/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150406.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 6, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 68 Headlines ALL CREATURES: Faces "Jelus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ALLIANCE SECURITY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ALGONQUIN: Judge Hears Arguments in Water Supply Class Action AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaiting Final Approval of Marcus Case Accord AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Denied Approval of Kaufman Case Deal AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiff in "Ross" Case Takes Appeal AMERICAN EXPRESS: Parties in "Lopez" Case Responds to Questions AMERICAN EXPRESS: Adams Judgment Subject to Claims Admin. Process AMERICAN EXPRESS: Canada Court Restored Award v. Amex Bank AMERICAN EXPRESS: 3 Class Actions in Quebec Withdrawn in Jan. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Authorized Class Action Against Amex Bank AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Krueger Case to Begin Trial on April 13 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Jeffers Case BAJA MINING: June 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set BANCORPSOUTH INC: Arkansas Customer's Class Suit Remanded BANCORPSOUTH INC: No Class Certified in Tennessee Action BARCLAYS: Faces Euribor Probe; Class Actions Stayed BERGEN DISCOUNT: Workers File Minimum Wage Class Action BLUE CROSS: Faces Galactic Funk Suit Over Allocation Agreement BP: June 8 Deadline Set for Economic & Property Damages Claims CANADA: Court Tosses Appeal by Residential School Abuse Claimants CANADA: Fire Chief Has Cultural Bias Against Marijuana Growers CARY GOLF: Sued in E.D.N.C. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CELGENE CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Cancer Drugs CITGO: Agrees to Settle Gasoline Retailers' "Hot Fuel" Suit COMMERCE BANCSHARES: To Defend Against "Warren" Class Action CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Class Cert. Hearing Scheduled for May 25 COOPERVISION INC: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Lenses Retail Prices DRILLING FLUIDS: Faces "Kaiduk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DUPONT: Retirees Mull Class Action Over Health Benefits EDEN MEMORIAL: Sued for Throwing Out Human Bones in Pile EL ASSET MANAGEMENT: Faces "Mori" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ESKOM: Businesses Can Sue Over Load Shedding Losses FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Sex Offender Comments FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA Defending Against Overdraft Fees Class Suit FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Suspends Red Light Camera Program FRESHDIRECT: Employees Mull Suit Over Disciplinary Actions GAWKER MEDIA: Interns Can't Notify Class Via Social Media GENERAL MILLS: TCE Suit Obtains Class-Action Status GORDON CHEN'S: Faces "Valle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Fact Discovery Stayed in Class Action HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Sued in D. Conn. Over Excessive Plan Premiums HEWLETT-PACKARD: July 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set HOME CONSIGNMENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Acura TLX Transmission Problems HONG KONG EXCHANGES: Court Dismisses Aluminium Price-Fixing Suit J.B. HUNT: Awaiting Appointment of Panel of Judges in Appeal JAMES HARDIE: NZ Law Firm Urges Building Owners to Join Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 11,200 Plaintiffs With ASR Direct Claims JOHNSON & JOHNSON: DePuy Reached 2nd Deal With ASR Hip Patients JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Has Accrual to Cover PINNACLE(R) Defense Costs JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Has Accrual to Cover Ethicon Mesh Defense Cost JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Has Accrual to Cover RISPERDAL(R) Defense Cost JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Commonwealth Court Nixed AWP Monetary Awards JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Retains Liability for OCD Unit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 3rd Circuit Dismissed Appeal in "Monk" Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oct. 2015 Class Cert. Hearing in "Field" Case JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Face CIO Litigation JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Dismiss CDS Case Claims Granted in Part JPMORGAN CHASE: Settled US Class Action on WM/Reuters Service JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Merchants Suits Denied JPMORGAN CHASE: Judgment Entered on Plaintiffs' Antitrust Claims JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Suit on Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR Stayed JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over ISDAFIX Rates Filed JPMORGAN CHASE: Madoff Plaintiffs Seek Writ of Certiorari JPMORGAN CHASE: Moved to Transfer Florida Cases to New York JPMORGAN CHASE: 2 Class Actions Pending v. JPMC and Bear Stearns JPMORGAN CHASE: Accord in Suit Over Filing of Affidavits Approved JUST ENERGY: "Flood" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Cases Scheduled for Trial in 2015 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Class Cert. Hearings Set for Late April 2015 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Defendant in Israel Consumer Class Action KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: 9th Cir. Declined Bid to Appeal Cert. Denial KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Decision Pending in British Columbia Case LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Wu" Suit in E.D.N.C. Over Harmful Spyware LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Del Braccio" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Deutsch" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Levy" in Cal. Suit Over Toxic Flooring MASTERCARD INT'L: Attorney E-mails Spark Settlement Questions MEDCO HEALTH: Workers Lose Bid for OT Collective Action MERCK & CO: Judge Approves Vioxx Class Action Settlement MERCHANTS CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hardin" Suit Says MERRILL LYNCH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Mutual Fund Fees NEVADA: Attorney Attempts to Revive Constable Class Action NEW CHINA EXPRESS: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages NEW YORK, NY: Judge Dismisses Officers' Discrimination Case NORIDIAN MUTUAL: Sued Over Illegal Market Allocation Agreement NORTHERN TRUST: Cuts Securities Lending Profits NOVA SCOTIA: Reference Terms for Public Inquiry Nearly Complete NOVARTIS CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Gender Discrimination NZR RETAIL: "Neitzke" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages OCAMPO ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Paredes" Suit Says OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Class Actions After Staples Merger Agreement OFFICE DEPOT: Defending Against "Heitzenrater" Lawsuit OFFICE DEPOT: Defending Against "Rivet" Lawsuit OMNICARE INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Action PACIFIC MARITIME: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Health Claims PLANET FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Tanning Room Cameras PRICELINE: York County Gets $20,000 From Tax Suit Settlement QUALITY ACCEPTANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims QUANEX BUILDING: Manipulates Window Spacers Market, Suit Says RESONANT INC: Faces "Paggos" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports RONALD REAGAN UCLA: "Superbug" Outbreak Suits Likely to Increase SWEDBANK ROBUR: Attempts to Block Closet Tracking Class Action SYNGENTA: Debate Arises Over Seed Traits Commercialization TCP: Minority Shareholders Seek to Oust CEO Ellis Yan TIFFANY'S CABARET: Trial Begins in Strippers' Wage Class Action UNIT CORP: Plaintiffs' Claims Stayed Pending Certification Issues UNITED STATES: Federal Employees to Get Shutdown Lawsuit Notice UNITED STATES: ACLU Searches for Deportees for Class Action UNITED STATES: 7,000+ Immigrant Children Face Deportation VOCE COLUMBUS: "Mahbub" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime WAGNER BROTHERS: Grantham Residents Mull Quarry Class Action WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Burns" Suit Over Product Misbranding * D&O Liability Insurance Vital for Independent Directors * Securities Settlement Values Hit 16-Year Low in 2014 * Supreme Court Limits Suits That Challenge Company Opinions ********* ALL CREATURES: Faces "Jelus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Keri Jelus, for herself and others similarly situated v. All Creatures Animal Hospital, Inc., Linda Meakin, DVM, and Daniel Meakin, DVM, Case No. 1:15-cv-00184 (S.D. Ohio, March 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. All Creatures Animal Hospital, Inc. is an Ohio corporation that is engaged in the business of providing veterinary medicine, pet grooming, pet training, and pet boarding. The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Langendorf, Esq. LANGENDORF LAW FIRM 1081 N. University Blvd., Suite A Middletown, OH 45042 Telephone: (513) 705-4104 Facsimile: (513) 705-4106 E-mail: jamesplang@aol.com ALLIANCE SECURITY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alliance Security Inc. d/b/a Alliance Guard Services, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00421 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. Alliance Security Inc. is engaged in the business of home protection and installing home-protection devices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com ALGONQUIN: Judge Hears Arguments in Water Supply Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Olson, writing for KECI 13 Missoula, reports that in a March 6 hearing, a judge heard arguments in a series of final motions involving Mountain Water and the City of Missoula at the courthouse. It had to happen before the condemnation trial for Missoula's water supply set to begin on March 18. A city attorney tells us that lawyers in London, Ontario, announced an investigation into the accounting and other practices of Algonquin. Algonquin is a company based out of Canada that plans to purchase Park Water which operates Mountain Water. The lawyers in Ontario are evaluating a possible class action suit on behalf of those who purchased shares or other securities of Algonquin. There's not too much information on the investigation yet and the city expects more to unfold. In court on March 6, the judge did not issue any rulings from the hearings. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaiting Final Approval of Marcus Case Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company is awaiting final approval of a settlement of the Marcus case and the putative class actions challenging the Company's "anti-steering" or non-discrimination provisions, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. "In July 2004, we were named as a defendant in a putative class action captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Company, et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of our charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages," the Company said. "In December 2013, we announced a proposed settlement of the Marcus case and the putative class actions challenging our "anti- steering" or non-discrimination provisions. The settlement, which provides for certain injunctive relief for the proposed classes, received preliminary approval in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The final approval hearing was held on September 17, 2014 and we are awaiting decision." AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Denied Approval of Kaufman Case Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court denied final approval of the settlement in the Kaufman case pending further proceedings. The Company said, "We are a defendant in a class action captioned Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was filed on February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs' principal allegation is that our gift cards violate consumer protection statutes because consumers allegedly have difficulty spending small residual amounts on the gift cards prior to the imposition of monthly service fees. The Court preliminarily certified a settlement class consisting of (with some exceptions) "all purchasers, recipients and holders of all gift cards issued by American Express from January 1, 2002 through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement." "We are also a defendant in Goodman v. American Express Travel Related Services, a putative class action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that involves allegations similar to those made in Kaufman. Plaintiffs in Goodman have intervened in the Kaufman proceedings and will be subject to any final settlement in Kaufman that may be approved over their objections. On December 18, 2014, the Court denied final approval pending further proceedings." AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiff in "Ross" Case Takes Appeal ------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the class action complaint, Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services and American Express Centurion Bank have taken an appeal, American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. "In July 2004, a purported class action complaint, Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that we conspired with Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign currency conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in certain of their cardholder agreements," the Company said. "The suit seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The class is defined as "all Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who used cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks." American Express Card Members are not part of the class. The settlement of the claims asserted on behalf of the damage class concerning foreign currency conversion rates was approved in 2012." "On April 10, 2014, following a trial of the claims asserted by the injunction class concerning cardholder arbitration clauses, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims and granted judgment in favor of us. Plaintiffs have appealed." AMERICAN EXPRESS: Parties in "Lopez" Case Responds to Questions --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the case, Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank, are responding to the Court's questions regarding the class notice and claims processes, American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. "In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The amended complaint sought to certify a class of California American Express Card Members whose interest rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009 or otherwise increased. On August 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended nationwide complaint and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a settlement of the claims alleged in that complaint. The settlement provides for certain relief to class members, attorneys' fees and costs of up to $6 million. On September 22, 2014, the motion for preliminary approval was denied without prejudice to renew. The parties are responding to the Court's questions regarding the class notice and claims processes and the request for preliminary approval will be renewed," the Company said. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Adams Judgment Subject to Claims Admin. Process ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in a class action captioned Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada, filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal in 2004, plaintiffs allege that prior to December 2003, Amex Bank of Canada charged a foreign currency conversion commission on transactions to purchase goods and services in currencies other than Canadian dollars and failed to disclose the commissions in monthly billing statements or solicitations directed to prospective Card Members. The action further alleges that conversion commissions made on foreign currency transactions are credit charges under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (the "QCPA") and cannot be charged prior to the 21- day grace period under the QCPA. The class, consisting of all personal and small business Card Members residing in Quebec that purchased goods or services in a foreign currency prior to December 2003, claims reimbursement of all foreign currency conversion commissions, CDN$1,000 in punitive damages per class member, interest and fees and costs. On June 11, 2009, following trial, the Superior Court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against Amex Bank of Canada and awarded damages in the amount of approximately CDN$13.1 million plus interest on the non- disclosure claims, and punitive damages in the amount of CDN$2.5 million. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision in part, with regard to the award of punitive damages. Amex Bank of Canada further appealed and that appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Canada on February 13, 2014. On September 19, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the appeal. The judgment will be subject to a Court ordered claims administration process. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Canada Court Restored Award v. Amex Bank ---------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in a class action captioned Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal, et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal in 2003, against Amex Bank of Canada, Bank of Montreal, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Scotiabank, National Bank of Canada, Laurentian Bank of Canada and Citibank Canada, plaintiffs allege that conversion commissions made on foreign currency transactions are credit charges under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (the "QCPA") and cannot be charged prior to the 21-day grace period under the QCPA. The class includes all persons residing in Quebec holding a credit card issued by one of the defendants to whom fees were charged since April 17, 2000, for transactions made in foreign currency before expiration of the period of 21 days following the statement of account. The class claims reimbursement of all foreign currency conversions, CDN$400 per class member for trouble, inconvenience and punitive damages, interest and fees and costs. On June 11, 2009, following trial, the Superior Court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against Amex Bank of Canada and awarded damages in the amount of approximately CDN$8.3 million plus interest on the QCPA and non-disclosure claims and punitive damages in the amount of CDN$25 per Card Member. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision against Amex Bank of Canada and certain of the other co-defendants. The remaining co-defendants and the plaintiffs appealed and that appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 13, 2014. On September 19, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the co-defendants' appeal but granted plaintiffs' appeal in part, partially restoring the trial court's award against Amex Bank of Canada as well as the punitive damages award against all defendants. The judgment will be subject to a Court ordered claims administration process. AMERICAN EXPRESS: 3 Class Actions in Quebec Withdrawn in Jan. ------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that two purported class actions raising allegations similar to those in Marcotte and Adams have been filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal and the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec City against Amex Bank of Canada. These cases cover foreign currency conversion commissions for the time frame starting as of January 1, 2008. These cases were withdrawn on January 28, 2015. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Authorized Class Action Against Amex Bank ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in a matter captioned Option Consommateurs and Benoit Fortin v. Amex Bank of Canada filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal (originally filed in July 2003), the Court authorized a class action against Amex Bank of Canada. The plaintiff alleges Amex Bank of Canada violated the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (the "QCPA") by imposing finance charges on credit card transactions prior to 21 days following the receipt of the statement containing the charge. The class seeks reimbursement of all such finance charges, punitive damages, interest, fees and costs. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Krueger Case to Begin Trial on April 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- Ameriprise Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case entitled Roger Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. is scheduled to begin trial on April 13, 2015. In October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Company, certain of its present or former employees and directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k) Plan. The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005 to the present. The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary duties under ERISA, by selecting and retaining primarily proprietary mutual funds with allegedly poor performance histories, higher expenses relative to other investment options and improper fees paid to Ameriprise Financial or its subsidiaries. The action also alleges that the Company breached fiduciary duties under ERISA because it paid excessive record- keeping fees, used its affiliate Ameriprise Trust Company as the Plan trustee and record-keeper and improperly reaped profits from the sale of the record-keeping business to Wachovia Bank, N.A. Plaintiffs allege over $20 million in damages. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 7, 2012. On April 11, 2012, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was denied on November 20, 2012. On July 3, 2013, the Company moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. On March 20, 2014, the Court filed its decision, granting in part and denying in part the motion. On October 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify Class Action, and by order dated May 23, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion. The case is scheduled to begin trial on April 13, 2015. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter due to the procedural status of the case, the difficulty of predicting the likelihood of success on the merits of any of plaintiffs' claims, and plaintiffs' failure to allege any specific, evidence-based damages. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Jeffers Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is awaiting the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case entitled Jeffers vs. Ameriprise Financial Services, et al., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. In October 2012, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Jeffers vs. Ameriprise Financial Services, et al. was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois relating to its sales of the Inland Western (now known as Retail Properties of America, Inc. ("RPAI")) REIT. The action also names as defendants RPAI, several of RPAI's executives, and several members of RPAI's board. The action alleges that the Company failed to perform required due diligence and misrepresented various aspects of the REIT including fees charged to clients, risks associated with the product, and valuation of the shares on client account statements. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. The Company was served in December 2012, and, on April 19, 2013, moved to dismiss the complaint. On June 10, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss. On July 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, naming only Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. as a defendant. On August 11, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing is complete. The Company is awaiting the Court's ruling. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter due to the early procedural status of the case, the absence of class certification, the lack of a formal demand on the Company by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' failure to allege any specific, evidence-based damages. BAJA MINING: June 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------- To: Baja Mining Corp. Shareholders NOTICE OF LEAVE TO PROCEED WITH STATUTORY MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM AND NOTICE OF CLASS CERTIFICATION Read this notice carefully as your legal rights may be affected. WHO SHOULD READ THIS NOTICE? This notice is directed to all persons and entities, wherever they reside or be domiciled, who acquired Baja Mining Corp. securities between November 1, 2010 and April 23, 2012 (the "Class Period") and who held some or all of those securities as of April 23, 2012. WHAT IS THIS ACTION ABOUT? The Plaintiff, John Donohue, has commenced an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") against Baja Mining Corp. ("Baja"), John Greenslade, Rowland L. Wallenius, Michael Shaw, Adam Wright and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (collectively the "Defendants"). The Plaintiff alleges that during the class period, the Defendants made misrepresentations and/or failed to make timely disclosure of significant cost overruns and project delays related to Baja's Boleo Project located in Baja California Sur, Mexico. The action was also commenced against Graham Thody, C. Thomas Ogryzlo, Wolf Seidler, Francois Marland, Giles Baynham, Gerald Prosalendis and Kendra Low (the "Dismissed Defendants"). On consent, the claims against the Dismissed Defendants have been dismissed by the Court. LEAVE TO PROCEED On April 22, 2014, the Court granted permission (known as "leave to proceed") to the Plaintiff to assert as against the Defendants, the statutory cause of action for secondary market misrepresentations in certain of Baja's public filings during the Class Period. Obtaining leave is a requirement under the Ontario Securities Act and is a preliminary procedural matter. CLASS CERTIFICATION On April 22, 2014, the Court also certified the action as a class proceeding (the "Class Action"). Certification is also a procedural matter. In granting certification, Harrison Pensa LLP was appointed Class Counsel and Mr. John Donohue was appointed as the Representative Plaintiff of the following class: All persons and entities, wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who acquired Baja securities between November 1, 2010 and April 23, 2012 and who held some or all of those securities as of April 23, 2012. ("Class" or "Class Members") The Class excludes the Defendants, the Dismissed Defendants and any of their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, senior employees, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors or assigns. WHAT DOES THE ORDER MEAN? The leave to proceed and certification Order (the "Order") means that the Court has permitted the action to proceed to trial as a class proceeding and has granted permission to the Plaintiff to pursue the statutory claims under the Ontario Securities Act on behalf of the Class. The Plaintiff is only pursuing the statutory claims described above against the Defendants. He will not be pursuing any other statutory or common law claims, including the claims in conspiracy, negligence and negligent misrepresentation originally asserted in the action. The dismissal of those claims has been approved by the Court. If you wish to pursue any claims under the Ontario Securities Act or any other claims independently against the Defendants or the Dismissed Defendants, you should immediately seek independent legal advice. To bring your own claims you must exclude yourself (a process known as "opting-out") from the Class Action. Please see further details below. TO REMAIN IN THE CLASS - DO NOTHING If you want to participate in the Class Action, you do not need to do anything to continue to be included as a Class Member. As a Class Member, you will be entitled to participate in any settlement and/or judgment and you will be legally bound by the result of the Class Action. You will also be bound by the terms of any judgment or settlement, whether favorable or not, and you may not opt-out of this action in the future. OPTING-OUT If you do not want to be a Class Member, you must exclude yourself by "opting-out" of the Class Action by June 1, 2015. Persons who opt-out will not be bound by the result of the Class Action and will not be entitled to participate in any settlement or judgment that may be obtained in the Class Action. You may be able to bring your own lawsuit at your own expense. To learn how to exclude yourself, please visit www.bajaminingclassaction.ca or contact: Harrison Pensa LLP Attention: Jonathan J. Foreman 450 Talbot Street, London, ON N6A 4K3 Tel: 1-800-263-0489 ext. 759 Fax: 1-519-667-3362 E-mail: bajaminingclassaction@harrisonpensa.com CLASS COUNSEL AND LEGAL FEES The Class is represented by Harrison Pensa LLP. Class Counsel is acting on a contingency basis, meaning that they are not being paid fees or disbursements as the Class Action proceeds. In the event that a recovery is obtained in the Class Action, Class Counsel's fees and expenses will be paid out of any settlement or judgment obtained, after a motion to the Court for approval of such fees and expenses. Class Members will not otherwise be asked to pay Class Counsel's fees, disbursements and related taxes. MORE INFORMATION This Notice was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Statement of Claim, Orders of the Court and other information is available at www.bajaminingclassaction.ca Questions relating to this notice or this action should be directed by email or telephone to Harrison Pensa LLP. BANCORPSOUTH INC: Arkansas Customer's Class Suit Remanded --------------------------------------------------------- BancorpSouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that BancorpSouth Bank was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed on May 18, 2010, by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The suit challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the policies related to posting order of debit card and ATM transactions. The suit also makes a claim under Arkansas' consumer protection statute. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief. The case was transferred to pending multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida wherein an order was entered certifying a class in this case. The consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation court have concluded and the case has been remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida for further proceedings. "There are significant uncertainties involved in any purported class action litigation. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, there can be no assurance that an adverse outcome or settlement would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations for a given fiscal period," the Company said. BANCORPSOUTH INC: No Class Certified in Tennessee Action -------------------------------------------------------- BancorpSouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that no class has been certified in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. On July 31, 2014, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. The complaint has subsequently been amended to add the former President and Chief Operating Officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's procedures, systems and process related to certain of its compliance programs. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an unspecified amount of damages and awards of costs and attorneys' fees and such other equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper. No class has been certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit, management cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. BARCLAYS: Faces Euribor Probe; Class Actions Stayed --------------------------------------------------- Caroline Binham, writing for the Financial Times, reports that UK fraud investigators have called in former traders from Barclays and Deutsche Bank for interview as suspects in their long-running criminal probe into whether a key borrowing benchmark was rigged. The move raises the prospect for the banks that investigations into alleged manipulation of interbank rates will drag on for several more years. The Serious Fraud Office, with special government funding, is scrutinizing whether Euribor -- a Brussels equivalent of Libor, the London interbank offered rate -- was rigged to benefit individuals' trading books. While the agency has charged 13 defendants as part of its parallel inquiries into whether the yen Libor and dollar Libor rates were rigged, little has emerged about the SFO's progress on Euribor since it began its official investigation back in 2012. Former traders of Barclays and Deutsche are being called for interviews under caution by the SFO, according to people familiar with the probe. However traders from other banks are also part of the SFO's inquiries, these people said. Interviews under caution can only take place when investigating authorities have a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. They precede any decisions on charging and involve individuals being read their legal rights. The SFO, Barclays and Deutsche declined to comment. The SFO first announced its investigation in "relation to the alleged manipulation of Libor and related interest rates" in July 2012, following a GBP290m fine paid by Barclays to settle US and UK authorities' investigations, including probes into alleged attempts to manipulate Euribor. It quickly received special government funding from the Treasury to pursue its sprawling Libor investigation, which has yielded one guilty plea so far. After the SFO started investigating Barclays, the first bank to settle in the probe, it pursued the dual strands of Euribor and dollar Libor, according to people familiar with the situation. Euribor, or the Euro interbank offered rate, is calculated from submissions made by a panel of 25 banks -- a panel that has been trimmed from as many as 44 banks following an exodus of banks from the rate-setting process in the wake of the wider Libor scandal. The European Commission has so far charged seven banks over alleged Euribor manipulation. Barclays escaped a EUR690 million fine from the commission in exchange for blowing the whistle on the alleged cartel, while Deutsche paid EUR725 million to settle allegations that it rigged both yen Libor and Euribor. Both banks are also among defendants in class-action lawsuits filed in the US that turn on allegations the lenders rigged Euribor. Those lawsuits have been stayed until May. The two banks also have unfinished business with alleged benchmark rigging. Deutsche has not yet paid its fines to US and UK regulators over Libor, while neither bank was part of a global deal with US, UK and Swiss authorities in November when six other banks agreed to pay $4.3 billion to settle allegations over rigging of the foreign-exchange market. Barclays said it had set aside GBP750 million in the fourth quarter of last year to cover the cost of investigations into suspected forex manipulation, taking total provisions for the issue to GBP1.25 billion. The timing of Barclays' forex settlement is still uncertain because of New York's Department of Financial Services. It is holding up a deal between the bank and the UK Financial Conduct Authority, the US Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that is otherwise near to being signed off. BERGEN DISCOUNT: Workers File Minimum Wage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Keldy Ortiz and Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, report that the discounts at a chain of dollar stores also appeared on the company payroll, a lawsuit charges. Fifteen workers -- most of them undocumented -- at the stores in the Bronx and Queens say they were paid as little as $2.27 an hour for 11-hour days, six days a week, with no overtime. If they got any lunch break at all, it was only 15 minutes, documents filed in Manhattan Federal Court charge. "They treated us like trash," said Carlos Laguna, 45, who worked three years at Bergen Discount on Willis Ave. in the Bronx. "How do you have so many stores and not pay?" By the time he quit his job stocking shelves and unloading deliveries last year, he was earning a mere $5.45 an hour, he said. The current minimum wage in New York is $8.75. The suit alleges that the chain of 10 stores, with names like Dollar Rite Discount Warehouse and Barato Discount Store, has prospered on the backs of underpaid undocumented workers. "Upon protesting their sweatshop wages and conditions, plaintiffs were repeatedly advised . . . that plaintiffs would not receive a job elsewhere without documentation, and that defendants would report the plaintiffs to immigration authorities if they said anything," court papers said, alleging the abuses have been in place since 1986. Laguna and his fellow workers seek $2 million in unpaid wages, overtime and damages for their work at the stores, which sell cheap fabrics, kitchenware, cleaning supplies and other sundries. That sum could grow immensely if Federal Judge Robert Sweet approves the suit as a class action, granting Adam Slater, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, access to the company's payroll since 2008. That could expand the potential number of plaintiffs and damages. "These guys need that pay. They rely on it," Mr. Slater said. Michael Menon, 70, the co-owner of Bergen Discount, which serves as the chain's headquarters, would not talk about the lawsuit. But he couldn't hide his disdain for Laguna, who is a leader of the plaintiffs. "He's a criminal," Mr. Menon said. Mr. Menon's attorney, Michael Chong, said many of the plaintiffs never even worked at the stores and were just "jumping on the bandwagon." Workers not involved in the suit didn't dispute the allegations of brutal shifts with minimal breaks. Jorge Pena, 54, said he works 10-hour shifts for $6 an hour as a security guard. "They think about themselves and treat others like slaves," Mr. Pena said about his bosses. "I took a half-hour break, they got upset. This is off-the-boat money!" BLUE CROSS: Faces Galactic Funk Suit Over Allocation Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------- Galactic Funk Touring, Inc., et al., v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas, Case No. 2:15-cv-02662 (D. Kan., March 16, 2015), arises out of the illegal market allocation agreements that limit or prohibit competition between each of the Individual Blue Plans (including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas) and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA). Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas is a health insurance plan operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in Kansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg Wright, Esq. Charles T. Schimmel, Esq. WRIGHT SCHIMMEL LLC 6900 College Blvd., Suite 285 Overland Park, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 534-8534 Facsimile: (913) 534-8536 E-mail: greg@wrightschimmel.com chuck@wrightschimmel.com - and - David Boies, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Facsimile: (914) 749-8200 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Michael Hausfeld, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com - and - Chris T. Hellums, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C. 2001 Park Place N, 1100 Park Place Tower Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com - and - William A. Isaacson, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com - and - Gregory Davis, Esq. DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC 7031 Halcyon Park Drive Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 832-9080 Facsimile: (334) 409-7001 E-mail: gldavis@knology.net - and - Megan Jones, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 744-1970 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mjones@hausfeldllp.com - and - Kathleen Chavez, Esq. FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC 10 West State Street, Suite 200 Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone: (630) 797-3339 Facsimile: (630) 232-7452 E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com 0 - and - Cyril V. Smith, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202-1031 Telephone: (410) 949-1145 Facsimile: (410) 659-0436 E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com BP: June 8 Deadline Set for Economic & Property Damages Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- June 8, 2015 has been established as the deadline to submit a claim in the Economic and Property Damages ("E&PD") Settlement with BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company ("BP") related to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. All eligible Class Members must act soon. The E&PD Settlement Class includes people, businesses, other entities, and properties in the states of Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, and certain counties in Texas and Florida, that were harmed by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred on April 20, 2010. The website www.DeepwaterHorizonSettlements.com has detailed descriptions and maps of the included geographic locations to help Class Members determine whether they are a part of the E&PD Settlement Class. Additionally, Class Members can call 1-866-992-6174 or e-mail questions@DeepwaterHorizonEconomicSettlement.com to find out if a geographic location is included. The settlement provides payments for economic loss or property damage because of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. By submitting a claim, Class Members can request a payment in one or more of the following seven categories: -- Economic Damage -- Loss of Subsistence -- Vessel Physical Damage -- Real Property Sales Damage -- Vessels of Opportunity Charter Payment -- Coastal Real Property Damage -- Wetlands Real Property Damage Economic Damage payments are available for Individuals and Entities that lost profits or earnings as a result of the Deepwater Horizon Incident. Coastal Real Property payments are available for property that was physically damaged in connection with the Deepwater Horizon Incident. Detailed descriptions of all seven categories are available at the website. There is no limit on the total dollar amount of the E&PD Settlement. All qualified and timely claims will be paid in full once they are approved. The Settlement also allowed for Seafood Compensation claims, but the deadline for those claims has passed. Class Members must submit a Claim Form to request a payment. Class Members can get a copy of the various Claim Forms by visiting the website or by calling 1-866-992-6174. Claims can be submitted online or by mail. The claims deadline is June 8, 2015. CANADA: Court Tosses Appeal by Residential School Abuse Claimants ----------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Fraser, writing for The Province, reports that the B.C. Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeals of four aboriginal people who missed a deadline to claim compensation for alleged sexual or physical abuse at Indian residential schools. Ivor Deneway Myers, John Douglas Blackbird, Louise Pierre and Ronald George Martin claimed that their former lawyers were to blame for them missing the September 2012 deadline. Their lawyers on the appeal argued that B.C. Supreme Court Justice Brenda Brown erred when she refused to extend the deadline, which was imposed under an agreement in a national class-action lawsuit involving claims by thousands of victims of residential schools. But in a ruling released on March 6, a three-judge panel of B.C.'s highest court found that while all sympathies favored the appellants, the deadline was intended to be absolute. "The residential schools system is one of the darkest chapters of our history and its pernicious effects continue to be felt even to this day," Chief Justice Robert Bauman said in his reasons for judgment. "However, in my respectful view, much as our sympathies might encourage us to be expansive in our interpretation of the (agreement) to permit the appellants to benefit from the (process), we must not do so." To make an exception of the claimants could open the door to many more claimants and would amount to "bad law," said Justice Bauman. The four appellants were seeking compensation under one of two components -- the one dealing with specific claims of alleged sexual or serious physical abuse -- established by the class- action agreement. The other component, dealing with common experiences for all eligible former students of residential schools, had a deadline of September 2011, or September 2012 in special cases. Courts were given powers to extend that deadline to access $1.9 billion that the federal government placed in trust for claimants. But for specific abuse claims, which had no pre-set limit on compensation, the agreement stipulated that if applications for compensation were not made by the deadline, those claims were "forever extinguished." Justice Bauman's ruling was agreed to by Justices Daphne Smith and Peter Willcock. Colin Flannigan, a Kelowna lawyer representing Myers on the appeal, said his client was "obviously very disappointed" by the ruling. "This whole experience has been very difficult for him." Mr. Flannigan said no decision has been made on whether to seek leave to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, the country's highest court. CANADA: Fire Chief Has Cultural Bias Against Marijuana Growers -------------------------------------------------------------- Neal Hall, writing for Metro News, reports that Surrey's fire chief has a "cultural bias" against licensed marijuana grow-ops, which is why he wrongly concludes they are more dangerous than regular residences, an expert witness is expected to testify at a Vancouver court case. Surrey Fire Chief Len Garis, an adjunct criminology professor at the University of the Fraser Valley and an expert witness for the federal government in a constitutional challenge of Canada's medical marijuana laws, concluded there was a higher incidence of fires at homes with both illicit and legal marijuana grow-ops. Mr. Garis was set to be called as a witness on March 9 when the case resumes in Federal Court in Vancouver. John Conroy, the lawyer representing four people who have licenses to grow medical marijuana, plans to call another fire expert to rebut Garis' evidence. In an affidavit filed in court, Tim Moen, who has a Masters degree from Royal Roads University and is the fire captain and battalion chief of Fort McMurray, Alberta, states that Mr. Garis has a "cultural confirmation bias" against marijuana grow-ops so only sees evidence to confirm that homes with grow-ops have a higher incidence of fire. A fire might have started as a result of low-income residents doing renovations that don't comply with fire or building codes, or because a house is old, but Mr. Garis "is likely never exposed to any information other than marijuana grow operations are the cause of a fire in question," Moen said. "I have reviewed the statistics provided in Mr. Garis' report . . . and I disagree with his conclusion that licensed grow operations at residential properties have a higher incidence of fires than other residential properties," Mr. Moen's affidavit said. Mr. Moen maintains homes with authorized medical marijuana grow sites have the same level of fire risk as other residences -- 0.24 per cent. "In other words," Mr. Moen added, "as of the end of 2013, 99.97 percent of licensed marijuana grow sites in B.C. had not experienced a fire since they had been set up." The Surrey fire chief has concluded that homes with marijuana grow-ops pose fire, electrical and mould hazards for residents, as well as for first responders and others visiting the residence. Until last year, the federal government allowed medical marijuana users to grow their own pot or have a designated person to grow it for them. But under Canada's new Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR), the government requires patients obtain their marijuana from federally approved commercial growers. The judge, however, granted an injunction last year to allow the plaintiffs to continue growing their own until the case is decided. The plaintiffs filed the proposed class-action lawsuit, claiming the new law unreasonably limits their Section 7 Charter rights, so patients should be allowed to continue growing their own strains of pot. The case was expected to start hearing international marijuana law experts from the U.S., Israel and Amsterdam on March 4. CARY GOLF: Sued in E.D.N.C. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah C., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Carl Jerry Reid, Jr., Cary Golf And Travel, Inc. f/k/a Pure Gold, Inc., Wilmington Golf and Travel, Inc., RJ Foods Wilmington, LLC and Does 1-10, Case No. 7:15-cv-00055 (E.D.N.C., March 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate five adult entertainment facilities in Nashville, Tennessee, Cary, Wilmington and Southern Pines, North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq. PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP 100 Europa Dr., Suite 250 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Telephone: (919) 942-5200 Facsimile: (919) 942-5256 E-mail: nghosh@pathlaw.com CELGENE CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Cancer Drugs ------------------------------------------------------------ LawyersandSettlements.com reports that there's the $65 million dollar question facing Celgene Corp. They were hit with an antitrust class action lawsuit filed by The City of Providence in New Jersey, alleging the pharmaceutical company monopolized the market for two of its blockbuster cancer drugs by blocking its competitors' access to samples necessary to bring generic versions to market. According to the potential class action, Celgene is using risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, a federal drug safety measure, to prevent competitors such as Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. from gaining access to samples for Thalomid and Revlimid. Those samples are necessary for the Food and Drug Administration test for generic equivalency. According to the lawsuit, "Due to Celgene's monopolistic and anticompetitive conduct, plaintiff, and all other consumers and third-party payors, paid higher prices to treat leprosy and multiple myeloma than they otherwise would have absent Celgene's conduct." Specifically, the plaintiff alleges those prices have risen upwards of 3,400 percent since the initial approval of the treatments by the FDA in 1998. The lawsuit contends that one Revlimid pill sells for approximately $500. The suit is City of Providence v. Celgene Corporation, case number 2:15-cv-01605, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. CITGO: Agrees to Settle Gasoline Retailers' "Hot Fuel" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that the country's largest oil companies have agreed to shell out millions to resolve allegations that they failed to disclose the impact of hot weather on the price of fuel. But when a Kansas federal judge considers a slew of proposed settlements later this year, at least two groups will be sounding alarm bells. In separate filings on March 23, Theodore Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness and a group of gasoline retailers -- including 7-Eleven Inc., Flying J Inc., Sheetz Inc. and Wawa Inc. -- lodged objections to deals meant to end the 7-year-old "hot fuel" litigation pending before U.S. District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil in Kansas City, Kansas. Plaintiffs in the case, represented by lawyers at Korein Tillery and Horn Aylward & Bandy, alleged that oil companies and gas retailers failed to adjust prices to account for hot temperatures expanding the volume of gas and, in turn, diluting the energy content of fuel sold by the gallon. Though some defendants, including objector 7-Eleven, went to trial and won, most opted to settle. Judge Vratil is now considering 28 proposed settlements that fall roughly into two categories. One encompasses 24 settlements with Citgo, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and other oil companies, which agreed to pay a total of $24.5 million to help offset the costs of installing automatic temperature compensation gas pumps in states where summers tend to be warmer. Some of the settlement funds would go directly to retail gas stations, while the remainder would go to state weights and measures agencies to reduce their costs in making sure ATC conversion takes place legally, according to court filings. None of the money would go directly to consumers. In a second category, four defendants -- Casey's General Stores Inc., Dansk Investment Group Inc., Sam's Club and Valero Energy Group -- won't pay any money, but agreed to eventually install ATC gas pumps at their stations. Mr. Frank's CCAF and the gasoline retailers argue in the March 23 filings that the various settlement agreements are plagued with problems. Because none of the money would go directly to consumers, Frank wrote in his objection, the only real benefits are for the proposed class representatives and plaintiffs lawyers, who could rake in as much as $15 million. Both groups of objectors also noted that the potential adoption of ATC pumps at gas stations is subject to political debate, with critics arguing that the conversion may actually raise prices. Since much of the settlement money is intended to defray state agencies' costs in overseeing a switch to ATC pumps, the settlements are effectively compelling political speech in violation of the First Amendment, the objectors argue. "This feels uncomfortably close to political bribery," Mr. Frank wrote in his objection. He reiterated his opposition to the deals when we caught up with him on March 31. "It's a zero dollar settlement," Mr. Frank said. "The lawyers are the only people getting paid, and the relief is to require lobbying for a means of selling gasoline that would make consumers worse off." Law.com also reached out to Robert Horn, one of the lead plaintiffs lawyers, but didn't hear back on March 31. Jonathan Massey of Massey & Gail serves as lead counsel for the objecting gas retailers. He didn't respond to a request for comment. Among other firms, the defense lineup includes Arnold & Porter (for BP plc); Latham & Watkins (for Chevron Corp.); Eimer Stahl (for Citgo); Weil, Gotshal & Manges (for ExxonMobil); Davis Wright Tremain (for Shell); Dechert (for Sunoco); and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (for Valero). COMMERCE BANCSHARES: To Defend Against "Warren" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Commerce Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a customer filed on August 15, 2014, a purported class action complaint against Commerce Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri. The case is Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank (Case No. 1416- CV19197). In the case, the customer alleges violation of the Missouri usury statute in connection with the Bank charging overdraft fees in connection with point-of-sale/debit and automated-teller machine cards. The case seeks class-action status for Missouri customers of the Bank who may have been similarly affected. The Company believes the complaint lacks merit and will defend itself vigorously. The amount of any ultimate exposure cannot be determined with certainty at this time. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Class Cert. Hearing Scheduled for May 25 --------------------------------------------------------------- Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class certification hearing is currently scheduled for May 25, 2015. In November 2010, an alleged class action was filed against the Company alleging the Company improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. The Company has responded to the petition, denied the allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses. Discovery is ongoing and information and documents continue to be exchanged. The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action will have on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. The class has not been certified. The class certification hearing is currently scheduled for May 25, 2015. Plaintiffs have indicated that if the class is certified they may seek damages in excess of $165 million which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that the case meets the requirements for a class action and is vigorously defending the case. COOPERVISION INC: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Lenses Retail Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- Cora Beth Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Coopervision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC (a/k/a ABB Optical Group), Case No. 1:15-cv-21069 (S.D. Fla., March 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those products. The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the business of making eye care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. City National Bank Building 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: rjosefsberg@podhurst.com - and - Richard M. Volin, Esq. Tracy D. Rezvani, Esq. REZVANI VOLIN, P.C. 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W., 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 350-4270 Facsimile: (202) 351-0544 E-mail: rvolin@rezvanivolin.com trezvani@rezvanivolin.com DRILLING FLUIDS: Faces "Kaiduk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Kaiduk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Drilling Fluids Technology, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 00084 (N.D. Tex., March 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Drilling Fluids Technology, Inc. is a Texas-based company that offers specialty oilfield chemicals the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Lindsay Rae Itkin, Esq. FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77000 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com DUPONT: Retirees Mull Class Action Over Health Benefits ------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Mordock, writing for The News Journal, reports that retirees are planning to file a class action against DuPont. A few years ago the wife of DuPont retiree Dick Cornelia needed a $45,000 operation to replace her right knee. A combination of Medicare and the supplemental health insurance he receives from his former company reduced the surgery's cost to only $300. With just Medicare alone, the surgery would have cost $8,000, he said. Mr. Cornelia, 77, is one of an estimated 81,000 DuPont retirees, including 10,000 in Delaware, who count upon supplemental health insurance from the company. In 2012, the company adopted a health reimbursement account paying $1,400 to single retirees and $2,800 to married retirees for the purchase of health benefits from insurers. Mr. Cornelia said he is extremely concerned about Nelson Peltz's plans for the company, fearing the account will be eliminated in an effort to cut costs. Mr. Peltz owns roughly $1.9 billion of DuPont stock through his hedge fund, Trian Fund Management. He has initiated a proxy war to place four candidates, including himself, on the company's board. If Mr. Peltz is successful, his board members will lobby DuPont to spin off its nutrition and health and agriculture units. Although Mr. Peltz has not threatened to cut DuPont retiree health benefits, his actions at ketchup maker Heniz have Cornelia and his fellow retirees worried. Trian initiated a proxy war at Heinz in 2006 that resulted in Mr. Peltz and Micheal Weinstein joining the company's board. In 2010, while both were active directors, Heinz stopped providing retirees with health insurance and created a reimbursement account. The company started with a $7,000 contribution the first year, but eventually lowered it to $3,500, according to media reports. Mr. Peltz has vowed to reduce between $2 billion and $4 billion of excess corporate costs he claims the company has incurred. At an average of roughly $2,800 a year per couple, cutting retiree health benefits could save DuPont as much as $227 million a year. Mr. Cornelia, a 30-year DuPont employee who retired 16 years ago, is facing an eye operation. He is not sure how much the procedure will cost, but added the DuPont supplemental health insurance will pay for at least a portion of it. "A lot of retirees are on limited incomes," he said. "They rely on it a lot." A Trian spokesperson said the fund is aware of retiree concerns. "As one of DuPont's largest stockholders, Trian has a clear interest in the long-term success of the company." the spokesperson said. "Our interests are fully aligned with those of DuPont's current and former employees, customers, stockholders and the Wilmington community. If elected, Trian's nominees will strive to help DuPont to always be in a position to honor its obligations to current and retired employees." Mr. Cornelia and three other DuPont employees have discussed the possibility of filing a class action lawsuit if the company reduces or eliminates retiree health benefits. They have not yet spoken with attorney about a potential case. Dan Turner, a DuPont spokesperson, said the company had no comment on the retiree's concerns. "If we make Peltz and others aware we are willing to file a class action suit if they take this kind of action, it might be enough to prevent him from doing that," Mr. Cornelia continued. "He may not want the bad press." Unfortunately for Mr. Cornelia, there are no federal or state regulations prohibiting companies from eliminating or reducing retiree health care benefits. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, does not protect retiree health benefits. Under ERISA, a 1974 federal statute, retirees can only challenge a reduction in health benefits under breach of contract claims. Norman P. Stein teaches pension and employee benefits law at Drexel University's Thomas R. Kline School of Law. He said there are very few options available to retirees fighting a reduction in health benefits. "It is very difficult to prevail when a company wants to cut retiree health benefits," he said. "If you don't have a pretty clear contractual right, there is very little you can do. Courts are not very sympathetic to these cases." The retirees said they are unsure if DuPont made an explicit guarantee for health benefits. Mr. Corneila recalled his boss promising him full healthcare upon retirement when he signed an employment contract 46 years ago. However, he conceded he didn't know the contract's specific language. "Part of my contract is for lifetime healthcare, but what exactly was written in the contract, I don't know," he said. Carl Vorhees, 68, worked in DuPont's engineering department for 40 years, retiring in 2010. He is concerned about his health benefits and would join Cornelia in a class-action suit, if necessary. "Retirees don't bring any value to the company," he said. "Anything DuPont can get back from the retirees in terms of money they will and health care is an easy target." With no legal protections, the DuPont retirees' best option might be making the public. But Mr. Stein said such efforts are unlikely sway an activist investor like Mr. Peltz. "They strongest weapon they have is the court of public opinion," Mr. Stein added. "They can persuade the public, but someone is not going spend $243million because he wants the public to like them." Another retiree, Joe Samluck, left DuPont after 37 years in textiles. He still owns shares of DuPont stock, something the other retirees said they sold to fund college educations. Mr. Samluck is aware of Mr. Peltz's track record of increasing stock value, but said the gains won't offset the loss of his health coverage. "I'd rather have my healthcare than anything I would get for my shares," he said. EDEN MEMORIAL: Sued for Throwing Out Human Bones in Pile -------------------------------------------------------- Susan Abram, writing for Los Angeles Daily News, reports that one of the nation's largest Jewish cemeteries and the resting place of such notables as Groucho Marx has been sued for a second time, accused of breaking vaults to make way for new graves and throwing out human bones in a pile. In a civil lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, more than 60 people accuse Eden Memorial Park in Mission Hills of negligence, tortuous interference with the dispose of remains, fraud and causing emotional distress for destroying graves and discarding human remains to make room for new burials. The suit seeks millions of dollars in damages. The lawsuit comes about a year after Eden Memorial's parent company, Service Corporation International, settled with families in a previous case for $80.5 million for similar complaints at the same cemetery. In the latest lawsuit, family members allege that they were not told when they bought plots in areas of the cemetery where groundskeepers were instructed to make new graves fit even if it required breaking outer burial containers in adjacent graves. The work caused remains to be disturbed or disposed in a pile on the cemetery grounds, according to the lawsuit. "Current and former groundskeepers at the cemetery have admitted that breaking burial vaults will often cause human remains to spill out of the broken vaults," according to the latest complaint. "In such situations, the groundskeepers were instructed by their supervisors to throw away the bones and other remains in the Cemetery Dump located on the cemetery premises." Service Corporation International, which owns Eden Memorial Park, did not return calls or emails requesting a response. Attorney Gary Praglin, whose firm is representing the plaintiffs, said this lawsuit is a follow-up to the last one. The first lawsuit was filed in 2009 and covered complaints from 1985 until then. This second one includes families who bought plots or buried loved ones before or after that time, or else who were not part of the last class-action lawsuit, Mr. Praglin said. Mr. Praglin said the cemetery should have told customers about the plots they bought, where they were located and what was happening there. "It was concealed from them," Mr. Praglin said. "None of this was disclosed. It's a horrible violation of trust." EL ASSET MANAGEMENT: Faces "Mori" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Percy Mori, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. El Asset Management, Inc., Sonny Shaikh, and Michael Schivone, Case No. 1:15-cv-01991 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. El Asset Management, Inc. is a New York corporation that provides financial services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Liane Fisher, Esq. Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. SERRINS FISHER LLP 233 Broadway, Suite 2340 New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 571-0700 Facsimile: (212) 233-3801 E-mail: liane@serrinsfisher.com michael@serrinsfisher.com ESKOM: Businesses Can Sue Over Load Shedding Losses --------------------------------------------------- Fatima Schroeder, writing for iOL, reports that businesses that have suffered major losses as a result of load shedding should not rule out damages claims against Eskom, an attorney has said. However, consumers who suffer smaller losses because of damage to appliances and electronic devices, will have to turn to insurers for protection. "The big question is whether a claim could be brought against Eskom for its persistent failure to attend to the necessary maintenance," Tzvi Brivik of attorneys, Malcolm Lyons & Brivik said. The answer is that individual consumers will have a difficult time lodging such applications because of the value of their claims. However, businesses that suffer major losses could take the issue to court, as well as consumers who come together in a class action. He suggested consumers scrutinize their insurance policies to make sure their expensive appliances and electronic devices are covered or shop around for policies that fit their needs. "Whereas in the past insurers may have considered claims for damage to electrical appliances or loss of production, depending on whether in the home or work environment, it seems now that insurers are turning these claims away as the outages have become de rigeur. "Consumers of electricity are now expected to foresee the harm which is likely to be caused and to take action to prevent such harm. Failure to do so would preclude a claim both in terms of the insurance agreement and possibly against Eskom," Mr. Brivik said. However, he said this had not yet been tested in court. Samantha Solomons -- samantha@mindes.co.za -- of Minde Shapiro and Smith Attorneys agreed that consumers' options depend largely on what their insurance policies stated. However, she pointed out that for those who work, it was not always possible to switch off appliances in the event that there was a planned power outage. Loadshedding might be suspended, she said. "The risk is not worthwhile." As far as damages claims were concerned, Ms. Solomons pointed out that businesses which suffered massive losses could lodge claims against Eskom or the connectivity providers in their municipalities. A business representative body could even consider a class action against the government, which is ultimately responsible for the supply of electricity, she said. Shaheid Schrueder of Schrueder Attorneys raised a further matter: "The lack of electricity also causes security concerns with risks of higher burglaries and robberies during load shedding." He said insurers could refuse claims on the grounds that consumers failed to prevent damage and unnecessary losses. However, he said loadshedding had led to a situation in which consumers' rights to basic services were no longer guaranteed, as in the constitution. FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Sex Offender Comments ----------------------------------------------------------- 9News reports that Facebook has been included in a class action against a convicted pedophile who allegedly posted comments on social media gloating about his sex crimes against a girl. The Tasmanian Sexual Assault Support Service on March 9 revealed plans to launch a class action against the man, as well as indirect parties Facebook, the parole board and the sex offenders register, claiming breach of the anti-discrimination act. Service chief Liz Little said the man's comments were demeaning and vilified the girl. "He has also justified his behavior, that it wasn't in fact pedophilia or engaging in any form of sex that was harmful," she told ABC radio. "The Act prohibits people doing things that we know would create hurt and shame for a victim of sexual abuse, but it also could amount to victimization under the anti-discrimination act." The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was 58 when sentenced to two-and-a-half years in jail by Tasmania's Supreme Court for having sex with a girl aged under 17, the age of consent in the state. He was released in March 2013 and remains on the child sex offender register. Since his release, the man has posted a series of online comments, including that he is the envy of many men across Australia, The Mercury reported. Facebook said the account has been deactivated and that convicted sex offenders are not allowed to join the social media service. But Ms Little said Facebook has a case to answer as an indirect respondent in the class action, for enabling distribution of the man's comments. "Facebook have a consent form, when people sign up to it, where they do ask people if they're sex offenders," she said. "If you write 'no' then you go through. "What are the duties of Facebook to check they are telling the truth?" In a brief statement, Facebook said it works closely with law enforcement agencies and removes the profiles of convicted sex offenders when they are reported. Tasmanian police Assistant Commissioner Donna Adams said detectives will "examine the circumstances surrounding the matter". Ms Little's class action is due to be lodged with the state's Anti-Discrimination Commissioner later this week. "The end point of this is to start trying to get the sorts of legislative changes and ongoing protections that we need for victims of sexual abuse, particularly children victims of sexual abuse," she said. Tasmanian police minister Rene Hidding is aware of the class action and said the government is already looking at a review of the community protection act to determine if legislative changes are necessary. FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA Defending Against Overdraft Fees Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- First Horizon National Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that First Tennessee Bank National Association ("FTBNA"), a subsidiary of FHN, is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees charged in connection with debit card transactions. A key claim is that the method used to order or sequence the transactions posted each day was improper. The case is styled as Hawkins v. First Tennessee Bank National Association, before the Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11. The plaintiff seeks actual damages of at least $5 million, unspecified restitution of fees charged, and unspecified punitive damages, among other things. "FHN's estimate of reasonably possible loss for this matter is subject to significant uncertainties regarding: whether a class will be certified and, if so, the definition of the class; claims as to which no dollar amount is specified; the potential remedies that might be available or awarded; the ultimate outcome of potentially significant motions such as motions to dismiss, or for summary judgment; and the incomplete status of the discovery process," the Company said. FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Suspends Red Light Camera Program ------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Schuler, writing for NBC6, reports that the City of Fort Lauderdale is temporarily suspending its red light camera program, officials said on March 6. The move comes a week after a Broward County judge ruled the program violates state statute. "I'm surprised that the legal counsel for all of these jurisdictions didn't realize there was an alternative to do this, back when the appellate court first made its decision," attorney Gary Kollin said. Mr. Kollin represents ticketed drivers from five local cities who are pursuing a class action lawsuit to get their money back. He said the private company hired by Fort Lauderdale and others, American Traffic Solutions, actually issued the citations without having the law enforcement power to do so. "My particular clients, they're happy they're in suit, they're going to get their monies back, they thought they were improper or illegal to begin with," Mr. Kollin said. In addition to those who have already paid citations, Mr. Kollin said the city's decision should clear the way for drivers who still owe payment on red light tickets. "It appears that all of those tickets are going to be thrown out," Mr. Kollin said. "As far as I'm concerned, we're still processing these five suits and there could be hundreds more throughout the state." Drivers who have received or paid for a red light ticket are advised by Mr. Kollin to hold on to the paperwork for now. City officials said the city manager plans to discuss the issue with the mayor and city commissioners at a March 17 meeting. FRESHDIRECT: Employees Mull Suit Over Disciplinary Actions ---------------------------------------------------------- The Grio's Blue Telusma reports that according to the NY Daily News, on March 9, the union representing more than 900 FreshDirect workers was planning to file a suit against the company for firing and disciplining employees who couldn't show up to work -- during what could have arguably been considered snow days. The conflict originates back to a storm that hit New York City on Jan. 4, 2014. According to the Daily News, at the time, Mayor de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo declared a state of emergency and said only essential service workers should be on the roads. At FreshDirect, workers were expected to show up despite the weather. But many employees could not make it in. According to UFCW Local 2013, which represents the workers, 75 employees received written warnings, two were suspended and one was discharged because of their absences. Those penalized included Juan Altreche, 44, a depot driver earning $20.50 an hour. "I had slipped trying to take the subway to work," Mr. Altreche recalled. "I messed up my back a little bit, and I said, 'You know what? I'm going back home. This is ridiculous.' The next day they gave me the write-up." That move put Mr. Altreche -- who has worked for the company for 11 years -- one step closer to termination. Last June, an arbitrator ruled that FreshDirect should reverse the disciplinary actions. Instead of heeding this verdict, they went to federal court on Dec. 30 to contest the ruling. "That's denying them justice under the terms agreed to under the collective bargaining agreement," said union president Louis Mark Carotenuto. "They shouldn't use tactics like this to delay justice for the workers." Recently, Mr. Altreche had to take a day off for a family emergency and was shocked when the company went as far as to suspend him for a week without pay. Adding that disciplinary action to the one from last year means that if he misses even a single day of work again, he's out of a job. GAWKER MEDIA: Interns Can't Notify Class Via Social Media --------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Knaub and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that a New York federal judge Thursday denied a bid by a group of Gawker interns to disseminate notice of their class action settlement through social media, saying their proposal lacks any realistic notion of specifically targeting its potential opt-in plaintiffs. U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan said the plaintiffs' proposed plan to post notices on Tumblr and on Reddit pages such as "r/OccupyWallStreet" and "r/Progressive" would call the attention of individuals not connected to the Fair Labor Standards Act suit rather than individuals with opt-in rights, adding that the purpose of FLSA notice is to inform eligible plaintiffs to opt in to the collective action, not to advertise the defendants' alleged violations. She also said the plaintiffs' proposed use of Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook was overbroad, saying the court had approved use of social media notice with the understanding that it would contain private, personalized notifications sent to identified potential plaintiffs who may not be reachable otherwise and not public- facing notices such as general tweets or publicly accessible groups. "The proposals are substantially overbroad for the purposes of providing notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, and much of plaintiffs' plan appears calculated to punish defendants rather than provide notice of opt-in rights," the judge said. The judge denied the motion without prejudice, but added that she would under no circumstance extend the 60-day notice period that has already started for plaintiffs to revise the plan. In November, named plaintiffs Aulistar Mark and Andrew Hudson -- former unpaid interns for blogs run by Gawker and its founder and co-defendant Nick Denton 00 got a green light to use social media to notify potential opt-in plaintiffs about their right to join the FLSA collective action, Gawker took aim last month at the plaintiffs' "social media plan" in a letter filed with the court. Notice of a collective action is usual a "one-time event," but the ex-interns want repeated contact and "ongoing dialogue" with potential plaintiffs instead of limiting their interaction to a court-approved notice, the company said. Gawker is just one of many targets in a string of recent lawsuits brought by interns over wages. The Gawker suit, filed in June 2013, said the company hired unpaid or underpaid interns to do work central to its business model, and leveled minimum-wage and record-keeping claims at it. The proper standard for determining whether an individual is an intern or an employee covered by wage law is currently before the Second Circuit in appeals involving the Hearst Corp. and Fox Entertainment Group Inc. In light of the prior ruling allowing social media notice, Gawker said in February that it was OK with the creation of a Facebook page called "GawkerInternLawsuit," but said it should be a "page" rather than a "group." It also took issue with a proposal to have plaintiffs counsel add would-be plaintiffs as Facebook friends. As for Twitter, Gawker objected to proposed hashtags, arguing that "#fairpay" and "#livingwage" are "inflammatory," and if approved, would indicate that the court has a position on the lawsuit's merits. Instead, it argued that if any hashtag is allowed to be used, it should be "#gawkerinternlawsuit." The company didn't object to the creation of a LinkedIn group but proposed some amendments to the plaintiffs' plan. However, it urged the court to decline to permit notice posting on Tumblr and said there was "little to be gained" from posting case information on Reddit. The plaintiffs are represented by Andrea Maria Paparella -- apaparella@liddlerobinson.com -- and Robert Adler -- radler@liddlerobinson.com -- of Liddle & Robinson LLP. Gawker is represented by Mark W. Batten -- mbatten@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP. The case is Mark et al v. Gawker Media LLC et al., case number 1:13-cv-04347, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. GENERAL MILLS: TCE Suit Obtains Class-Action Status --------------------------------------------------- Alida Tieberg, writing for Minnesota Daily, reports that residents of the Southeast Como neighborhood were granted a class-action lawsuit against General Mills, attorneys announced on March 4, following their concerns of a potentially harmful vapor seeping into neighborhood homes. Three residents were looking to sue the company last fall, claiming a former General Mills facility on Hennepin Avenue dumped TCE, also known as trichloroethylene, and put their health and homes' value at risk. The claims were given class-action status, uniting the property owners and their claims against the company, according to a court order by U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank on Feb. 27. Jackie Milbrandt, one of the three residents, said receiving the class-action certification was a good step toward resolving their concerns. "This gives me a huge amount of hope that actual cleanup that needs to happen is actually going to move into action," she said. However, attorneys told residents at a Southeast Como neighborhood meeting on Wednesday that General Mills will likely appeal the court decision for a class-action lawsuit, forcing the residents to carry their claims forward individually. According to a complaint filed by the residents in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota last year, General Mills dumped 15,000 gallons of TCE near its former Hennepin Avenue property over the course of nearly two decades. If they wouldn't have been granted class-action status, the residents would have had to proceed with their claims against General Mills individually -- a more expensive option. Now, the owners of nearly 400 area residential properties are automatically entered into the lawsuit, but they can opt out once court-ordered letters are sent from attorneys in the upcoming months. Prolonged exposure to TCE can lead to birth defects and kidney and liver cancers. A study from the Minnesota Department of Health found the number of birth defects in the neighborhood was normal compared to the rest of the state. A different report from the health department released about a year ago showed cancer rates in the area are also normal. Though vapor mitigation systems were installed on some of the affected properties, according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Ms. Milbrandt thinks there should be more aggressive cleanup actions. "I have, what I consider, a Band-Aid on my house," Ms. Milbrandt said. "But we have no idea if it's effective or not." The trial is set to take place in two parts. The first will decide if General Mills did something wrong and whether more cleanup is necessary. The second will decide whether residents are awarded for alleged damages. If damages are awarded, residents will receive them individually based on how TCE affected their properties, said Shawn Collins, one of the lawyers prosecuting the suit. Dates have not been set for starting either part of the trial, lawyers said, but the first phase will probably happen in early 2016. GORDON CHEN'S: Faces "Valle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Valle and Edgar Cid a/k/a Daniel Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly' situated v. Gordon Chen's Kitchen LLC d/b/a Hakata Grill, Mac-War Rest. Corp. d/b/a Hakata Grill, Sol Orbuch, Kazutoshi Gaeda and Allan W. Artski, Case No. 1:15-cv- 02005 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant located at 231 E. 53rd Street, New York, New York 10022. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Fact Discovery Stayed in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that fact discovery has been stayed in a class action lawsuit except as it relates to class certification and the court has not yet issued a ruling on class certification. "In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against us in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated an investigation in connection with our change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, approximately twenty similar class actions were filed against us. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or former officers and directors. The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund). We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004," the Company said. "In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc., including that we failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure. "In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than our Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against our CEO and us. "In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The district court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order in November 2008 denying the motion for class certification. The Fund appealed the district court's order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying class certification. In May 2010, the Fund filed a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. "In January 2011, the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and accepted the appeal. The Court heard oral arguments in April 2011 and issued its decision in June 2011, reversing the Fifth Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification. The Court's ruling was limited to the Fifth Circuit's loss causation requirement, and the case was returned to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration of our other arguments for denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit returned the case to the district court, and in January 2012 the court issued an order certifying the class. We filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Fifth Circuit, which was granted. "In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order affirming the District Court's order certifying the class. "We filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking an appeal of the Fifth Circuit decision. In November 2013, the Supreme Court granted our writ. Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court in March 2014. The Supreme Court issued its decision in June 2014, maintaining the presumption of class member reliance through the "fraud on the market" theory, but holding that we are entitled to rebut that presumption by presenting evidence that there was no impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentation. Because the district court and the Fifth Circuit denied us that opportunity, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court decision. "In December 2014, the district court held a hearing to consider whether there was an impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentations. Fact discovery has been stayed except as it relates to class certification. The court has not yet issued a ruling on class certification. We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which we intend to vigorously defend." HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Sued in D. Conn. Over Excessive Plan Premiums ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Hannan, Dawn Lemieux, Nicole Groomes, and Peggy Horn, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. The Hartford Financial Services, Inc., Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Family Dollar Stores Inc. Group Insurance Plan & Plan Administrators, Case No. 3:15-cv-00395 (D. Conn., March 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants are engaged in a cross-subsidization scheme to overcharge plan participants' premiums for supplemental life insurance that were higher than called for by the underwriting and actuarial pricing experience. The Hartford Financial Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principal place of business at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut 06105. It is in the business of providing basic group life insurance coverage. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principal place of business at 10401 Monroe Road, Matthews, North Carolina 28105. It owns and operates discount stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: Slesser@klafterolsen.com - and - Laura L. Ho, Esq. GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417 E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com - and - Raymond C. Fay, Esq. FAY LAW GROUP PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 263-4604 Facsimile: (202) 261-3508 E-mail: rfay@faylawdc.com - and - Michael M. Mulder, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL M. MULDER 321 South Plymouth Court, Suite 1250 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 263-0272 Facsimile: (312) 263-2942 E-mail: mmmulder@mmulderlaw.com - and - Cyrus Mehri, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 Facsimile: (202) 822-4997 E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: July 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Case No. C-12-6003-CRB NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION AND OF HEARING TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITES WHO HOLD OR BENEFICIALLY OWN, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, COMMON STOCK OR SECURITIES OF HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AS OF MARCH 13, 2015. This notice concerns a proposed settlement of the above-captioned shareholder derivative action and contains important information about your rights concerning the lawsuit. This notice is not an expression of any opinion by the court as to the merits of any claims or defenses in the lawsuit. The statements in this notice are not findings of the court. All Hewlett-Packard Company securities holders are hereby notified that a settlement has been reached as to claims asserted in a shareholder derivative action pending in a California federal court against certain current and former officers and directors of HP. If approved, the settlement will also release certain claims asserted in related, consolidated suits pending in California state court, Santa Clara County. The federal case is titled In re Hewlett-Packard Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. C-12-6003-CB (N.D. Cal.). The state cases are captioned Gould v. Whitman, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-250220 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), and Noel v. Whitman, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-251346 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.). A hearing on the settlement of the federal case will be held on July 24, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. PDT before U.S. district Judge Charles R. Breyer, in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California, Phillip Burton Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will determine: (i) whether to approve the proposed settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best of interest of HP and its shareholders and (ii) whether to enter a final judgment dismissing the Federal Lawsuit as to the settling defendants on the merits and with prejudice, barring and enjoining the prosecution of certain claims, and releasing the settling defendants and other individual and entities. The Court may, in its discretion, change the date and/or time of the Fairness Hearing without further notice to you. If you intend to attend the Fairness Hearing, you should confirm the date and time of the hearing with the Court. The Federal Lawsuit was brought by plaintiff Stanley Morrical on behalf of HP. The State Lawsuits were brought by plaintiffs James R. Gould, Jr., and Leroy Noel, respectively. Other than any service award that may be paid to Federal Plaintiff, no payments will be made to any HP securities holders in connection with the proposed settlement. This Notice is not an expression by the Court as to the merits of any claim or defense asserted in the Federal Lawsuit or in the State of Lawsuits. Any objection to the proposed settlement must be served and filed with the Court (and received by all the below counsel) no later than July 4, 2015. Submissions objection to the proposed settlement should be sent to the counsel as follows: Counsel for Plaintiff Morrical: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, California 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com Counsel for State Plaintiffs Noel and Gould: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Benny C. Goodman III, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: DarrenR@rgrdlaw.com BennyG@rgrdlaw.com Counsel for HP: Marc Wolinsky, Esq. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 51 West 52nd Street New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212) 403-1226 Fax: (212) 403-2226 E-mail: mwolinsky@wlrk.com A detailed copy of the notice is available at http://is.gd/eEGhkP HOME CONSIGNMENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Patsy A. Haakstad and Suzanne Goldstyn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Consignment Center, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:15-cv-01245 (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay proper overtime hour rate, failure to pay all wages owing upon the termination of employment, and failure to provide lawful itemized wage statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Home Consignment Center, LLC owns and operates an accessories, furniture & fine jewelry shop with its principal place of business located at 1901-F Camino Ramon, Danville, CA 94526. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Roald Dion-Kindem, Esq. THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 883-4900 Facsimile: (818) 883-4902 E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com - and - Lonnie Clifford Blanchard III, Esq. THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC 3311 East Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90023 Telephone: (213) 599-8255 Facsimile: (213) 402-3949 E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Acura TLX Transmission Problems -------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a model year 2015 Acura TLX transmission lawsuit has been filed in California federal court that alleges the transmission is dangerous and a hazard to driving. Plaintiff Roger Kornfein filed the lawsuit against Honda, the parent company of Acura, claiming the TLX transmission can cause problems with controlling the car. Mr. Kornfein claims his new 2015 Acura TLX started experiencing problems just a few weeks after buying the car. The plaintiff says while making a turn at an intersection, the transmission felt like it shifted into neutral while the engine RPM increased. The complaint also alleges the transmission downshifts suddenly when the car is traveling under 20 mph. Mr. Kornfein says taking off from a stop light can be an adventure because the Acura TLX takes a few seconds to shift between gears with a feeling the car is jerking forward. The lawsuit alleges Acura mechanics couldn't replicate the problem of the TLX feeling like it was going into neutral and the car showed no diagnostic error codes. Mr. Kornfein says he has made numerous trips to the dealer and all he received was a response from Honda's corporate office denying the car has transmission problems. While Honda might be denying transmission problems in the 2015 Acura TLX, owners have told CarComplaints.com of similar problems as mentioned in the TLX lawsuit. "I am also an unhappy owner of a 2015 Acura TLX. When I first start driving the car when cold and I am in traffic, I will start going and then come to a complete stop the car will suddenly lurch forward (almost like someone has hit you in the rear end). I thought I was going to rear end the person in front of me! This is the fourth time this has happened to me, completely unacceptable for a premium luxury brand that costs $35,000!" - 2015 Acura TLX Owner / Alexandria, Virginia "When moving from a stopped position, the car will sometimes make a loud sound like the transmission is trying to shift into a gear that it is not supposed too. Rpm's do jot increase and the car will not move forward for a couple of seconds. This happens as I am pulling out. Has happened when the vehicle has been cold or warmed up." - 2015 Acura TLX Owner / University Place, Washington The proposed class-action lawsuit accuses Honda of violating the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices Act and breaches of warranty. The Acura TLX transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California -- Roger Kornfein v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. Plaintiff Roger Kornfein is represented by Gibbs Law Group LLP. In December 2014, the 2015 Acura TLX was recalled to replace the transmissions, but Acura says that recall was to fix problems with the cars not shifting into park. HONG KONG EXCHANGES: Court Dismisses Aluminium Price-Fixing Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reported that a US judge dismissed antitrust litigation accusing Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited as well as Wall Street banks and commodity merchants of conspiring to drive up aluminium prices by reducing supply, in part because she lacked jurisdiction. The plaintiffs had accused Wall Street banks and commodity merchants of having colluded since May 2009 to hoard aluminium in warehouses. They said this led to higher storage costs, delays of up to 16 months to fill orders, and increases in prices of industrial products from soft drink cans to airplanes. J.B. HUNT: Awaiting Appointment of Panel of Judges in Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. is awaiting the appointment of a panel of judges in the appeal related to the California-based drivers' class action, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company is a defendant in certain class-action lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are current and former California-based drivers who allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other items. "During the first half of 2014, the Court in the lead class-action granted Judgment in our favor with regard to all claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and we are currently awaiting the appointment of a panel of judges. The overlapping claims in the remaining two actions have been stayed pending a decision in the lead class-action case. We cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from these lawsuits," the Company said. JAMES HARDIE: NZ Law Firm Urges Building Owners to Join Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Rob Stock, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that leaky-building owners are being asked to join a proposed class-action civil lawsuit against cladding manufacturers, seeking damages of more than $100 million. Auckland lawyer Adina Thorn -- adina@adinathorn.co.nz -- says since the goodcladding.co.nz website went live on March 9, there have been registrations from all over New Zealand, and even from Australian owners of New Zealand buildings. The leaky building scandal is estimated to have resulted in costs of more than $11 billion to repair, or replace leaky buildings constructed between 1994 and 2005, with the majority of the costs being shouldered by the buildings' owners. But Thorn believes there is hope many leaky-buildings owners could get back some of the money they have lost with a class action law suit funded on a "no fee, no win" basis by international litigation funders. The funders, who Ms. Thorn cannot name, will only commit if interest is high enough, however. Ms. Thorn said: "This is all about buildings with plaster cladding. It's not only about homes, it's all buildings -- homes, commercial buildings [and] hospitals. All buildings need to have proper and safe cladding." She said the claim was being prepared in response to approaches she had received from owners of buildings constructed with claddings such as James Hardie's Harditex and Titan Board. "The owners of plaster-clad buildings should now register their interest in being part of this action," said Ms. Thorn, who has represented the owners of many leaky buildings in the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. "There's no cost involved in registering and all the legal costs during the legal process will be covered by a litigation funder. "There's no time limit for joining the action, so a building of any age can join the action. Owners previously believed there was a 10-year time limit, but that is no longer the case, anyone can join this action." Ms. Thorn says the claim will not be covered by the 10-year limitation in the Building Act, which covers defective building work. Instead the action would seek to prove that products like Harditex and Titan Board were defective. For that, said Ms. Thorn, there was a limitation of six years from the point at which the owner of a leaky building knew, or ought to have known, that the product itself was leaky. But Ms. Thorn said most owners would still not know whether or not the cladding products themselves were defective, as she alleges. She said "99.9 per cent of the population will never know whether or not these claddings work or don't work". Ms. Thorn said she expected to be seeking damages of at least $100m, if the case goes ahead. Those registering interest include body corporates as well as individual owners. James Hardie would not be drawn on the launch of registrations, or the allegations Thorn hopes to prove in court. "At this point we are not making any comment about it," a James Hardie spokesperson said. