSOCIATES, LLP
402 W. 12th Street
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 482-0701
Facsimile: (512) 495-9139
E-mail: e.magee@allison-bass.com
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Suspends Concussion Pilot Program
----------------------------------------------------
Kavitha Davidson, Bloomberg View, reports that The National
Football League has quietly announced that it is suspending a
pilot program to track player concussions with helmet sensors.
The sensors track the frequency and velocity of hits to the head,
and will still be used in other studies from the youth level up to
college. According to the NFL's head, neck and spine committee,
the more than 11,000 pieces of data its study collected during the
2013 season were unreliable, because for the most accurate
reading, hits had to be squarely on the helmet's center of
gravity.
On first glance, suspending the voluntary program looks like
characteristic inaction from a league that has previously used the
dearth of research on brain injury to justify not moving forward
on anti-concussion measures. Also, while scientists acknowledge
these sensors aren't perfect, many think the data they collect is
better than nothing.
"However, as a frequent critic of the league, I admit this issue
is far more complex. For one thing, many of the researchers
involved have significant conflicts of interest. On the NFL's
side, Robert Cantu, a neurologist and arguably the most famous
concussion doctor in the country, has a long history of personal
financial interests in arguing both sides of the issue," Ms.
Davidson said.
On the other, Stefan Duma, a biomedical engineer who developed a
widely-used helmet-rating system, has been criticized for using
young players as human crash-test dummies for a standard that's
ultimately used by manufacturers as a marketing tool. And the
National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment,
which commissions much of this research, has long been funded by
sporting goods manufacturers.
Add to this mix the pending litigation against Riddell, which
until the end of the 2013-14 season made the "official helmet of
the NFL." The $5 million class action suit alleges that the
company inaccurately marketed its helmets as safer for youth and
high-school football players by citing the results of research it
funded. In January, a federal judge dismissed the claims, but
gave plaintiffs the opportunity to revise the suit for further
review.
One should also be concerned that promises of safer helmets could
actually have the effect of lulling players and officials in high-
impact sports into a sort of false complacency, believing that
equipment might suffice to protect from activities that are
inherently risky rather than actually reevaluate anything on the
field.
To make sense of all this, it helps to separate the issue of
helmet design from the sensors themselves. There have been great
innovations of late in sensor technology, allowing the tracking of
impacts in everything from intelligent earplugs to Bluetooth-
enabled mouthguards. The University of New Hampshire has
experimented with doing away with helmets altogether, using
behind-the-ear sensors in drills to teach players to keep their
heads up while still tracking impact data.
Of course, even if independent researchers can manage to wade
through the web of conflicts and devise better studies, many
problems would still arise. For example, there's the potential for
players themselves to become a roadblock to their own safety. The
NFL Players' Association is wary of data that might be used
against its members in contract negotiations, concerned that teams
could lower offers or stay away from players with high hit totals.
In the end, however, those concerns shouldn't be an excuse to
abandon further research and data collection altogether.
Dirty tricks are already used in contract negotiations all the
time -- it's up to the league to police that while doing
everything it can to ensure player safety.
Much like the domestic violence problem, the NFL has lost the
benefit of the doubt when it comes to concussions. A league that
says the use of helmets reduces the risk of brain injury by "only
20 percent" and hires a non-full-time, non-concussion- expert as
its first chief medical officer can't expect us to take it
seriously.
NATIONAL GRID: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Use of Communications
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jarrett R. Jenkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. National Grid USA, National Grid North America Inc.,
National Grid Generation LLC, New England Power Company,
Massachusetts Electric Company, The Narragansett Electric Company,
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc.,
Boston Gas Company, Keyspan Gas East Corporation, Keyspan
Corporation, The Brooklyn Union Gas Company, British Transco
Finance Inc., and National Grid PLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01219
(E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2015) arises from alleged unauthorized
publication or use of communications.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
TUSA, P.C.
PO Box 566
53345 Main Rd., Suite 10-1
Southhold, NY 11971
Telephone: (631) 407-5100
E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raquel Jager, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01183 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791-4400
Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
NINE ENERGY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Cornell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nine Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00620 (S.D. Tex., March 9, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and similarly
situated workers.
Nine Energy Services, L.L.C. performs substantial business
activities in the Southern District of Texas. Nine is a
nationwide oilfield services with significant completion and land
drilling operations throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
1150 Bissonnet
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (713) 751-0025
Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
adunlap@fibichlaw.com
litkin@fibichlaw.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
OMEGA REFINING: Faces Class Suit Over Refinery Harmful Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that the
neighbors of a New Orleans area refinery that specializes in
recycling used motor oil have filed a class action lawsuit
claiming their quality of life and health is at jeopardy due to
harmful emissions coming from the industrial site.
Stacy Davis, Becky Valle and James A. Block filed suit against
Omega Refining LLC, Omega Refining Inc., Vertex Refining LLC and
Stacy Lucas in the 24th Judicial District Court on Jan. 6.
Ms. Davis, Ms. Valle and Mr. Block are the lead plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit filed against the defendants claiming they
have experienced a number of negative health effects due to
emissions emanating from an industrial facility nearby their homes
that is owned and operated by Omega Refining, Omega Refining Inc.,
Vertex Refining and Lucas.
The plaintiffs allege that exposure to hydrochloric acid, nitrogen
oxide, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from the defendants'
plant has resulted in nearby residents suffering from headaches,
dizziness, nausea, vomiting, skin irritation, eye irritation and
breathing problems. Furthermore, the plaintiff's class alleges
the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality has provided
false emissions information surrounding the plant.
The proposed class, which the plaintiffs claims could be in excess
of 1,000 people altogether, claims that the refinery, which has
been in operation since 1994, has since 2012 experienced a number
of breakdowns that have resulted in improperly functioning
refinery equipment and the release of hazardous emissions beyond
levels allowable by state law. In addition, the class contends
the refinery has misrepresented and concealed information
surrounding the releases when submitting documents to the state
government containing details on the extent and nature of their
emissions. In addition, the plaintiffs assert that the defendants
have engaged in the unpermitted discharge of chemicals into land
on the facility grounds and nearby property as well as the
Jefferson Parish water supply.
The defendant is accused of negligence, violating several sate
laws, wrongful conduct and fraudulent conduct.
An unspecified amount in damages is sought for physical pain and
suffering, emotional distress, anxiety, fear, medical expenses,
preexisting conditions, inconvenience and deprivation of use and
enjoyment of homes.
The plaintiffs are represented by Jeremiah A. Sprague of Marrero-
Based Falcon Law Firm.
The case has been assigned to Division A Judge Raymond S. Steib
Jr.
Case no. 745-579.
OUTSET MEDIA: Recalls Zig-Zag Xylo Trains Due to Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 13, 2015
Posting date: March 13, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52505
The recalled product is a percussion toy that includes three train
cars in blue, pink, and green. Each car has two metal plates
attached to the top and the train includes a mallet that is
attached by a string. The product UPC code is 093514079457 with
batch code 1301674500.
Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that
the white plastic knobs that secure the metal plates to the top of
the cars can break and pose as a choking hazard to young children.
Neither Outset Media nor Health Canada has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to this product.
For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see Health Canada's
General Toy Safety Tips.
Approximately 838 units were sold to retailers across Canada.
The recalled toy was sold from June 2013 to February 2015.
Manufactured in China.
Importer: Patch Products
Beloit, Wisconsin
UNITED STATES
Distributor: Outset Media
Victoria, British Columbia
CANADA
Consumers should immediately take this toy away from children and
contact Outset Media to obtain information on how to return the
product.
For more information, consumers can contact Outset Media toll-
free at 1-877-592-7374 Monday to Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30
p.m. PST.
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/y3su9c
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: KB Partners Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, KB Partners I, L.P., Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Pain Therapeutics, Inc., Remi
Barbier, Nadav Friedmann and Peter S. Roddy, remains pending,
according to Pain Therapeutics' Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.
The Company said, "On December 2, 2011, a purported class action
was filed against us and our executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas. This complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of
allegedly untrue or misleading statements of material facts made
by us regarding REMOXY"s development and regulatory status during
the purported class period, February 3, 2011 through June 23,
2011. The complaint states that monetary damages are being sought,
but no amounts are specified. On June 3, 2013, the Court certified
a class consisting of all purchasers of our common stock and a
class period of December 27, 2010 through June 26, 2011."
PERFORMANCE SPORTS: "Hemberger" Suit Moved From Pa. to Conn.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hemberger v. Performance Sports
Group, Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06981, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New
Haven). The Connecticut District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-00356-AVC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts product liability claims.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
One Haverford Centre
361 W. Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041-1597
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
E-mail: jgs@chimicles.com
Nick@chimicles.com
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Removes VIP Physical Suit to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled VIP Physical Therapy, Inc. v.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Case No. HDCV2014-00917, was
removed from the Hampden County Superior Court, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Springfield). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:15-cv-30039-KAR to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff is a rehabilitation clinic that provided medical
treatment to individuals allegedly insured under Progressive's
standard automobile insurance policy, which provided for Personal
Injury Protection coverage. The Plaintiff contends that it
provided reasonable and necessary treatment to Progressive
insureds and submitted its bills for treatment to Progressive for
payment, but that Progressive reduced the amount it paid in part
due to its use of computer databases purportedly designed to
assess the reasonableness of medical expenses.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura D. Mangini, Esq.
Robert A. DiTusa, Esq.
ALEKMAN DITUSA, LLC
55 State Street, 1st Floor
Springfield, MA 01103
Telephone: (413) 781-000
Facsimile: (413) 827-0266
E-mail: laura@alekmanditusa.com
robert@alekmanditusa.com
- and -
Stephen L. Holstrom, Esq.
ALEKMAN DITUSA, LLC
1550 Main Street
Springfield, MA 01103
Telephone: (413) 781-0000
Facsimile: (860) 548-2744
E-mail: stephen@alekmanditusa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert M. Buchanan, Jr., Esq.
Kevin J. Ma, Esq.
CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP
Two International Place
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 248-5000
Facsimile: (617) 248-4000
E-mail: rbuchanan@choate.com
kma@choate.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
Alexandra S. Peurach, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
apeurach@kslaw.com
REAL TIME: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reginald R. Lockhart, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., a Texas
corporation, Case No. 0:15-cv-60481-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2015)
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert William Murphy, Esq.
1212 SE 2nd Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 763-8660
Facsimile: (954) 763-8607
E-mail: rphyu@aol.com
RUE LA LA: Settles Class Action Over Voucher Expiration Dates
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC15 reports that Rue La La settled a class action lawsuit. The
shopping site was accused of selling online vouchers with
expiration dates that didn't match expiration laws for gift
certificates.
Allegations are the vouchers should have a minimum 5 years to
expire, but instead, expired earlier. If you qualify, you will
get a Rue La La credit for the amount. And, you guessed it, the
credits expire in 5 years.
Rue La La admitted no wrongdoing in settling this class action
lawsuit. The deadline to file a claim is May 12.
SANTANDER CONSUMER: "James" Suit Moved to Maryland District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled James v. Santander Consumer USA,
Inc., Case No. 24-C-15-000661, was removed from the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00654-ELH to the proceeding.
The lawsuit asserts for, among other things, breach of contract.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq.
GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD.
102 W Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 402
Towson, MD 21204
Telephone: (410) 825-2300
Facsimile: (410) 825-0066
E-mail: bcarney@GWCfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew Justin Narod, Esq.
Leclairryan
2318 Mill Road, Suite 1100
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 647-5935
Facsimile: (703) 647-5939
E-mail: andrew.narod@leclairryan.com
SCARPA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls F1 EVO Ski Boots Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SCARPA North America Inc., of Boulder, Colo., announced a
voluntary recall of about 2100 F1 EVO Ski Boots with Tronic system
component in U.S. and 250 in Canada. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The Tronic system, can unexpectedly switch from ski mode to walk
mode, not allowing the boot to release from the binding, posing a
fall or injury hazard.
This recall involves the men's and women's SCARPA F1 EVO ski boots
with the Tronic system component. The Tronic system locks the boot
into the ski binding. The boots were sold in royal blue for men
and aqua blue for women with "SCARPA" written in white letters on
the lower outer side of the boot. The model name "F1 EVO" is
printed on the upper right outside ankle cuff of the boots.
The firm has received two reports of torn knee ligament injuries
following falls, when the boots failed to release from the
binding.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/b3W3gJ
The recalled products were manufactured in Italy and sold at
Authorized SCARPA dealers and retailers in the United States and
Canada, including Oregon Mountain Community, REI and Skimo Co.,
and online at www.scarpa.com from October 2014 through January
2015 for about $700.
Consumers should immediately stop using the boots and contact
SCARPA North America for a full refund.
SCARPA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls F1 Evo Ski Boots in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 10, 2015
Posting date: March 10, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52491
This recall involves SCARPA F1 Evo ski boots with Tronic system.
SCARPA is written on the lower outside shell, and F1 Evo model
name is written on the upper outside cuff.
The recalled ski boots were sold in the following colours:
Gender Colour
------ ------
Men Speed Blue (royal)
Women Arctic Blue (aqua)
The Tronic system, a component of the rear part of the boot, may
unexpectedly switch from ski mode to walk mode, increasing the
likelihood of falling and of the boot not releasing properly from
the binding in the event of a fall.
Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of this product.
In the United States, SCARPA North America, Inc. has received two
reports of injury. The company has not received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.
Approximately 244 units of the recalled ski boots were sold in
Canada at various retailers.
The recalled products were sold from October 2014 to January 2015.
Manufactured in Italy.
Manufacturer: CALZATURIFICIO S.C.A.R.P.A. S.P.A.
Asolo (TV)
ITALY
Distributor: SCARPA North America, Inc.
Boulder, Colorado
UNITED STATES
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ski boots and
return them to SCARPA North America, Inc. for a refund. For more
information, consumers may contact SCARPA North America, Inc. by
telephone toll-free at 1-866-998-2895 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
MST, Monday through Friday or by email. Consumers can also visit
the SCARPA's recall website.
Consumers may view the release by the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission on the Commission's website.
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ebJy6X
SUPREME PRODUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted L. Kubala, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Supreme Production Services, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00116 (S.D. Tex., March 9, 2015) alleges that Supreme's
employees routinely work in excess of 40 hours a week and are
denied overtime, despite the non-exempt nature of their work.
Supreme Production Services, Inc. is a Texas corporation and
operates throughout Texas. Supreme offers flowback, well testing,
and other oilfield services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
1150 Bissonnet
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (713) 751-0025
Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
adunlap@fibichlaw.com
litkin@fibichlaw.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SUSAN J SZWED: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Marcoux, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, and Charlene Jones, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Susan J Szwed PA, Case No. 2:15-cv-00093-NT
(D. Me., March 10, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas F. Jennings, Esq.
WALKER & JENNINGS
226 Water Street
Hallowell, ME 04347
Telephone: (207) 621-8188
E-mail: dfjlaw@live.com
SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Settles Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Tim Mekeel, writing for Lancaster Online, reports that Susquehanna
Bancshares and BB&T have settled a class-action suit filed by
three Susquehanna shareholders.
The shareholders alleged that Susquehanna disclosed too little
information about its deal with BB&T and got too low a price.
Susquehanna announced the settlement on Feb. 26 in a filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The settlement does not include any monetary award to the three
plaintiffs, a Susquehanna spokesman said. Likewise, the
settlement does not alter the amount that BB&T is paying for
Susquehanna.
However, the filing says the shareholders can seek a court order
making Susquehanna, BB&T and/or its insurer cover their litigation
costs. The filing also shows where the Susquehanna proxy that
told shareholders about the BB&T deal was supplemented with more
detail, as the shareholders sought.
BB&T announced in November it would pay $2.5 billion to acquire
Lititz-based Susquehanna. The transaction is expected to be
completed in the second half of the year.
The class-action lawsuit in Lancaster County Common Pleas Court
consolidated a suit filed Dec. 1 by shareholder Wayne Waldeck of
Parkersburg, West Virginia, and a suit filed Dec. 23 by
shareholders Linda and Wade Burkholder of Greencastle, Franklin
County.
Linda Burkholder declined to comment on the settlement, referring
a reporter to their attorney. Their attorney, Stuart Guber of
Jenkintown, Montgomery County, and Mr. Waldeck could not be
reached for comment.
The Feb. 26 filing shows Susquehanna and BB&T denied all
allegations by the shareholders and contended that the original
disclosures were "adequate under the law." Nevertheless,
Susquehanna and BB&T said they agreed to settle the class-action
suit "in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and distraction of
further litigation."
As part of the settlement, information was added to the proxy
statement in six places. One area is the proxy's description of
an October meeting of the Susquehanna board, where the board and
its financial adviser discussed BB&T's interest in Susquehanna.
The new information shows that the board and its adviser explored
the possibility of having "a competitive process" involving other
potential suitors.
"In particular, the board discussed with (its adviser) eleven
other financial institutions as possible transaction partners,
their potential financial ability to acquire Susquehanna, their
recent financial results and relative financial strength, the
potential for strong strategic fit, the recent imposition by bank
regulators of more stringent requirements for regulatory approvals
of acquisitions and the potential overall execution risk for
transactions with certain of the other potential parties," the new
information reads.
But the Susquehanna board "determined not to reach out to any
other potential partners" because of "the strong strategic fit
with BB&T, the terms of BB&T's proposal, BB&T's long-term
financial results and the performance of its stock and the
perceived ability of BB&T to obtain regulatory approval for the
proposed merger in a timely manner," it says.
TAKATA CORP: "Boyd" Class Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Boyd v. Takata Corp., et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00079, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20926-FAM to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.
The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
Matthew Moreland, Esq.
Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
P.O. Drawer H
Reserve, LA 70084
Telephone: (985) 536-1186
Facsimile: (985) 536-6446
E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
mmoreland@becnellaw.com
schristina@becnellaw.com
- and -
Camilo K. Salas III, Esq.
SALAS & CO., L.C.
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2000
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-3080
Facsimile: (504) 799-3085
E-mail: csalas@salaslaw.com
TAKATA CORP: "Moore" Class Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Moore v. Takata Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00159, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20929-
FAM to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.
The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA LLP
36 N. Jefferson Street
PO Box 7635
New Castle, PA 16107
Telephone: (724) 656-1555
E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
TINNEL'S WEST: Recalls Jamaican Beef Patties Due to Milk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 10, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Tinnel's West Indian Take-Out
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9669
Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC
---------- ---------- ---- product ---
-----------
Tinnel's Tasty Jamaican 12 x 112 g All codes 6 94196-
Patties! Beef where milk 10005 9
Patties "Spicy" and sesame
are not
declared on
the label.
Tinnel's Tasty Jamaican 12 x 112 g All codes 6 94196-
Patties! Beef where milk 10006 6
Patties "Mild" and sesame
are not
declared on
the label.
TOYSMITH: Recalls Wind-Up Diver Bath Toys Due to Pinching Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 10, 2015
Posting date: March 10, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52477
This recall involves the Toysmith Wind-Up Diver bath toy. The
diver has a blue bodysuit, red fins and gloves, and a yellow
helmet and air tank. The diver's legs will start to flutter up and
down when you turn the orange wind-up mechanism. The diver is
approximately 19 centimetres long. Brand new, this toy can be
identified by its sticker label with UPC: 08576163338 and Item #:
63338.
The toy's body can split open when the diver's arms are rotated
resulting in a pinching hazard from the exposed internal mechanism
and the edges of the body.
Neither Toysmith nor Health Canada have received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries in Canada related to the use of
this product.
For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see Health Canada's
General Toy Safety Tips.
Approximately 7724 units of the recalled toy were sold in Canada.
The recalled toy was sold from June 2009 to February 2015.
Manufactured in China.
Manufacturer: Jieshengfeng Plastic Toys Factory
CHINA
Distributor: Toysmith
Sumner, Washington
UNITED STATES
Consumers should immediately remove the product from children's
reach and return it to the place of purchase for a refund/credit.
For more information, please contact Toysmith at 1-800-356-0474 or
email or visit Toysmith's recall website.
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/CdKoWc
TRANSILVANIA TRADING: Recalls Trader Joe's Cinnamon Almonds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Transilvania Trading
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
Transilvania Trading is recalling Trader Joe's brand Cinnamon
Almonds from the marketplace because they may contain peanut which
is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to peanut
should not consume the recalled product described below.
The following product has been sold at Pirate Joe's, located at
2348 West 4th Ave, Vancouver, British Columbia from November 12,
2014 to March 13, 2015 inclusively.
Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.
If you have an allergy to peanut, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.
There have been no reported reactions in Canada associated with
the consumption of this product.
This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.
The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.
Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC
---------- ---------- ---- ------------------ ---
Trader Joe's Cinnamon 454 g All codes 0076 1437
Almonds
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/NEXNHW
UNC-CHAPEL: Faces Three More Lawsuits Over Fake-Class System
------------------------------------------------------------
CNN reports that three more athletes who say they were scammed out
of an education at the University of North Carolina are now suing
over academic fraud, and the whistleblower who exposed the fake-
class system has now settled her lawsuit with the university.
Former basketball player Kenya McBee has joined former football
player Mike McAdoo's federal class-action lawsuit, claiming the
university denied him and thousands of other athletes education
when advisers forced him to take classes that never met.
Former basketball player Leah Metcalf, and former football player
James Arnold filed a separate but similar class-action lawsuit in
state court in North Carolina.
Ken Wainstein, who was hired by the university to act as an
independent investigator, revealed in October that academic fraud
had taken place at UNC for 18 years, and that UNC officials were
wrong when they denied -- for nearly five years -- that anyone in
athletics was involved.
Instead it was players, like McAdoo, who were blamed by the
university for cheating and punished by the NCAA.
"All of these student-athletes were promised a legitimate UNC
education, were implored to trust UNC academic advising, and were
then guided into academically bereft courses against their
interests," said attorney Jeremi Duru, one of the attorneys
representing these athletes.
Earlier this year high-profile attorney Michael Hausfeld filed a
class-action suit against UNC and the NCAA over the same scandal.
About 3,100 students -- nearly half of them athletes -- who
enrolled in the fake classes could easily join these lawsuits.
Mary Willingham, the whistleblower who began revealing details
about the sham classes, accused UNC of retaliating against her
before she quit last year, and then sued the university to get her
job back.
Ms. Willingham said that she reached a settlement agreement with
the school, although it had not yet been approved by a judge. It
would compensate her financially but not restore her job as a
learning specialist and adviser.
"I wanted to show other potential whistleblowers out there that
it's possible to survive a fight with a big-money machine. I
settled because I thought that it was time to get focused back on
the issue of athletes and their educations -- to correct the
injustice in the NCAA system," she said, adding that the terms of
the settlement will become public when it's finalized.
UNC said, "We believe the settlement is in the best interest of
the University and allows us to move forward and fully focus on
other important issues."
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Seeks Dismissal of Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
University of Phoenix, in a court filing earlier in February,
argues that a proposed class action filed against it for allegedly
engaging in fraudulent business practices should be dismissed.
The for-profit college filed its motion in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California Feb. 17.
"Setting aside the pleading defects of Plaintiff's fraud-based
claims, no reasonable person could have relied on these alleged
misrepresentations, particularly in light of the language in the
Enrollment Agreement, which Plaintiff signed, and the Academic
Catalog, which Plaintiff acknowledged understanding," lawyers for
college wrote in the 23-page motion.
"Moreover, these alleged misrepresentations were statements based
on future events, not existing material facts, and thus cannot
support a claim for fraud."
The college argues the "defects" in the plaintiff's first amended
complaint cannot be cured, therefore it should be dismissed "in
its entirety" and without leave to amend.
In November, a former University of Phoenix psychology student in
California sued, alleging that the college engaged in fraudulent
business practices when it sold her a "pipe dream" of transferable
credits and a guaranteed job after graduation.
Ashley Parades, a 22-year-old mother of three, is seeking class
action status for students who enrolled at the university,
borrowed tens of thousands of dollars in federal loans and yet
found themselves unemployed with allegedly worthless college
credits.
Ms. Parades enrolled at the University of Phoenix after, she
claims, she was promised her associate degree would allow her to
continue on to earn her bachelor's and master's degrees and work
as a licensed counselor.
The lawsuit alleges the recruiters for the college promised
prospective students that the credits earned at the school would
transfer to comparable programs at schools such as California
State University.