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 11,200 Plaintiffs With ASR Direct Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that as of December 28, 2014, in the U.S. there were approximately: * 11,200 plaintiffs with direct claims in pending lawsuits regarding injuries allegedly due to the ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System, * 7,300 with respect to the PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System, * 36,600 with respect to pelvic meshes, and * 1,200 with respect to RISPERDAL(R). JOHNSON & JOHNSON: DePuy Reached 2nd Deal With ASR Hip Patients --------------------------------------------------------------- In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson. The number of pending lawsuits is expected to fluctuate as certain lawsuits are settled or dismissed and additional lawsuits are filed. Cases filed in Federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Litigation has also been filed in countries outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. In November 2013, DePuy reached an agreement with a Court- appointed committee of lawyers representing ASR(TM) Hip System plaintiffs to establish a program to settle claims with eligible ASR Hip patients in the United States who had surgery to replace their ASR Hips, known as revision surgery, as of August 31, 2013. This settlement covered approximately 8,000 patients. In February 2015, DePuy reached an additional agreement, subject to final documentation, which would effectively extend the existing settlement program to ASR Hip patients who had revision surgeries after August 31, 2013 and prior to February 1, 2015, Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014. This second agreement is estimated to cover approximately 1,400 additional patients. The estimated cost of these agreements is covered by existing accruals. This settlement program is expected to bring to a close significant ASR Hip litigation activity in the U.S. However, many lawsuits in the U.S. will remain, and the settlement program does not address litigation outside of the U.S. The Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs associated with this recall on a worldwide basis. The Company has established accruals for the costs associated with the DePuy ASR(TM) Hip program and related product liability litigation. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Has Accrual to Cover PINNACLE(R) Defense Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson relating to DePuy's PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System used in hip replacement surgery. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in Federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Litigation has also been filed in countries outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom. The Company has established an accrual to cover defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with DePuy's PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System, Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Has Accrual to Cover Ethicon Mesh Defense Cost ----------------------------------------------------------------- Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in Federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In addition, class actions and individual personal injury cases or claims have been commenced in Australia, Belgium, Canada, England, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Scotland and Venezuela, seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices. The Company has established an accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products, Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Has Accrual to Cover RISPERDAL(R) Defense Cost ----------------------------------------------------------------- Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of RISPERDAL(R), indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia, acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder and irritability associated with autism, and related compounds. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. The Company has established an accrual to cover defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with RISPERDAL(R), Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Commonwealth Court Nixed AWP Monetary Awards --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that the Commonwealth Court has dismissed monetary awards against the Defendants in the Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation, which may be appealed. Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries (the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, are defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue. Payors alleged that they used those AWPs in calculating provider reimbursement levels. Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions removed to federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs in these cases included three classes of private persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP. In June 2007, after a trial on the merits, the MDL Court dismissed the claims of two of the plaintiff classes against the J&J AWP Defendants. In March 2011, the Court dismissed the claims of the third class against the J&J AWP Defendants without prejudice. AWP cases brought by various Attorneys General have proceeded to trial against other manufacturers. Several state cases against certain subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson have been settled, including the case in Alaska, which settled in April 2014, and cases are still pending in Illinois, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Utah and Pennsylvania. The cases in Illinois, New Jersey and Wisconsin have not yet proceeded to trial. In Utah, the claims brought by the Attorney General were dismissed by the Court in 2013, but the State may appeal the dismissal after the conclusion of similar pending matters against other defendants. The AWP case against the J&J AWP Defendants brought by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was tried in Commonwealth Court in 2010. The Court found in the Commonwealth's favor with regard to certain of its claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPL"), entered an injunction, and awarded $45 million in restitution and $6.5 million in civil penalties. The Court found in the J&J AWP Defendants' favor on the Commonwealth's claims of unjust enrichment, misrepresentation/fraud, civil conspiracy, and on certain of the Commonwealth's claims under the UTPL. The J&J AWP Defendants appealed the Commonwealth Court's UTPL ruling, and in June 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the judgment entered by the Commonwealth Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, in January 2015, the Commonwealth Court dismissed the monetary awards against the J&J AWP Defendants, which may be appealed. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Retains Liability for OCD Unit ------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that Johnson & Johnson retains any liability that may result from cases following the divestiture of Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD). In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho- Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. In August 2012, the District Court granted a motion filed by Plaintiffs for class certification. In October 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted OCD's petition for interlocutory review of the class certification ruling. Oral argument on the appeal was held in February 2014 and the parties are awaiting a decision. Following the divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson retains any liability that may result from these cases. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 3rd Circuit Dismissed Appeal in "Monk" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has dismissed the appeal in the case filed by Ronald Monk. In September 2010, a shareholder, Ronald Monk, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking class certification and alleging that Johnson & Johnson and certain individuals, including executive officers and employees of Johnson & Johnson, failed to disclose that a number of manufacturing facilities failed to maintain current good manufacturing practices, and that as a result, the price of the Company's stock declined significantly. Plaintiff sought to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to recover his alleged economic losses. In December 2011, a motion by Johnson & Johnson to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. In September 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint and Johnson & Johnson and the individual defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in part. Following mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case, and in July 2013, filed for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. In November 2013, the Court approved the settlement. Three parties that had objected to the settlement appealed the Court's approval orders. Prior to the mediation for the appeal, the parties agreed to dismiss the appeal with prejudice and without costs against any party. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the case in April 2014. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oct. 2015 Class Cert. Hearing in "Field" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that the class certification hearing is scheduled for October 2015 in the case filed by Nick Field. In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc. received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim). The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December 2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the- counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification hearing is scheduled for October 2015. JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Face CIO Litigation ------------------------------------------------ JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Firm has been sued in a consolidated shareholder putative class action, a consolidated putative class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and seven shareholder derivative actions brought in Delaware state court and in New York federal and state courts relating to 2012 losses in the synthetic credit portfolio managed by the Firm's Chief Investment Office ("CIO"). Four of the shareholder derivative actions have been dismissed, and plaintiffs in three of those actions have appealed those dismissals. Motions to dismiss have also been filed in two other shareholder derivative actions. JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Dismiss CDS Case Claims Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Firm and other industry members are defendants in a consolidated putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers and sellers of credit default swap ("CDS"). The complaint refers to the ongoing investigations by the European Commission (the "EC") and the Department of Justice into the CDS market, and alleges that the defendant investment banks and dealers, including the Firm, as well as Markit and/or ISDA, collectively prevented new entrants into the market for exchange-traded CDS products. Defendants moved to dismiss this action, and in September 2014, the Court granted defendants' motion in part, dismissing claims for damages based on transactions effected before the Autumn of 2008, as well as certain other claims. JPMORGAN CHASE: Settled US Class Action on WM/Reuters Service ------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that since November 2013, a number of class actions have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against a number of foreign exchange dealers, including the Firm, for alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and unjust enrichment based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates reported on the WM/Reuters service. In March 2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended U.S. class action complaint; two other class actions were brought by non-U.S.-based plaintiffs. The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the U.S. class action and granted the motion to dismiss the two non- U.S. class actions. In January 2015, the Firm settled the U.S. class action, and this settlement is subject to court approval. JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Merchants Suits Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Defendants' motion to dismiss the actions by certain merchants that opted out of the class settlement was denied in July 2014. A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of class action complaints alleging that Visa and MasterCard, as well as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit card interchange fees, enacted respective rules in violation of antitrust laws, and engaged in tying/bundling and exclusive dealing. The parties have entered into an agreement to settle the cases for a cash payment of $6.1 billion to the class plaintiffs (of which the Firm's share is approximately 20%) and an amount equal to ten basis points of credit card interchange for a period of eight months to be measured from a date within 60 days of the end of the opt-out period. The agreement also provides for modifications to each credit card network's rules, including those that prohibit surcharging credit card transactions. In December 2013, the Court issued a decision granting final approval of the settlement. A number of merchants have appealed. Certain merchants that opted out of the class settlement have filed actions against Visa and MasterCard, as well as against the Firm and other banks. Defendants' motion to dismiss the actions was denied in July 2014. JPMORGAN CHASE: Judgment Entered on Plaintiffs' Antitrust Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a series of individual and class actions filed in various United States District Courts, in which plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually or collectively manipulated the U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR and/or EURIBOR rates by submitting rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or other financial instruments whose values are affected by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR or EURIBOR and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages. The U.S. dollar LIBOR-related putative class actions were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court stayed all related cases while motions to dismiss the three lead class actions were pending. In March 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims in the three lead class actions, including dismissal with prejudice of the antitrust claims. In relation to the Firm, the Court has permitted certain claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common law claims to proceed. In September 2013, class plaintiffs in two of the three lead class actions filed amended complaints, which defendants moved to dismiss. Plaintiffs in the third class action appealed the dismissal of the antitrust claims and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In January 2015, the