In the complaint, Parades alleges the university's admissions
specialists used aggressive, deceptive, misleading and fraudulent
tactics to persuade students to enroll.
According to the lawsuit, many students were unable to finish
their studies and many more who graduated still could not find
jobs -- and regardless of the outcome, students were stuck with
large amounts of debt.
The case was originally filed in San Bernadino County Superior
Court, but removed to the federal court in December.
Representing the plaintiff is attorney Michael T. Carr. Felicia Y.
Yu -- fyu@reedsmith.com --and Raymond Y. Kim -- rkim@reedsmith.com
-- of Los Angeles law firm Reed Smith are representing University
of Phoenix.
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Recalls Cheeky Teacups Due to Mislabeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Urban Outfitters Inc., of Philadelphia, Pa., announced a voluntary
recall of about 11,640 units "Cheeky" Teacups in the United States
and 1,730 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.
The tea cups are mislabeled as microwave safe. If microwaved, the
gold paint accents on the teacups can spark, posing a fire hazard.
This recall involves four styles of "Cheeky" six-ounce ceramic
teacups. The cups have floral motifs with gold painted accents and
have four "cheeky" phrases, such as "booze" and "more whiskey
please," painted on the inside or outside rim of the cup.
"Dishwasher Safe," "Microwave Safe" and "Made in China" are
printed on the bottom of the cup.
Urban Outfitters has received one report of a teacup sparking
during microwaving. No injuries have been reported.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/wdfP2t
The recalled products were manufactured in China by World Us, of
Hicksville, New York and sold by Urban Outfitters stores
nationwide and online at UrbanOutfitters.com from August 2014
through January 2015 for about $16.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled teacups and
contact Urban Outfitters for instructions on returning the product
for a refund.
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Recalls Cheeky Teacups in Canada
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 10, 2015
Posting date: March 10, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52489
This recall involves four styles of ceramic floral motif Cheeky
Teacups. The cups were sold in different floral motifs with gold
painted accents and phrases, such as booze and more whiskey please
painted on the inside of the cup.
Cheeky Teacups affected by this recall:
Phrase Floral Motif Colour
------ -------------------
booze Red
hot mess Blue
more whiskey please Gold
one classy bitch Pink and White
Some of the Cheeky Teacups were mislabelled as being microwave
safe. The teacups can spark in the microwave, posing a fire
hazard.
Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries in Canada related to the use of the teacups.
Urban Outfitters has received one report of sparking from a
customer who microwaved a teacup in the United States. No consumer
injuries were reported.
Approximately 1,159 units of the Cheeky Teacups were sold at
retail stores, and 325 units were sold online in Canada.
The Cheeky Teacups were sold at Urban Outfitters retail locations
and online from August 22, 2014 to January 7, 2015 in Canada.
Manufactured in China.
Manufacturer: Chaozhou Hongqing Ceramic Manufacture Co., Inc.
Chaozhou
CHINA
Importer: URBN Canada Retail, Inc.
Toronto, Ontario
CANADA
Consumers should immediately stop using in the microwave the
recalled Cheeky Teacups and contact Urban Outfitters for return
instructions to receive a full refund.
For more information, consumers can contact Urban Outfitters toll-
free at 1-800-282-2200 every day, 24 hours a day. Consumers may
also contact the company by email or by visiting the Urban
Outfitters website and clicking on Recall.
Consumers may view the release by the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission on the Commission's website.
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/SkYSOW
VERIZON: Settles Family Shareplan Class Action for $36MM
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that Verizon settled a
class-action suit for $36 million.
Scott Hardy with topclassactions.com says this lawsuit involved
allegations about the companies' Family Share Plan. "Your minutes
may not have been added up correctly and you may have been billed
for more minutes than you should have."
If you had a Verizon Family Share Plan from 2002 to 2006, you
could qualify. If you're still with Verizon, it could mean added
calling minutes. The deadline to file a claim is April 29.
It is important to note, as with many of these lawsuits, Verizon
admitted no wrongdoing in reaching this settlement.
VOCATION: Faces Third Class Action Over Funding Contract Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kylar Loussikian and Ben Butler, writing for The Australian,
report that Vocation repeatedly engaged in misleading and
deceptive conduct by not making available information about the
risks it could lose lucrative government funding contracts, and
continued to do so despite an audit by the regulator that gave
rise to material risks funding would be cancelled, a writ lodged
in the Supreme Court of Victoria alleges.
The company's BAWM and Aspin units, which have since closed,
engaged in conduct that was, or was likely to be, considered by
the regulator to be in breach of its funding contracts, the class
action filed by Slater & Gordon on Feb. 26 alleges.
This conduct included "employing unqualified or underqualified
staff and contractors", placing students into courses
"inappropriate for their needs", "failing to properly maintain or
compete forms and documentation required", and assessing students
as completing a course in less time than was reasonable, the writ
reads.
"Vocation had, or ought to reasonably have had, in place internal
reporting systems designed to ensure adequate and timely
dissemination within Vocation of material or significant
developments regarding Vocation's operations, including . . . any
breach or material non-compliance by Vocation or its subsidiaries
of their statutory and contractual obligations," Slaters claims.
Vocation repeatedly denied reports there was a material risk
funding would be pulled by the Victorian Department of Education
and Early Childhood Development, and continues to hold that it had
been advised by external consultants there was no real risk of a
major funding withdrawal.
In October, the company settled with the DEECD, with nearly $20
million in funding forfeited and two of its most lucrative
subsidiaries closed. It announced a complete restructure of its
Victorian division, downgraded earnings forecasts multiple times,
and saw its share price drop to as low as 7c.
The Slaters claim alleges the DEECD's probe and the decisions to
restructure the business were information a reasonable person
would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of
Vocation shares.
Despite this, and despite BAWM's funding being suspended pending a
probe in early July, Vocation still did not tell investors there
was a material risk the company would lose funding or be forced to
cut third-party contractors and make drastic changes to its
business.
The company, which delayed its first-half results to March 2, is
being pursued by two other class actions -- one by former Minter
Ellison partner Mark Elliott and another by Maurice Blackburn.
VOLVO CARS: Wants Judge to Sanction Plaintiffs' Attorney
--------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Aaron Vehling, writing for Law360, report that
Volvo Cars of North America LLC on Feb. 27 urged a Pennsylvania
federal judge to sanction a plaintiffs' attorney for misleadingly
altering a document in a $5 million class action accusing the
company of selling cars with an allegedly fatal side-impact
protection defect.
Volvo says Francis Malofiy of Francis Alexander LLC should be
sanctioned after he admitted during a December 2013 hearing to
removing the words "Volvo 900 Series" from an image of a brochure
included in the amended complaint and changing it to "Volvo 850."
Mr. Malofiy -- who has faced sanctions in other litigation -- has
claimed he was trying to clarify that the vehicles depicted on the
brochure were Volvo 850s, even though it said they were from the
900 Series.
The suit claims the 1997 Volvo 850 was marketed and advertised as
containing rear door bars, even though the vehicles did not. The
absence of the rear door beams allegedly led to the death of a
child of lead plaintiffs Ana and Mark Webb after a side-impact
collision.
In the Feb. 27 memorandum, Volvo asks the court to tell the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania's chief judge about Mr. Malofiy's
alleged misconduct. The company further requests that the judge
provide a copy of the sanctions order to the Pennsylvania Bar
Association and force him to pay fees that Volvo's attorneys
incurred in filing and briefing the sanctions motion.
"Malofiy's conduct here and elsewhere far exceeds the bounds of
permissible advocacy," Volvo's memorandum said. "Malofiy appears
not to acknowledge or accept the constraints of professionalism,
decorum, fact, law or court rule in any proceeding, and his
improprieties are not confined to this case."
In May, a Pennsylvania federal judge overseeing a songwriter's
copyright infringement suit against rhythm-and-blues artist Usher
sanctioned Mr. Malofiy for acting "disgracefully" by misleading a
defendant into thinking he was a witness while getting an
incriminating affidavit from him.
The Webbs, who previously filed state suits over the fatal May
2009 crash, filed the instant complaint in May 2013 on behalf of a
nationwide class of current and former Volvo vehicle owners and
lessees of the Volvo 850 from 1997. The Webbs claimed they bought
the vehicle because they believed it had an innovative system to
protect against side-impact crashes, as advertised by Volvo.
Instead, the company allegedly used a small, lightweight piece of
plastic that didn't sufficiently reinforce the vehicle's doors.
A judge stayed the case in January 2014 while one of the state
suits filed by the Webbs proceeded in Pennsylvania state court. A
jury found in favor of Volvo in that case in March, saying Ana
Webb's negligence was responsible for her son's fatal injuries,
and a judge denied all post-trial motions by Mark Webb in
November.
The following month, Volvo moved for summary judgment in the
instant suit, saying the claims alleged were barred by the
doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Volvo's Feb. 27 memorandum supports a sanctions motion originally
filed in October 2013, before the case was stayed due to
proceedings in a related state suit. On Feb. 27, Volvo argued
that its earlier motion for sanctions against Mr. Malofiy was now
ripe for decision, since the stay had been lifted.
Mr. Malofiy had claimed in a November 2013 opposition filing to
Volvo's sanctions motion: "It is laughable to suggest that anyone
would look at such an image and conclude that it was being passed
off as a piece of manufactured evidence."
But Volvo said Feb. 27 that sanctions were warranted due to
"Malofiy's penchant for ad hominem attacks."
Mr. Malofiy told Law360 on Feb. 22 that Volvo's filing was made in
bad faith.
"The gratuitous memorandum was filed solely so that Volvo could
raise impertinent issues about Plaintiffs' counsel that have
nothing to do with the issues in this case," he said. "Volvo's
counsel has regrettably made it a habit to improperly raise
irrelevant issues concerning Plaintiffs' counsel as part of their
litigation tactics."
Plaintiffs are represented by Francis Malofiy of Francis Alexander
LLC.
Volvo is represented by Peter W. Herzog III --
pherzog@wtotrial.com -- of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP and Richard
B. Wickersham Jr. -- rwickersham@postschell.com -- of Post &
Schell PC.
The case is Ana Webb et al. v. Volvo Cars of NA LLC et al., case
number 2:13-cv-02394, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
WAL-MART STORES: Removes "Epps" Suit to Arkansas District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Epps, et al. v. Wal Mart Stores
Inc., Case No. 60CV-15-00409, was removed from the Pulaski County
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas (Little Rock). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:15-cv-00138-JLH to the proceeding.
The lawsuit asserts fraud-related claims.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Allen Carney, Jr., Esq.
John Charles Williams, Esq.
Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: acarney@cbplaw.com
jwilliams@cbplaw.com
hbates@cbplaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew King, Esq.
Jess L. Askew, III, Esq.
Luke K. Burton, Esq.
KUTAK ROCK LLP
124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
Little Rock, AR 72201-3740
Telephone: (501) 975-3000
Facsimile: (501) 975-3001
E-mail: Andrew.King@KutakRock.com
jess.askew@kutakrock.com
luke.burton@kutakrock.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Fletcher, Esq.
KUTAK ROCK LLP
234 East Millsap Road, Suite 400
Fayetteville, AR 72703-4099
Telephone: (479) 973-4200
Facsimile: (479) 973-0007
E-mail: Jeff.Fletcher@kutakrock.com
WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Misleading Spring Valley Advertisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Kramer, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-01704-JFW-
JPR (C.D. Cal., March 9, 2015) alleges that the Defendant's claims
about the content of the "Spring Valley" brand supplements are
false and misleading.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in
Bentonville, Arizona.
The Defendant sells the Products to consumers in California and
throughout the nation. The Plaintiff does not know the true names
or capacities of the Doe Defendants.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
Heather Baker Dobbs, Esq.
Justin M. Keller, Esq.
KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Third Floor
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 536-1000
Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
hmb@kirtlandpackard.com
jmk@kirtlandpackard.com
WELLS MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Brockdorff v. Wells Management Group, LLC, and William
Bradford Wells, Case No. 3:15-cv-00137-HEH (E.D. Va., March 6,
2015) is brought to recover back wages owed to the Plaintiff,
which the Defendants allegedly failed to pay, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Wells Management is a Virginia limited liability company. Mr.
Wells is the sole member of Wells Management.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blackwell N. Shelley, Jr., Esq.
Tim Schulte, Esq.
SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, P.C.
2020 Monument Avenue
Richmond, VA 23220
Telephone: (804) 644-9700
Facsimile: (804) 278-9634
E-mail: Blackwell.shelley@shelleyschulte.com
Tim.schulte@shelleyschulte.com
WESTINGHOUSE LIGHTING: Recalls Glass Holders Due to Shock Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Westinghouse Lighting, of Philadelphia, Pa., announced a voluntary
recall of about 5,000 Glass Shade Holders. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The pull chain switch on the glass shade holder is incorrectly
wired, posing a shock hazard to the consumer.
This recall involves Westinghouse Lighting brand 3 1/4 inch round
glass shade holders. The ceiling-mounted holders have model number
70242 and product date code "2014 APR" stamped on the bottom of
the holder, near the socket. The brass-plated shade holders have a
2 1/2 inch pull chain and are used with round globe or decorative
shaped glass shades with a 3 1/4 inch fitter.
No consumer incidents have been reported.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/F5FOkJ
The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at Home
Depot stores nationwide from August 2014 through January 2015 for
about $12.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled shade holders
and contact Westinghouse Lighting to request a free replacement
holder kit.
WICKHAM SECURITIES: Queensland Retirees Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kristian Silva, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that
Queensland retirees who lost about $27 million when investment
fund Wickham Securities collapsed two years ago could be months
away from launching a class action.
It comes after Wickham's trustee company Sandhurst lost an appeal
in the Federal Court, meaning they will be compelled to hand over
financial documents to the firm representing burned investors.
Shine Lawyers intends on beginning a class action against
Sandhurst on behalf of about 150 investors. They will allege
Sandhurst breached the Corporations Act by not ensuring Wickham
could repay its customers.
Sandhurst, which is owned by Bendigo Bank and Adelaide Bank, could
theoretically block the release of the financial documents if they
make an appeal to Australia's High Court and won.
"Sandhurst is considering the decision and otherwise does not
comment on matters before the courts," a spokeswoman said.
Shine head of professional negligence Jan Saddler said Sandhurst's
documents could show it did not fulfil its trustee obligations
while overseeing Wickham.
Provided no High Court appeal was lodged, Ms Saddler said she
expected to receive the files within a month.
"They could show Sandhurst made inquiries and didn't get proper
responses and didn't do anything about following that up . . .
Until we see the files it's pure speculation," she said.
Ms. Saddler said the investors were deeply distressed that they
had not received any compensation two years on from Wickham's
collapse. Nearly all of them were from Queensland.
"There are times when they feel really depleted, exhausted and
frustrated. They wonder if there will ever be a positive outcome.
I'm very positive there will be," she said.
Shine had hoped to begin a class action in late 2014 after they
had a win in the Federal Court, however that was delayed when
Sandhurst lodged an appeal.
Liquidators PPB Advisory estimated last year that Wickham's
creditors would receive about 5.7 cents for every dollar owed.
The extent of Wickham's financial mismanagement was revealed in
court documents that showed the company's directors knew little
about the state of the business.
There was also evidence that the company did not maintain proper
records and financial documents were allegedly forged to inflate
their bank balance by $10.5 million.
Some investors told of how Wickham chairman Brad Sherwin
personally signed them up, bringing his along his mother to help
with sales pitches.
In September 2013 Mr. Sherwin was handed a 31-month ban from
operating in financial services by the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission.
WILBER & ASSOCIATES: Sent Deficient Collection Letters, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday Rowan, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Wilber & Associates, P.C., and John Does 1 to 10, Case No.
3:15-cv-01733-AET-TJB (D.N.J., March 9, 2015) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by
sending initial debt collection letters to the Plaintiff and other
New Jersey consumers that did not include the disclosures required
by the FDCPA.
Wilber & Associates, P.C. is an out-of-state corporation and law
firm with offices in Normal, Illinois. The names of the Doe
Defendants are unknown.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Rubin, Esq.
THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Telephone: (732) 545-7900
Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
E-mail: drubin@wolflawfirm.net
WORLD WRESTLING: Levesque & Wilson Named Defendants in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Stephanie
McMahon Levesque and Michelle D. Wilson have been named defendants
in the amended class action complaint filed by Mohsin Ansari, the
Lead Plaintiff.
On July 26, 2014, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, entitled Warren Ganues and Dominic Varriale, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon and George A.
Barrios, alleging violations of federal securities laws based on
certain statements relating to the negotiation of WWE"s domestic
television license. The complaint seeks certain unspecified
damages. A nearly identical lawsuit was filed one month later
entitled Curtis Swanson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
Vincent K. McMahon and George A. Barrios. Both lawsuits are
purported securities class actions subject to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").
On September 23-24, five putative plaintiffs filed motions to be
appointed lead plaintiff and to consolidate the two cases pursuant
to the PSLRA. Following a hearing on October 29, 2014, the Court
issued an order dated November 5, 2014 appointing Mohsin Ansari as
Lead Plaintiff and consolidating the two actions.
On January 5, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Among other things, the amended complaint adds Stephanie McMahon
Levesque and Michelle D. Wilson as named defendants. While these
lawsuits are in the early stages, the Company believes the claims
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against
them.
WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Haynes & Singleton Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on October
23, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William
Albert Haynes III, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., and on January
16, 2015 a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
entitled Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc., both alleging that the Company ignored,
downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with
traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE"s performers. These
suits both seek unspecified actual, compensatory and punitive
damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical
monitoring. The Company believes the claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against them.
* 200,000 People Signs Consumer Union's Petition v. Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
KSAT12 reports that more than 200,000 people have signed Consumers
Union's petition aimed at hanging up on cell phone robocalls.
Although federal law already bans companies from using automatic
dialers to call cell phones, it still happens. Now, Consumers
Union, related to Consumer Reports, is petitioning the FCC to
force the phone companies to give consumers free tools to block
the pesky robocalls.
The website to sign the petition is
https://consumersunion.org/end-robocalls/
* Senate Bill May Limit Damages for Big Tobacco
-----------------------------------------------
According to a Tampa Bay Times editorial, a Senate bill would let
tobacco companies off the hook for punitive damages sought by
smokers who were initially part of a 1994 class-action lawsuit but
were later directed to file individual claims. The bill is a
shameless ploy to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Lawmakers defeated a similar effort last year, and they should not
change their minds.
Sponsored by Sen. Garrett Richter, R-Naples, the one-sentence
change to state law in SB 978 is a direct swipe at more than 4,000
smokers who have lawsuits pending against tobacco companies. The
bill would limit punitive damages for "civil actions in which
judgment has not been entered, regardless of the date on which the
cause of action arose." That would essentially wipe out lawsuits
filed by plaintiffs whose cases have been in limbo for 15 years by
imposing a cap, passed by the Legislature in 1999, that allows
companies to only be charged once for punitive damages.
The issue stems from the Engle class-action lawsuit that was filed
in state court in 1994 on behalf of 700,000 Floridians. After a
two-year trial, a jury found that tobacco companies bamboozled
smokers about the harmful and addictive nature of their products.
A judge awarded the class a $145 billion judgment in 2000. But
the tobacco industry appealed. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court
vacated the award and decertified the class, ordering plaintiffs
to file individual claims against the companies within a year.
About 9,500 smokers followed through. So far, the courts have
awarded plaintiffs $388 million in punitive damages and $266
million for compensatory payments. About 4,500 cases are pending.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had $56-Mil Undiscounted Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation's undiscounted liabilities related to asbestos
claims was $56 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 26, 2014.
Casualty reserves of $265 million in 2014 represent accruals for
personal injury, occupational injury and asbestos claims. The
Company's self-insured retention amount for these claims is $50
million per occurrence. Currently, no individual claim is expected
to exceed the Company's self-insured retention amount. In
accordance with the Contingencies Topic in the Financial
Accounting Standards Board's ("FASB") Accounting Standards
Codification ("ASC"), to the extent the value of an individual
claim exceeds the self-insured retention amount, the Company would
present the liability on a gross basis with a corresponding
receivable for insurance recoveries. These reserves fluctuate
based upon the timing of payments as well as changes in
independent third-party estimates, which are reviewed by
management. Actual results may vary from estimates due to the
number, type and severity of the injury, costs of medical
treatments and uncertainties in litigation. Most of the Company's
casualty claims relate to CSXT unless otherwise noted. Defense and
processing costs, which historically have been insignificant and
are anticipated to be insignificant in the future, are not
included in the recorded liabilities. During 2014, 2013 and 2012,
there were no significant changes in estimate recorded to adjust
casualty reserves.
Personal injury reserves represent liabilities for employee work-
related and third-party injuries. Work-related injuries for CSXT
employees are primarily subject to the Federal Employers'
Liability Act ("FELA"). In addition to FELA liabilities, employees
of other CSX subsidiaries are covered by various state workers'
compensation laws, the Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Program or the Maritime Jones Act.
CSXT retains an independent actuary to assist management in
assessing the value of personal injury claims. An analysis is
performed by the actuary quarterly and is reviewed by management.
The methodology used by the actuary includes a development factor
to reflect growth or reduction in the value of these personal
injury claims. It is based largely on CSXT's historical claims and
settlement experience.
Occupational claims arise from allegations of exposures to certain
materials in the workplace, such as solvents, soaps, chemicals
(collectively referred to as "irritants") and diesel fuels (like
exhaust fumes) or allegations of chronic physical injuries
resulting from work conditions, such as repetitive stress
injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing loss.
The Company is also party to a number of asbestos claims by
employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace. The
heaviest possible exposure for employees resulted from work
conducted in and around steam locomotive engines that were largely
phased out beginning around the 1950s. Other types of exposures,
however, including exposure from locomotive component parts and
building materials, continued until these exposures were
substantially eliminated by 1985. Additionally, the Company has
retained liability for asbestos claims filed against its
previously owned international container shipping business.
Diseases associated with asbestos typically have long latency
periods (amount of time between exposure to asbestos and the onset
of the disease) which can range from ten to 40 years after
exposure.
Occupational claims, excluding asbestos, are analyzed on a
quarterly basis by an independent actuary in order to determine
the number of unasserted, or incurred but not reported ("IBNR"),
claims. The actuary's analyses are reviewed by management. With
the exception of carpal tunnel, management has determined that
seven years is the most probable time period in which these
unasserted occupational claim filings and claim values can be
estimated. Carpal tunnel claims use a three-year period to
estimate the reserve due to the shorter latency period for these
types of injuries.
Asbestos claims are analyzed by an independent specialist in order
to determine the number of unasserted, or incurred but not
reported ("IBNR"), claims. Since exposure to asbestos has been
substantially eliminated, management reviews asserted asbestos
claims quarterly and the review by the specialist is completed
annually. In 2014, management increased the forecast period from
seven years to ten years. Based on a review of historical
settlement trends, management concluded that ten years is the most
probable time period in which unasserted asbestos claim filings
and claim values can be estimated. The Company does not believe
there is sufficient data to justify a projection period longer
than ten years at this time. The change in the forecast period
resulted in an immaterial increase in the asbestos reserves during
2014.
The actuary and specialist analyze CSXT's historical claim
filings, settlement amounts, and dismissal rates to determine
future anticipated claim filing rates and average settlement
values for occupational and asbestos claims reserves. The
potentially exposed population is estimated by using CSXT's
employment records and industry data. From this analysis, the
actuary and specialist provide estimates of the IBNR claims
liabilities.
The estimated future filing rates and estimated average claim
values are the most sensitive assumptions for these reserves. A 1%
increase or decrease in either the forecasted number of
occupational and asbestos IBNR claims or the average claim values
would result in approximately a $1 million increase or decrease in
the liability recorded for unasserted occupational and asbestos
claims.
Occupational claims arise from allegations of exposures to certain
materials in the workplace, such as solvents, soaps, chemicals
(collectively referred to as "irritants") and diesel fuels (like
exhaust fumes) or allegations of chronic physical injuries
resulting from work conditions, such as repetitive stress
injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing loss.
The Company is also party to a number of asbestos claims by
employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace. The
heaviest possible exposure for employees resulted from work
conducted in and around steam locomotive engines that were largely
phased out beginning around the 1950s. Other types of exposures,
however, including exposure from locomotive component parts and
building materials, continued until these exposures were
substantially eliminated by 1985. Additionally, the Company has
retained liability for asbestos claims filed against its
previously owned international container shipping business.
Diseases associated with asbestos typically have long latency
periods (amount of time between exposure to asbestos and the onset
of the disease) which can range from ten to 40 years after
exposure.
Occupational claims, excluding asbestos, are analyzed on a
quarterly basis by an independent actuary in order to determine
the number of unasserted, or incurred but not reported ("IBNR"),
claims. The actuary's analyses are reviewed by management. With
the exception of carpal tunnel, management has determined that
seven years is the most probable time period in which these
unasserted occupational claim filings and claim values can be
estimated. Carpal tunnel claims use a three-year period to
estimate the reserve due to the shorter latency period for these
types of injuries.
Asbestos claims are analyzed by an independent specialist in order
to determine the number of unasserted, or IBNR, claims. Since
exposure to asbestos has been substantially eliminated, management
reviews asserted asbestos claims quarterly and the review by the
specialist is completed annually. In 2014, management reviewed
this assumption and determined that it was appropriate to extend
the forecast period from seven years to ten years. Based on a
review of historical settlement trends, management concluded that
ten years is the most probable time period in which unasserted
asbestos claim filings and claim values can be estimated. The
Company does not believe there is sufficient data to justify a
projection period longer than ten years at this time. The change
in the forecast period resulted in an immaterial increase in the
asbestos reserves during 2014.
The actuary and specialist analyze CSXT's historical claim
filings, settlement amounts, and dismissal rates to determine
future anticipated claim filing rates and average settlement
values for occupational and asbestos claims reserves. The
potentially exposed population is estimated by using CSXT's
employment records and industry data. From this analysis, the
actuary and specialist provide estimates of the IBNR claims
liabilities.
As of December 2014, undiscounted liabilities recorded related to
asbestos claims was $56 million.
CSX Corporation (CSX) is a transportation supplier. The Company
provides rail-based transportation services, including traditional
rail service and the transport of intermodal containers and
trailers. CSX's operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc.
(CSXT), provides link to the transportation supply chain through
its approximately 21,000 route mile rail network, which serves
centers in 23 states east of the Mississippi River, the District
of Columbia and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It
has access to over 70 ocean, river and lake port terminals along
the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, the Mississippi River, the Great
Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Company's intermodal
business links customers to railroads through trucks and
terminals. CSXT also serves production and distribution facilities
through track connections to approximately 240 short-line and
regional railroads.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Made $148MM Fibro Cash Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s asbestos-related cash payments for 2014
were $148 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2014.
The fourth quarter of 2014 charge for asbestos-related costs was
$135 million, compared to the fourth quarter of 2013 charge of
$145 million. These charges resulted from the Company's
comprehensive annual review of asbestos-related liabilities and
costs. In each year, the Company concluded that an increase in the
accrued liability was required to provide for estimated indemnity
payments and legal fees arising from asbestos personal injury
lawsuits and claims pending and expected to be filed during the
several years following the completion of the comprehensive
review.
Asbestos-related cash payments for 2014 were $148 million, a
decrease of $10 million from 2013. Deferred amounts payable were
approximately $13 million and $12 million at December 31, 2014 and
2013, respectively.
Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a glass container manufacturer. The
Company is also a preferred partner for various food and beverage
brands. It provides glass packaging for beer, wine, spirits, food,
non-alcoholic beverages, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. It also
produces tableware and stemware for household use. The Company
manufactures glass containers in a range of sizes, shapes and
colors. It has 77 glass manufacturing plants in 21 countries. The
Company has four reportable segments based on its geographic
locations: Europe, North America, South America and Asia Pacific.
Its customers include Anheuser-Busch InBev, Brown Forman,
Carlsberg, Coca-Cola, Constellation, Diageo, Heineken, Kirin,
MillerCoors, Nestle, PepsiCo, Pernod Ricard, SABMiller, and Saxco
International. The Company has 35 glass container manufacturing
plants located in the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany,
Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United
Kingdom.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Had 2,220 Fibro Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., had 2,220 pending asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.
During 2014, the Company received approximately 1,470 new filings
and disposed of approximately 1,870 claims. As of December 31,
2014, the number of asbestos-related claims pending against the
Company was approximately 2,220. The Company anticipates that cash
flows from operations and other sources will be sufficient to meet
all asbestos-related obligations on a short-term and long-term
basis. See Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for
further information.
Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a glass container manufacturer. The
Company is also a preferred partner for various food and beverage
brands. It provides glass packaging for beer, wine, spirits, food,
non-alcoholic beverages, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. It also
produces tableware and stemware for household use. The Company
manufactures glass containers in a range of sizes, shapes and
colors. It has 77 glass manufacturing plants in 21 countries. The
Company has four reportable segments based on its geographic
locations: Europe, North America, South America and Asia Pacific.
Its customers include Anheuser-Busch InBev, Brown Forman,
Carlsberg, Coca-Cola, Constellation, Diageo, Heineken, Kirin,
MillerCoors, Nestle, PepsiCo, Pernod Ricard, SABMiller, and Saxco
International. The Company has 35 glass container manufacturing
plants located in the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany,
Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United
Kingdom.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 23 Filter Cases vs. Lorillard Inc. Set For Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-three cases seeking damages resulting from alleged exposure
to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material
used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard, Inc.'s
subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco, are scheduled for trial, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2014.
Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard,
Inc. by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. As of February 6, 2015, Lorillard
Tobacco was a defendant in 61 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. was a
defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that also name
Lorillard Tobacco.
Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached
agreement to pay, a total of approximately $38.1 million in
settlements to finally resolve 147 claims.
Since January 1, 2012, verdicts have been returned in the
following three Filter Cases: McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company
and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit Court,
Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky; Couscouris v. Hatch
Grinding Wheels, et al., tried in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Los Angeles; and DeLisle v. A.W. Chesterton
Company, et al., tried in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.
Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard
Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the
filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material. In McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and
Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit Court, Division
Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky in 2012, the Kentucky Supreme
Court is still considering plaintiff's motion for discretionary
review. The jury in the McGuire case returned a verdict for
Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the Court entered
final judgment in May 2012. On February 14, 2014, the Kentucky
Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in favor of Lorillard
Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose and on April 3, 2014, the Court
of Appeals denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing. On May 2,
2014, plaintiff moved for discretionary review in the Kentucky
Supreme Court. Lorillard Tobacco filed its responsive brief on May
30, 2014. On October 4, 2012, the jury in the Couscouris case
returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose,
and the court entered final judgment on November 1, 2012. On June
17, 2013, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate
District entered an order dismissing the appeal of the final
judgment pursuant to plaintiffs' request, but plaintiffs' appeal
of the cost judgment remained pending. However, plaintiffs
abandoned their appeal on June 2, 2014, and on June 4, 2014, the
appeal was dismissed. On September 13, 2013, the jury in the
DeLisle case found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims
for negligence and strict liability, and awarded $8 million.
Lorillard Tobacco is responsible for 44%, or $3.52 million.
Judgment was entered on November 6, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed
its notice of appeal on November 18, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed
its initial brief on January 6, 2015. As of February 6, 2015, 23
Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or have been placed on
courts' trial calendars. Trial dates are subject to change.
Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard), through its subsidiaries, is engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and electronic
cigarettes. The Company has two segments: Cigarettes and
Electronic Cigarettes. The Cigarettes segment consists principally
of the operations of Lorillard Tobacco Company and related
entities. The Electronic Cigarettes segment consists of the
operations of LOEC, Inc. (doing business as blu eCigs), and Cygnet
UK Trading Limited (trading as SKYCIG) and related entities.
Newport, the Company's flagship premium cigarette brand, includes
both menthol and non-menthol product offerings. In addition to the
Newport brand, its product line has four additional brand families
marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, and Old Gold brand names.
These five brands include 43 different product offerings, which
vary in price, taste, flavor, length and packaging. Lorillard
markets electronic cigarettes under the blu eCigs and SKYCIG
brands.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Faces 2,220 PI Claimants
----------------------------------------------------
3M Company faces numerous lawsuits purporting to represent 2,220
individual claimants alleging personal injury due to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.
As of December 31, 2014, the Company is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts
that purport to represent approximately 2,220 individual
claimants, compared to approximately 2,200 individual claimants
with actions pending at December 31, 2013.
The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.
The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the
past. The Company has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial,
including seven of the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials
occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an
appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the
Company. The ninth case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the court
at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the court's legal
finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence
to support a jury verdict.
The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims
on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by the unimpaired.
3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company's
business segments: Industrial, which serves a range of markets,
such as automotive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and
automotive aftermarket, electronics, appliance, paper and
printing, packaging, food and beverage, and construction; Safety
and Graphics, which serves a range of markets for the safety,
security and productivity of people, facilities and systems;
Electronics and Energy, which serves customers in electronics and
energy markets, including solutions for electronic devices,
telecommunications networks, electrical products, power generation
and distribution, and infrastructure protection; Health Care,
which serves markets that include medical clinics and hospitals,
pharmaceuticals, dental and orthodontic practitioners, and health
information systems, among others, and Consumer, which serves
markets that include consumer retail, office retail, home
improvement, building maintenance and other markets.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on W.Va.'s Suit vs. 3M Co. Set for 1Q
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the State of West Virginia's motion to bifurcate its
lawsuit against 3M Company in relation to its respiratory
protection products may occur in the first quarter of 2015,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.
The State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a
complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers
of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln
County, West Virginia and amended its complaint in 2005. The
amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory
damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly
incurred by the State for worker's compensation and healthcare
benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis
and unspecified punitive damages. The case has been inactive since
the fourth quarter of 2007, other than a case management
conference in March 2011. In November 2013, the State filed a
motion to bifurcate the lawsuit into separate liability and
damages proceedings. A hearing on that motion may occur in the
first quarter of 2015. No liability has been recorded for this
matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable
and estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is not able
to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the lack of any
meaningful discovery responses by the State of West Virginia, the
otherwise minimal activity in this case and the fact that the
complaint asserts claims against two other manufacturers where a
defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and
several liability and by the amount of fault, if any, a jury might
allocate to each defendant if the case is ultimately tried.
3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company's
business segments: Industrial, which serves a range of markets,
such as automotive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and
automotive aftermarket, electronics, appliance, paper and
printing, packaging, food and beverage, and construction; Safety
and Graphics, which serves a range of markets for the safety,
security and productivity of people, facilities and systems;
Electronics and Energy, which serves customers in electronics and
energy markets, including solutions for electronic devices,
telecommunications networks, electrical products, power generation
and distribution, and infrastructure protection; Health Care,
which serves markets that include medical clinics and hospitals,
pharmaceuticals, dental and orthodontic practitioners, and health
information systems, among others, and Consumer, which serves
markets that include consumer retail, office retail, home
improvement, building maintenance and other markets.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Has $140MM Accruals for Fibro Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities
of $140 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.
The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by
examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii)
apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g.,
whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic
claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g.,
the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the
number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed
against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled
claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend
against current and future claims.
Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii)
the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of
defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv)
changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and
appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure
applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of
other co-defendants and insurers.
As a result of the Company's greater cost of resolving claims of
persons who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma
and other malignancies, the Company increased its accruals in 2014
for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $62 million. In 2014,
the Company made payments for fees and settlements of $49 million
related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation. As of December
31, 2014, the Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos
liabilities of $140 million (excluding Aearo accruals). This
accrual represents the low end in a range of loss. The Company
cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of amounts by
which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company has
established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in projecting
the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or the time
period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the complaints
nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants where the
damages alleged are typically not attributed to individual
defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may turn on
the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state,
(iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.
3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company's
business segments: Industrial, which serves a range of markets,
such as automotive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and
automotive aftermarket, electronics, appliance, paper and
printing, packaging, food and beverage, and construction; Safety
and Graphics, which serves a range of markets for the safety,
security and productivity of people, facilities and systems;
Electronics and Energy, which serves customers in electronics and
energy markets, including solutions for electronic devices,
telecommunications networks, electrical products, power generation
and distribution, and infrastructure protection; Health Care,
which serves markets that include medical clinics and hospitals,
pharmaceuticals, dental and orthodontic practitioners, and health
information systems, among others, and Consumer, which serves
markets that include consumer retail, office retail, home
improvement, building maintenance and other markets.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Has $41-Mil. Fibro Insurance Receivables
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities
of $140 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.
As of December 31, 2014, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
$41 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on
an analysis of its policies, including their exclusions, pertinent
case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with
similar claims, and assessment of the nature of each claim and
remaining coverage, and then records an amount it has concluded is
likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect the timing
and amount of recovery of this receivable, including (i) delays in
or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent to which
insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii) the outcome
of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings with respect
to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance coverage.
In 2007, the Company was served with a declaratory judgment action
filed in the District Court in Ramsey County, Minnesota on behalf
of two of its insurers (Continental Casualty and Continental
Insurance Co. -- both part of the Continental Casualty Group) in
connection with insurance coverage for respirator mask/asbestos
claims. Over the next several years, 3M settled with the
plaintiffs, Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co., as
well as a significant number of the insurer defendants. In 2013,
the Company reached settlements with the remaining insurers in the
lawsuit. In June 2014, the court issued an order dismissing the
case, and in the third quarter of 2014, a final payment was
received as a result of those settlements. During 2014, the
Company received payments of $17 million from settlements with
insurers.
The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers for
respirator mask claims. The Company is also seeking coverage under
the policies of certain insolvent insurers. Once those claims for
coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims.
3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company's
business segments: Industrial, which serves a range of markets,
such as automotive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and
automotive aftermarket, electronics, appliance, paper and
printing, packaging, food and beverage, and construction; Safety
and Graphics, which serves a range of markets for the safety,
security and productivity of people, facilities and systems;
Electronics and Energy, which serves customers in electronics and
energy markets, including solutions for electronic devices,
telecommunications networks, electrical products, power generation
and distribution, and infrastructure protection; Health Care,
which serves markets that include medical clinics and hospitals,
pharmaceuticals, dental and orthodontic practitioners, and health
information systems, among others, and Consumer, which serves
markets that include consumer retail, office retail, home
improvement, building maintenance and other markets.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Accrued $24-Mil. Aearo Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, had accruals of $24
million for product liabilities and defense costs related to
current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.
On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies
("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including
personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall
and certain respiratory protection products.
As of December 31, 2014, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business
(American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and
Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple
co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and
respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in
products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.
As of December 31, 2014, the Company, through its Aearo
subsidiary, had accruals of $24 million for product liabilities
and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims. Responsibility for legal
costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently
shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American
Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their
insurers (the "Payor Group"). Liability is allocated among the
parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory
products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety
Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of
exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the
contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered
into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement
provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of
$100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and
indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving
exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators
sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in
determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream
of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the
agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators
involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to
January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo's
potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen
from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos,
silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. To date,
Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could
potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the
pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if
Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement,
or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these
matters.
In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a
lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of
Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement,
including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers'
pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract.
In June 2014, the court granted Aearo's motion for summary
judgment on all claims. Cabot has filed a motion for
reconsideration, and Aearo has filed a motion for clarification of
the court's order granting Aearo summary judgment. In October
2014, the court denied Aearo's motion for clarification. The court
also denied, in part, Cabot's motion for reconsideration and
reaffirmed its ruling that Cabot retained liability for claims
involving exposure to silica in coal mine dust. The court granted
Cabot's motion, in part, ruling that Aearo was not entitled to
summary judgment on Cabot's claim for equitable allocation, and on
whether the 258 underlying claims were Cabot's responsibility.
These two issues remain in the case for further proceedings.
Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's
liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to:
(i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii)
significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,
(iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received,
(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the
law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant
changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants,
(viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group
including exhaustion of available coverage limits, and/or (ix) a
determination that the interpretation of the contractual
obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is
inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these
potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's share of
liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the
developments were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities
for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than
the amount accrued.
Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of
claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of
allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group,
and the several possible developments that may occur that could
affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot
estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability
may exceed the accrual the Company has established.
3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company's
business segments: Industrial, which serves a range of markets,
such as automotive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and
automotive aftermarket, electronics, appliance, paper and
printing, packaging, food and beverage, and construction; Safety
and Graphics, which serves a range of markets for the safety,
security and productivity of people, facilities and systems;
Electronics and Energy, which serves customers in electronics and
energy markets, including solutions for electronic devices,
telecommunications networks, electrical products, power generation
and distribution, and infrastructure protection; Health Care,
which serves markets that include medical clinics and hospitals,
pharmaceuticals, dental and orthodontic practitioners, and health
information systems, among others, and Consumer, which serves
markets that include consumer retail, office retail, home
improvement, building maintenance and other markets.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Has 13,300 Product Liability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. had 13,300 pending asbestos-related product
liability claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.
Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is
obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We believe
that the Company's involvement is limited because, in general,
these claims relate to a few types of automotive products that
were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated
asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the
manner of use lead the Company to believe that these products are
highly unlikely to cause harm. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013,
the Company had approximately 13,300 and 17,000 pending asbestos-
related product liability claims, respectively. The decrease in
the pending claims is a result of legislation passed in 2013 in
Texas where claims against the Company have been dismissed.
The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects
that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product
liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to
indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the
Company or its insurers. In 2014, of the approximately 6,500
claims resolved, 397 (6%) resulted in payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2013,
of the approximately 1,500 claims resolved, 297 (20%) resulted in
any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the
Company.
Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance
carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to
the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the
Company has excess insurance coverage available for potential
future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004, primary
layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged
exhaustion of their policy limits.
A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty
Company and related companies against the Company and certain of
its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a
number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company
has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance
carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay
specified amounts to the Company. This includes a settlement in
cash and short- and long-term notes with a carrier in the fourth
quarter of 2014. The Company is vigorously pursuing the litigation
against the remaining insurers.
In August 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a jury
verdict against the Company in an asbestos-related personal injury
action with damages of $35.0 million, $32.5 million of which was
non-compensatory and will not be recoverable through insurance if
the verdict is upheld. The Company has appealed the verdict. The
Company posted a surety bond of $55.0 million related to the
appeal. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this pending
litigation and therefore cannot reasonably estimate the amount of
possible loss, if any, that could result from this action.
The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject
to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous
variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Key variables
include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms
that may be made by state and federal courts and the passage of
state or federal tort reform legislation. The nature of the
historical product being encapsulated and the lifecycle of the
product allow the Company to aggressively defend against these
lawsuits and, at present, management does not believe that
asbestos-related product liability claims are likely to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
financial position or cash flows.
As December 31, 2014, the Company has paid and accrued $337.8
million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers'
reimbursement and has received $195.9 million in cash and notes
from insurers. The net balance of $141.9 million, is expected to
be fully recovered. Timing of recovery is dependent on final
resolution of the declaratory judgment action or additional
negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2013, insurers owed $153.6
million in association with these claims.
In addition to the $141.9 million net balance relating to past
settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a
liability of $111.8 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs at December 31, 2014. The
Company also has a related asset of $111.8 million to recognize
proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected to be
fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected prior
to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action, which is
expected to occur subsequent to December 31, 2015. At December 31,
2013, the comparable value of the accrued liability and associated
insurance asset was $96.7 million.
The 2014 increase in the accrued liability and associated
insurance asset is primarily due to an expected higher rate of
claim settlement based on recent claim activity.
The Company does not believe that it can, at present, reasonably
estimate possible losses in excess of those for which it has
accrued. The Company's belief is based on a number of factors,
including without limitation, because the Company cannot
reasonably predict how many additional claims may be brought
against the Company (or parties the Company has an obligation to
indemnify) in the future, the particular illnesses or medical
conditions that may be alleged in such claims, the allegations in
such claims and the evidence submitted by claimants in support
thereof, the possible outcomes in settling or litigating such
claims, the time in which claims will proceed through courts in
which they are asserted, or the impact of tort reform legislation
that may be enacted at the state or federal levels. The Company
reviews factors relevant to the asbestos claims that have been or
may in the future be asserted against it on an ongoing basis.
BorgWarner Inc. is a supplier of engineered automotive systems and
components for powertrain applications. The Company's products are
manufactured and sold across the world, to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (passenger cars, sport-
utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-trucks). The Company's
products are also sold to other OEMs of commercial vehicles
(medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and buses) and off-highway
vehicles (agricultural and construction machinery and marine
applications). It also manufactures and sells its products to
certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and into the
aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway vehicles. The
Company operates in two business segments, which include Engine
and Drivetrain.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $2.3-Bil. Fibro Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s total asbestos reserves was $2,357
million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.
The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond
the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has
received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos
claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others
seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim
filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking
asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to
contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy
proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses
by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by
significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by
insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those
who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.
The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-
occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims
against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a
moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it
remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.
Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.
In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) had previously entered
into settlement agreements in connection with a number of these
direct action claims (Direct Action Settlements). The Company had
been involved in litigation concerning whether all of the
conditions of the Direct Action Settlements had been satisfied. On
July 22, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit ruled that all of the conditions of the Direct Action
Settlements had been satisfied. On January 15, 2015, the
bankruptcy court entered an order directing the Company to pay
$579 million to the plaintiffs, and the Company has made that
payment. It is possible that the filing of other direct actions
against insurers, including the Company, could be made in the
future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these
proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs will be able to
sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal
theories of liability. The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to these claims and has received favorable rulings in
certain jurisdictions.
Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.
In the third quarter of 2014, the Company completed its annual in-
depth asbestos claim review, including a review of active
policyholders and litigation cases for potential product and "non-
product" liability, and noted the continuation of the following
trends:
* continued high level of litigation activity in certain
jurisdictions involving individuals alleging serious asbestos-
related illness, primarily involving mesothelioma claims;
* while overall payment patterns have been generally stable, there
has been an increase in severity for certain policyholders due to
the continued high level of litigation activity; and
* continued moderate level of asbestos-related bankruptcy
activity.
While the Company believes that over the past several years there
has been a reduction in the volatility associated with the
Company's overall asbestos exposure, there nonetheless remains a
high degree of uncertainty with respect to future exposure from
asbestos claims.
The Home Office and Field Office categories, which account for the
vast majority of policyholders with active asbestos-related
claims, experienced a slight increase in net asbestos-related
payments in 2014 when compared with 2013. The number of
policyholders with pending asbestos claims in these categories as
of December 31, 2014 was essentially unchanged when compared with
December 31, 2013. Payments on behalf of policyholders in these
categories continue to be influenced by the high level of
litigation activity in a limited number of jurisdictions where
individuals alleging serious asbestos-related injury continue to
target defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of
asbestos litigation.
The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.
The completion of these reviews and analyses in 2014, 2013 and
2012 resulted in $250 million, $190 million and $175 million
increases, respectively, in the Company's net asbestos reserves.
In each year, the reserve increases were primarily driven by
increases in the Company's estimate of projected settlement and
defense costs related to a broad number of policyholders in the
Home Office category due to a higher level of litigation activity
surrounding mesothelioma claims than previously anticipated. In
addition, the reserve increases in 2013 and 2012 also reflected
higher projected payments on assumed reinsurance accounts. The
increase in the estimate of projected settlement and defense costs
resulted from payment trends that continue to be higher than
previously anticipated due to the impact of the current litigation
environment. Notwithstanding these trends, the Company's overall
view of the underlying asbestos environment is essentially
unchanged from recent periods and there remains a high degree of
uncertainty with respect to future exposure to asbestos claims.
Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in 2014, 2013 and 2012
were $242 million, $218 million and $236 million, respectively.
Approximately 8%, 1% and 6% of total net paid losses in 2014, 2013
and 2012, respectively, related to policyholders with whom the
Company had entered into settlement agreements limiting the
Company's liability.
At and for the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company's total
asbestos reserves was $2,357 million.
The "policyholders with settlement agreements" category includes
structured settlements, coverage in place arrangements and, with
respect to TPC, Wellington accounts. Reserves are based on the
expected payout for each policyholder under the applicable
agreement. Structured settlements are arrangements under which
policyholders and/or plaintiffs agree to fixed financial amounts
to be paid at scheduled times. Coverage in place arrangements
represent agreements with policyholders on specified amounts of
coverage to be provided. Payment obligations may be subject to
annual maximums and are only made when valid claims are presented.
Wellington accounts refer to the 35 defendants that are parties to
a 1985 agreement settling certain disputes concerning insurance
coverage for their asbestos claims. Many of the aspects of the
Wellington agreement are similar to those of coverage in place
arrangements in which the parties have agreed on specific amounts
of coverage and the terms under which the coverage can be
accessed. On July 22, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit ruled that all the conditions of the Direct
Action Settlements had been satisfied. As a result, during the
third quarter of 2014, $502 million of reserves included in the
unallocated IBNR component in the "home office and field office"
category were reclassified to the "Policyholders with settlement
agreements" category. For a full discussion of these settlement
agreements, including the payment of this settlement and related
interest in January 2015, see the "Settlement of Asbestos Direct
Action Litigation" section of note 16 of notes to the consolidated
financial statements.
The "home office and field office" category relates to all other
policyholders and also includes IBNR reserves and reserves for the
costs of defending asbestos-related coverage litigation. IBNR
reserves in the "home office and field office" category include
amounts for new claims from and adverse development on existing
"home office and field office" policyholders, as well as reserves
for claims from policyholders reporting asbestos claims for the
first time and for policyholders for which there is, or may be,
litigation. Policyholders are identified for the annual home
office review based upon, among other factors: a combination of
past payments and current case reserves in excess of a specified
threshold (currently $100,000), perceived level of exposure,
number of reported claims, products/completed operations and
potential "non-product" exposures, size of policyholder and
geographic distribution of products or services sold by the
policyholder. The "assumed reinsurance and other" category
primarily consists of reinsurance of excess coverage, including
various pool participations.
On January 29, 2009, the Company and PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG"),
along with approximately 30 other insurers of PPG, agreed in
principle to an agreement to settle asbestos-related coverage
litigation under insurance policies issued to PPG. The tentative
settlement agreement has been incorporated into the Modified Third
Amended Plan of Reorganization ("Amended Plan") proposed as part
of the Pittsburgh Corning Corp. ("PCC," which is 50% owned by PPG)
bankruptcy proceeding. Pursuant to the proposed Amended Plan,
which was filed on January 30, 2009, PCC, along with enumerated
other companies (including PPG as well as the Company as a
participating insurer), are to receive protections afforded by
Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code from certain asbestos-
related bodily injury claims. Under the agreement in principle,
the Company has the option to make a series of payments over the
next 20 years totaling approximately $620 million to the Trust to
be created under the Amended Plan, or it may elect to make a one-
time discounted payment, which, as of March 31, 2015, would total
approximately $505 million (approximately $476 million after
reinsurance). The agreement in principle with PPG is subject to
numerous contingencies, including final court approval of the
Amended Plan, and the Company has no obligation to make the
settlement payment until all contingencies are satisfied. The
Company's obligations under this agreement in principle are
included in the "home office and field office" category in the
preceding table.
The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range
of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, Government units,
associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three
business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and
International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business
Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty
insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily
in the United States. The Financial, Professional and
International Insurance segment includes surety and financial
liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based
underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products
that are marketed on a domestic basis. In November 2013, the
Company completed the sale of its wholly owned subsidiary The
Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company to The Travelers
Companies, Inc.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briefing Schedule Issued in Calif. Inmate's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Jay Hutchison, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin
State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Section 1983, seeking damages for the alleged violation
of his constitutional rights by the California Prison Industry
Authority, operating under the auspices of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and individuals who
are employees of CALPIA or of SQSP.
On April 4, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California ordered service of the following
cognizable claims: (1) an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs against Andrew Deems, Chief
Executive Officer of Health Care Services at SQSP, for creating a
policy, custom or practice of failing to test inmates who may have
been exposed to asbestos; (2) an Eighth Amendment claim for
deliberate indifference to hazardous conditions against CALPIA and
employees of CALPIA and SQSP; and (3) a state law claim against
CALPIA for violation of California Government Code section 835.
On January 14, 2015, the Court issued an order granting, in part,
the Defendants' motion to dismiss, in which it dismissed all
claims with the exception of an Eighth Amendment claim against CEO
Deems for creating a policy, custom or practice of failing to test
inmates who may have been exposed to asbestos and lead. The Court
granted the Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint
asserting an Eighth Amendment claim against specific defendants,
in their individual capacities, based on allegations of conduct
undertaken by them that prevented or delayed the Plaintiff from
receiving medical treatment for symptoms caused by exposure to
asbestos. The Plaintiff timely filed a 2AC.
In an order dated March 9, 2015, U.S. District Judge Claudia
Wilken ruled that the Plaintiff has stated a cognizable Eighth
Amendment claim against Deems for creating a policy, procedure or
practice that prevented the testing and treatment of inmates for
symptoms from exposure to asbestos and lead. The Plaintiff has
also stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Glass,
Loredo, Earley, Smith, Deems and Rogers for concealing from the
Plaintiff and from Dr. Cranshaw the fact that the Plaintiff had
been exposed to asbestos or lead, thereby preventing him from
receiving a diagnosis and treatment for industrial lung disease,
thus, aggravating the injury and inducing him to continue to work
under hazardous conditions, Judge Wilken ruled.
Judge Wilken directed Defendants Glass, Loredo, Earley, Smith,
Deems and Rogers to file a motion for summary judgment addressing
the Plaintiff's two remaining cognizable claims.
The case is EDWIN JAY HUTCHISON, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA PRISON
INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-04635-CW
(N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of Judge Wilken's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/tTimsBfrom Leagle.com.
Edwin Jay Hutchison, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
California Prison Industry Authority, Defendant, represented by
Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino,
California State Attorney General's Office.
Ron Glass, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.
Gary Loredo, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.
Philip Earley, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.
Luu Rogers, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.
John Walker, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.
Elizabeth Babcock, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell
Noble, Department of Justice, Loran Michael Simon, California
State Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.
Brad Smith, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.
Charles Pattillo, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell
Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.
Kevin Chappell, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice, Loran Michael Simon, California State
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.
Andrew W. Deems, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice, Loran Michael Simon, California State
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Sterling" Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Norman J. Sterling and Laura M. Sterling, H/W, appeal from the
order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas,
which entered summary judgment in favor of P&H Mining Equipment,
Inc.
On October 24, 2012, the Appellants commenced a lawsuit suit
against 58 defendants, alleging that Mr. Sterling developed lung
cancer and asbestos-related lung diseases from his exposure to
various asbestos-containing products while employed by Bethlehem
Steel Corporation from roughly 1952 to 1979. With respect to P&H,
the Appellants claimed that Mr. Sterling was exposed to asbestos-
containing component parts of P&H cranes used in Bethlehem Steel's
"beam yard." At his Oct. 22-23, 2014 deposition, Mr. Sterling
described his work loading, unloading, and operating cranes,
including some P&H cranes, in the beam yard from approximately
1969 to 1978.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an opinion dated March 16,
2015, affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that P&H's
admission that it had sold some equipment and replacement
component parts containing small amounts of asbestos were
insufficient to establish that Mr. Sterling used or worked on that
equipment at Bethlehem Steel. The Superior Court pointed out that
Mr. Sterling also admitted he worked mostly on cranes supplied by
other companies and the testimony of other former Bethlehem Steel
employees provided no information regarding the frequency,
regularity, or proximity of Mr. Sterling's own alleged exposure to
asbestos in P&H products. The Appellants thus failed to adduce
evidence sufficient to support an inference that Mr. Sterling
inhaled asbestos from component parts of P&H cranes; therefor, the
lower court properly entered summary judgment in favor of P&H, the
Superior Court held.
The case is NORMAN J. STERLING AND LAURA M. STERLING, H/W,
Appellants, v. P&H MINING EQUIPMENT, INC. A/K/A JOY GLOBAL SURFACE
MINING, INC., Appellee, NO. 1006 EDA 2014 (Pa. Sup.). A full-text
copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/796yPJfrom
Leagle.com.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Trumps Down Insurer's Bid to Enforce
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Indemnity Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company
of Connecticut (f/k/a The Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode
Island), and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (f/k/a the
Aetna and Surety Company) initiated an action against Thomas &
Betts Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and
Affiliated FM Insurance seeking a declaration as to their defense
and indemnitee obligations with respect to T&B arising out of
underlying asbestos claims.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and Release between Liberty
Mutual and Amerace Corporation entered into on February 8, 1999,
14 years before the action was filed, Liberty Mutual's policy
limits were exhausted. In light of the Settlement Agreement, the
Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims against Liberty Mutual,
without prejudice, and T&B agreed for the purposes of this
litigation only "to assume all of the obligations of Liberty
Mutual Insurance under the Liberty Mutual Insurance Policy,
including but not limited to any amount allocable to Liberty
Mutual Insurance." In addition, the Stipulation and Order, signed
by all parties and the Undersigned, stated that Liberty Mutual
would "remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court with
respect to any discovery disputes or other matters relating to or
arising from this Stipulation and Order."
Liberty Mutual's filed a motion to enforce T&B's indemnity and
defense obligations, which Judge Michael A. Shipp of the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied in a
memorandum dated March 9, 2015, holding that, here, Liberty Mutual
is not trying to enforce the terms of the Stipulation and Order
between the parties. Instead, Liberty Mutual seeks to extend the
jurisdiction the Court retained in the 2014 Stipulation and Order
to the earlier separate Settlement Agreement between Liberty
Mutual and T&B in 1999. This, according to Judge Shipp, is a
wholly, unrelated contract dispute between Liberty Mutual and T&B,
and the Stipulation and Order did not incorporate the terms of the
Settlement Agreement Liberty Mutual is seeking to enforce. In
addition, Liberty Mutual's reliance on the entire controversy
doctrine does not confer jurisdiction on this Court, Judge Shipp
said.
The case is THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. THOMAS & BETTS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-6187 (MAS)(LHG)(D.N.J.). A full-text copy of Judge Shipp's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/YSolNnfrom Leagle.com.
HON. JOEL B. ROSEN, Special Master, represented by JOEL B ROSEN,
Esq. -- jrosen@mmwr.com -- MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS,
LLP.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN
MALONEY, Esq. -- jmaloney@grahamcurtin.com -- GRAHAM CURTIN, PA &
STEPHEN V. GIMIGLIANO, Esq. -- sgimigliano@grahamcurtin.com --
GRAHAM CURTIN, PA.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, Plaintiff,
represented by JOHN MALONEY, GRAHAM CURTIN, PA & STEPHEN V.
GIMIGLIANO, GRAHAM CURTIN, PA.
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by
JOHN MALONEY, GRAHAM CURTIN, PA & STEPHEN V. GIMIGLIANO, GRAHAM
CURTIN, PA.
THOMAS & BETTS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EUGENE
KILLIAN, JR., Esq. -- ekillian@tkfpc.com -- THE KILLIAN FIRM,
P.C..
THOMAS & BETTS CORPORATION, Cross Claimant, represented by EUGENE
KILLIAN, JR., THE KILLIAN FIRM, P.C.
THOMAS & BETTS CORPORATION, Counter Claimant, represented by
EUGENE KILLIAN, JR., THE KILLIAN FIRM, P.C.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Counter Defendant, represented by
JOHN MALONEY, GRAHAM CURTIN, PA & STEPHEN V. GIMIGLIANO, GRAHAM
CURTIN, PA.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, Counter Defendant,
represented by JOHN MALONEY, GRAHAM CURTIN, PA & STEPHEN V.
GIMIGLIANO, GRAHAM CURTIN, PA.
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Counter Defendant,
represented by JOHN MALONEY, GRAHAM CURTIN, PA & STEPHEN V.
GIMIGLIANO, GRAHAM CURTIN, PA.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: JCI Wins Summary Judgment in "McAlvey" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois issued a memorandum and order dated
March 9, 2015, granting Defendant Johnson Controls, Inc.'s motion
for summary judgment, after determining that Johnson has presented
evidence that it is not a successor in interest to York
International, Inc., as alleged in the complaint, and there is no
evidence that Johnson is liable for any products manufactured or
sold by York International or that plaintiff Gerald D. McAlvey was
exposed to any asbestos-containing products manufactured or
distributed by Johnson.
The case is GERALD D. McALVEY, Plaintiffs, v. ATLAS COPCO
COMPRESSORS, L.L.C., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-00064-SMY-
SCW (S.D. Ill.). A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/dgNBGLfrom Leagle.com.
Gerald D McAlvey, Plaintiff, represented by Ben A. Vinson, Jr.,
Vinson Law & Zane T. Cagle, Cagle Law Firm, LLC.
Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian D. Zeringer,
Sedgwick LLP, Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D.
Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al..
Carrier Corp, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski
Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.
CBS Corporaton, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley
& Mansfield, PLLP, Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &
Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.
Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel
W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw &
Culbertson, James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D.
Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.
General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Raymond R.
Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP.
Georgia-Pacific L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J.
Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart
PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.
Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Leader & Berkon LLP & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers,
McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP, IL.
John Crane Inc, Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..
Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith,
Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann
Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Charles
L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley,
Nussbaumer, et al..
Owens- Illinois, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor
Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin LLP &
Matthew J. Fischer, Schiff, Hardin et al..
Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T.
Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.
Warren Pumps, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP.
ITT Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers,
McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP, IL.
Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al..
CBS Corporaton, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.
Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC.
Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..
Georgia-Pacific L.L.C., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.
Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee,
Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.
Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..
Warren Pumps, L.L.C., Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon
LLP.
Georgia-Pacific L.L.C., Cross Claimant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al..
CBS Corporaton, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.
Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC.
Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..
Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee,
Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.
ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E.
Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP,
IL.
Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..
Warren Pumps, L.L.C., Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon
LLP.
Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al..
CBS Corporaton, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.
Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC.
Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..
Georgia-Pacific L.L.C., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee,
Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.
ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E.
Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP,
IL.
Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..
Warren Pumps, L.L.C., Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon
LLP.
Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al..
CBS Corporaton, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.
Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC.
Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..
Georgia-Pacific L.L.C., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee,
Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.
ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E.
Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP,
IL.
Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..
Warren Pumps, L.L.C., Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon
LLP.
Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al..
CBS Corporaton, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.
Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson.
Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..
Georgia-Pacific L.L.C., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee,
Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.
ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E.
Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP,
IL.
Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
Johnson Controls, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gary L.
Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..
Warren Pumps, L.L.C., Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon
LLP.
Warren Pumps, L.L.C., Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon
LLP.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Refuses to Transfer Garlock Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Graham C. Mullen of the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued
separate orders dated March 9, 2015, denying motions to transfer
to the venue of the adversary proceedings filed by Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC, et al., against a number of law firms and
lawyers who allegedly engaged in fraud settling their clients'
mesothelioma claims with Garlock.
According to Judge Mullen, the circumstances in the adversary
proceedings and Garlock's bankruptcy case do not justify transfer,
especially given the substantial efficiencies to be gained by
centralizing the cases in the district. As the concerns the
Defendants raise would be most pertinent to the trial phase, the
Court may consider revisiting the issue at the conclusion of all
pre-trial proceedings, Judge Mullen said.
One of the defendants, Belluck & Fox, LLP, et al., sought to
transfer venue of the adversary proceeding against it to the
Southern District of New York. The adversary case is GARLOCK
SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; GARRISON LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GROUP,
LTD., Plaintiffs, v. BELLUCK & FOX, LLP; JOSEPH W. BELLUCK; JORDAN
FOX, Defendants, NO. 3:14-CV-118 (W.D.N.C.). A full-text copy of
Judge Mullen's Decision with respect to Belluck & Fox is available
at http://is.gd/uaAtftfrom Leagle.com.
One of the defendants, Shein Law Center, et al., sought to
transfer venue of the adversary proceeding against it to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The adversary case is GARLOCK
SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; GARRISON LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GROUP,
LTD., Plaintiffs, v. BENJAMIN SHEIN; BETHANN KAGAN; SHEIN LAW
CENTER, LTD., Defendants, NO. 3:14-CV-137 (W.D.N.C.). A full-text
copy of Judge Mullen's Decision with respect to Shein Law Center
is available at http://is.gd/Iq9791from Leagle.com.
One of the defendants, Simon Greenstone, et al., sought to
transfer venue of the adversary proceeding against it to the
Northern District of Texas, or alternatively, to the Central
District of California. The adversary case is GARLOCK SEALING
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; GARRISON LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GROUP, LTD.,
Plaintiffs, v. SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION; JEFFERY B. SIMON; DAVID C. GREENSTONE; ESTATE OF
RONALD C. EDDINS; JENNIFER L. BARTLETT, Defendants, NO. 3:14-CV-
116 (W.D.N.C.). A full-text copy of Judge Mullen's Decision with
respect to Simon Greenstone is available at http://is.gd/z8wLOI
from Leagle.com.
One of the defendants, Water Kraus, sought to transfer venue of
the adversary proceeding against it to the Northern District of
Texas. The adversary case is GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC;
GARRISON LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GROUP, LTD., Plaintiffs, v. WATERS
& KRAUS, LLP; ESTATE OF RONALD C. EDDINS; MICHAEL L. ARMITAGE;
JEFFERY B. SIMON; C. ANDREW WATERS; PETER A. KRAUS; STANLEY-IOLA,
LLP; MARK H. IOLA, Defendants, NO. 3:14-CV-130 (W.D.N.C.). A
full-text copy of Judge Mullen's Decision with respect to Water
Kraus is available at http://is.gd/sNuf3Dfrom Leagle.com.
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Plaintiff, represented by D.
Blaine Sanders, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Douglas M.
Jarrell, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., Edward Francis
Hennessey, IV, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Garland Stuart
Cassada, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Jonathan C. Krisko,
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Louis Adams Bledsoe, III,
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Richard Charles Worf, Jr.,
Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., Robert Evans Harrington,
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. & Ty Edwin Shaffer, Robinson,
Bradshaw & Hinson.
Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd, Plaintiff, represented
by D. Blaine Sanders, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Douglas
M. Jarrell, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., Edward Francis
Hennessey, IV, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Garland Stuart
Cassada, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Jonathan C. Krisko,
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Louis Adams Bledsoe, III,
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Richard Charles Worf, Jr.,
Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., Robert Evans Harrington,
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. & Ty Edwin Shaffer, Robinson,
Bradshaw & Hinson.
Belluck & Fox, LLP, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Voce-
Gardner, Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq. --
creynolds@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, James Sottile,
Esq., Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP & Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins &
Owens, PLLC.
Jordan Fox, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Voce-Gardner,
Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Caroline E. Reynolds, Zuckerman Spaeder
LLP, James Sottile, Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP & Sara Wyche Higgins,
Higgins & Owens, PLLC.
Joseph W. Belluck, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Voce-
Gardner, Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Caroline E. Reynolds, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, James Sottile, Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP & Sara Wyche
Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC.
Benjamin P. Shein, Defendant, represented by Daniel T. Brier, Esq.
-- dbrier@mbklaw.com -- Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP, Donna A. Walsh,
Esq. -- dwalsh@mbklaw.com -- Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP, John B.
Dempsey, Esq. -- jdempsey@mbklaw.com -- Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP
& Sara Wyche Higgins, Esq., Higgins & Owens, PLLC.
Bethann Schaffzin Kagan, Defendant, represented by Daniel T.
Brier, Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP, Donna A. Walsh, Myers, Brier &
Kelly, LLP, John B. Dempsey, Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP & Sara
Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC.
Shein Law Center, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Daniel T. Brier,
Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP, Donna A. Walsh, Myers, Brier & Kelly,
LLP, John B. Dempsey, Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP & Sara Wyche
Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC.
Jeffery B Simon, Defendant, represented by Avery B. Pardee, Esq. -
- apardee@joneswalker.com -- Jones, Walker LLP, Mark A.
Cunningham, Esq. -- mcunningham@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker,
LLP, Michael W. Magner, Esq. -- mmagner@joneswalker.com -- Jones
Walker LLP & Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC.
David C Greenstone, Defendant, represented by Avery B. Pardee,
Jones, Walker LLP, Mark A. Cunningham, Jones Walker, LLP, Michael
W. Magner, Jones Walker LLP & Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens,
PLLC.
Estate of Ronald C Eddins, Defendant, represented by Avery B.
Pardee, Jones, Walker LLP, Mark A. Cunningham, Jones Walker, LLP,
Michael W. Magner, Jones Walker LLP & Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins
& Owens, PLLC.
Jennifer L Bartlett, Defendant, represented by Avery B. Pardee,
Jones, Walker LLP, Mark A. Cunningham, Jones Walker, LLP, Michael
W. Magner, Jones Walker LLP & Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens,
PLLC.
Waters & Kraus, LLP, Defendant, represented by Ashley McMillian,
Esq. -- amcmillian@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey, LLP, Sara
Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC, Stephen D. Susman, Esq. --
ssusman@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet
Bhatia, Esq. -- vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey, LLP.
Estate of Ronald C. Eddins, Defendant, represented by Ashley
McMillian, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins &
Owens, PLLC, Stephen D. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet
Bhatia, Susman Godfrey, LLP.
Michael L Armitage, Defendant, represented by Ashley McMillian,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC,
Stephen D. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet Bhatia, Susman
Godfrey, LLP.
Jeffrey B Simon, Defendant, represented by Ashley McMillian,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC,
Stephen D. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet Bhatia, Susman
Godfrey, LLP.
C Andrew Waters, Defendant, represented by Ashley McMillian,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC,
Stephen D. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet Bhatia, Susman
Godfrey, LLP.
Peter A Kraus, Defendant, represented by Ashley McMillian, Susman
Godfrey, LLP, Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC, Stephen
D. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet Bhatia, Susman Godfrey,
LLP.
Stanley Iola, LLP, Defendant, represented by Ashley McMillian,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC,
Stephen D. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet Bhatia, Susman
Godfrey, LLP.
Mark Iola, Defendant, represented by Ashley McMillian, Susman
Godfrey, LLP, Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC, Stephen
D. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet Bhatia, Susman Godfrey,
LLP.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conference in "Brown" Suit Set for May 27
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will hold a further settlement conference in the
asbestos-related lawsuit captioned OLIVER BROWN, Plaintiff, v.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 09-CV-04681-CRB
(JSC)(N.D. Calif.)., with counsel only on May 27, 2015, at 11:00
a.m.
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley directed the Plaintiffs
to provide the Court with an update on the status of settlement
negotiations by email or telephone on or before noon on May 26,
2015. The Defendants may, but are not required to, submit an
updated settlement conference statement or letter by the same date
and time.
A full-text copy of Magistrate Corley's Order dated March 10,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/hFg6h3from Leagle.com.
Oliver Brown, III, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP, Richard Martin Grant, Brayton Purcell LLP &
Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
Deborah Ann Smith, Gordon & Rees LLP, Kathryn Jean LaFevers,
Gordon & Rees LLP & Michael J. Pietrykowski, Gordon & Rees.
General Dynamics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Paul M.
Bessette, Brydon Hugo Parker, Edward R. Hugo, Hugo & Parker LLP,
Gregory Scott Rosse, Hugo Parker, LLP, Lisa Marie Rickenbacher,
Hugo Parker LLP & Stephanie Louise Smith, Hugo Parker, LLP.
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Daniel
James Kelly, Esq. -- daniel.kelly@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis
LLP & Peggy S. Doyle, Esq. -- peggy.doyle@tuckerellis.com --
Tucker Ellis LLP.
General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Charles T.
Sheldon, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall, OOP, Derek S.
Johnson, WFBM, LLP dba Walsworth, Dylan Daniel Rudolph, WFBM, LLP
dba Walsworth & Katherine Paige Gardiner, WFBM, LLP dba Walsworth.
Electric Boat Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gregory Scott
Rosse, Hugo Parker, LLP.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Sroka" Suit Remanded to Maryland State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
John E. Sroka, now deceased, and his wife, Constance B. Sroka,
sued Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Lofton Corp., and Wayne Manufacturing
Corp., and others, in an asbestos product liability action in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The Defendants removed the suit
to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
Northern Division. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand.
U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles, Jr., in a memorandum
opinion dated Feb. 24, 2015, granted the motion, holding that the
Defendants have not raised a colorable federal defense to the
Plaintiffs' failure to warn claims.
The case is JOHN E. SROKA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNION CARBIDE
CORP., et al., Defendants, CIVIL NO. WDQ-13-3281 (D. Md.). A
full-text copy of Judge Quarles' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/YAQk10from Leagle.com.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 * * *