United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that plaintiffs have the jurisdictional right to appeal and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. In February 2015, the District Court entered a judgment on certain other plaintiffs' antitrust claims so that those plaintiffs could also participate in the appeal. Motions to dismiss are pending in the remaining previously stayed individual actions and class actions. JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Suit on Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Firm is one of the defendants in a putative class action alleging manipulation of Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR which was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of plaintiffs who purchased or sold exchange-traded Euroyen futures and options contracts. In March 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, including dismissal of plaintiff's antitrust and unjust enrichment claims. The Firm is one of the defendants in a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the interest rate benchmark EURIBOR. The case is currently stayed. JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over ISDAFIX Rates Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Firm is one of the defendants in a number of putative class actions alleging that defendant banks and ICAP conspired to manipulate the U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates. Plaintiffs primarily assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and Commodities Exchange Act. In December 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. JPMORGAN CHASE: Madoff Plaintiffs Seek Writ of Certiorari --------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class action was brought by investors in certain feeder funds against JPMorgan Chase in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as was a motion by separate potential class plaintiffs to add claims against the Firm and certain subsidiaries to an already pending putative class action in the same court. The allegations in these complaints largely track those previously raised by the court-appointed trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. The District Court dismissed these complaints and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. Plaintiffs have petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. JPMORGAN CHASE: Moved to Transfer Florida Cases to New York ----------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by investors who were net winners (i.e., Madoff customers who had taken more money out of their accounts than had been invested) in Madoff's Ponzi scheme and were not included in the previous class action settlement. These plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities law, federal and state racketeering statutes and multiple common law and statutory claims including breach of trust, aiding and abetting embezzlement, unjust enrichment, conversion and commercial bad faith. A similar action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, although it is not styled as a class action, and includes a claim pursuant to a Florida statute. The Firm has moved to transfer these cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. JPMORGAN CHASE: 2 Class Actions Pending v. JPMC and Bear Stearns ---------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that two class actions remain pending against JPMC and Bear Stearns as MBS issuers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the action concerning JPMC, plaintiffs' motion for class certification has been granted with respect to liability but denied without prejudice as to damages. In the action concerning Bear Stearns, the parties have reached a settlement in principle, which is subject to court approval. The Firm is also defending a class action brought against Bear Stearns in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in which the court's decision on defendants' motion to dismiss is pending. JPMORGAN CHASE: Accord in Suit Over Filing of Affidavits Approved ----------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Firm entered into a settlement resolving a putative class action lawsuit relating to its filing of affidavits or other documents in connection with mortgage foreclosure proceedings, and the court granted final approval of the settlement in January 2015. JUST ENERGY: "Flood" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Flood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Just Energy Marketing Corp., Just Energy New York Corp., and Just Energy Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02012 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in marketing and sale of natural gas and electricity supply to residential and commercial customers under long term fixed price, price protected or variable-priced contracts and green energy products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP 11 Broadway, Suite 2150 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Cases Scheduled for Trial in 2015 ------------------------------------------------------ On November 21, 2007, Koninklijke Philips N.V. announced that competition law authorities in several jurisdictions had commenced investigations into possible anticompetitive activities in the Cathode-Ray Tubes, or CRT industry. On December 5, 2012, the European Commission issued a decision imposing fines on (former) CRT manufacturers including the Company. The European Commission imposed a fine of EUR 313 million on the Company and a fine of EUR 392 million jointly and severally on the Company and LG Electronics, Inc. In total a payable of EUR 509 million was recognized in 2012 and the fine was paid in the first quarter of 2013. The Company appealed the decision of the European Commission and in November 2014 the Company presented its defense at a Hearing with the General Court. Subsequent to the public announcement of these investigations in 2007, certain Philips Group companies were named as defendants in class action antitrust complaints by direct and indirect purchasers of CRTs filed in various federal district courts in the United States. These actions allege anticompetitive conduct by manufacturers of CRTs and seek treble damages on a joint and several liability basis under federal antitrust law, as well as various state antitrust and unfair competition laws. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In addition, sixteen individual plaintiffs, principally large retailers of CRT products who opted-out of the direct purchaser class, filed separate complaints against the Company and other defendants based on the same substantive allegations as the putative class plaintiff complaints. These cases also are consolidated for pre-trial purposes with the putative class actions in the Northern District of California. In 2012 a settlement agreement was approved between the Company and counsel for direct purchaser plaintiffs fully resolving all claims of the direct purchaser class. Also, the Company recently reached a settlement with the indirect purchaser class, subject to court approval, that would fully resolve all claims of the indirect purchaser class and release all claims of the indirect purchaser class. The Company reached in the past year settlements with a number of the individual plaintiffs resolving all claims by those retailers on a global basis. The settlements reached to date represent the majority of CRT sales attributed to the Company by the individual plaintiffs. Several of the remaining individual plaintiff cases are scheduled for trial in 2015, with the remainder expected to be transferred back to their original venues for further proceedings, Koninklijke Philips N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Trial dates in these other cases have not yet been set. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Class Cert. Hearings Set for Late April 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In 2007, certain Philips Group companies were been named as defendants, in proposed class proceedings in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, Canada, along with numerous other participants in the Cathode-Ray Tubes, or CRT industry. After years of inactivity, in 2014, plaintiffs in the Ontario action initiated the class certification proceedings with class certification hearings scheduled for late April 2015, Koninklijke Philips N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Defendant in Israel Consumer Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Koninklijke Philips N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company was named as a defendant in a consumer class action lawsuit filed in 2014 in Israel in which damages are claimed against several defendants based on alleged anticompetitive activities in the CRT industry. In addition, an electronics manufacturer filed a claim against the Company and several co-defendants with a court in the Netherlands, also seeking compensation for the alleged damage sustained as a result from the alleged anticompetitive activities in the CRT industry. The Company has received indications that more civil claims may be filed in other jurisdictions in due course. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: 9th Cir. Declined Bid to Appeal Cert. Denial ----------------------------------------------------------------- Koninklijke Philips N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined a request to appeal the denial of class certification related to Optical Disc Drive (ODD). On October 27, 2009, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice confirmed that it had initiated an investigation into possible anticompetitive practices in the Optical Disc Drive (ODD) industry. Philips Lite-On Digital Solutions Corp. (PLDS), a joint venture owned by the Company and Lite-On IT Corporation, as an ODD market participant, is included in this investigation. PLDS and the Company have been accepted under the Corporate Leniency program of the US Department of Justice and have continued to cooperate with the authorities in these investigations. On this basis, the Company expects to be immune from governmental fines. In July 2012, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections addressed to (former) ODD suppliers including the Company and PLDS. The European Commission granted the Company and PLDS immunity from fines, conditional upon the Company's continued cooperation. The Company responded to the Statement of Objections both in writing and at an oral hearing. The Company and PLDS are also subject to similar investigations outside the US and Europe relating to the ODD market. Where relevant, they are cooperating with the authorities. Subsequent to the public announcement of these investigations in 2009, the Company, PLDS and Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA, Inc. (PLDS USA), among other industry participants, were named as defendants in numerous class action antitrust complaints filed in various federal district courts in the United States. These actions allege anticompetitive conduct by manufacturers of ODDs and seek treble damages on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of ODDs and products incorporating ODDs. These complaints assert claims under federal antitrust law, as well as various state antitrust and unfair competition laws and may involve joint and several liability among the named defendants. These actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs' applications for certification of both the direct and indirect purchaser classes were denied on October 3, 2014. The representatives of these putative classes tried appealing the denial of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, the Ninth Circuit declined this request to appeal. Various individual entities have filed separate actions against the Company, PLDS, PLDS USA and other defendants. The allegations contained in these individual complaints are substantially identical to the allegations in the direct purchaser class complaints. All of these matters have been consolidated into the action in the Northern District of California for pre-trial purposes and discovery is being coordinated. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of the civil actions in the US courts. Also, in June 2013, the State of Florida filed a separate complaint in the Northern District of California against the Company, PLDS, PLDS USA and other defendants containing largely the same allegations as the class and individual complaints. Florida seeks to recover damages sustained in its capacity as a buyer of ODDs and, in its parens patriae capacity, on behalf of its citizens. The defendants' motion to dismiss has been denied and Philips filed an answer to the complaint. This case has been joined with the ODD class action cases in the Northern District of California for pre-trial purposes. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Decision Pending in British Columbia Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Koninklijke Philips N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and certain Philips Group companies have been named as defendants, in proposed class proceedings in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Canada along with numerous other participants in the industry. These complaints assert claims against various ODD manufacturers under federal competition laws as well as tort laws and may involve joint and several liability among the named defendants. Philips intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Plaintiffs in the British Columbia case have proceeded with their application to certify that proceeding as a class action. The hearing was held in January 2015 and the Court's decision is pending. LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Wu" Suit in E.D.N.C. Over Harmful Spyware ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Wu, Patrick Johnson, Michael Reinert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Superfish Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00108 (E.D.N.C., March 17, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart televisions. Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company that develops various advertising-supported software products based on a visual search engine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq. Adam L. Hoipkemier, Esq. THE WERNER LAW FIRM 2142 Vista Dale Court Atlanta, GA 30084 Telephone: (770) VERDICT E-mail: matt@wernerlaw.com adam@wernerlaw.com - and - Shireen Hormozdi, Esq. HORMOZDI LAW FIRM, LLC 1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road Suite 175 Norcross, GA 30093 Telephone: (800) 994-9855 E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Del Braccio" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph A. Del Braccio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv- 01249 (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce L. Simon, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Alexander R. Safyan, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com asafyan@pswlaw.com - and - Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq. ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, PC 7171 West Alaska Drive Lakewood, CO 80226 Telephone: (720) 255-7623 E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Deutsch" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Deutsch and Jamie Deutsch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01978 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nancy L. Fineman, Esq. Matthew K. Edling, Esq. Brian M. Schnarr, Esq. Joyce Chang, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: nfineman@cpmlegal.com medling@cpmlegal.com bscnahrr@cpmlegal.com jchang@cpmlegal.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Levy" in Cal. Suit Over Toxic Flooring ----------------------------------------------------------------- Herve Levy, on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00596 (S.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond P. Boucher, Esq. Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, CA State Bar No. 223484 BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903 Telephone: (818) 340-5400 Facsimile: (818) 340-5401 E-mail: ray@boucher.la bhujwala@boucher.la - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-2434 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rsoffin@forthepeople.com jcohen@forthepeople.com - and - Joel R. Rhine, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 Facsimile: (910) 772-9062 E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com MASTERCARD INT'L: Attorney E-mails Spark Settlement Questions ------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Simmons, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that Willkie Farr & Gallagher's revelation that a former partner engaged in questionable communications with an opposing counsel has given ammunition to retailers who object to massive settlements in two antitrust cases involving credit card companies. After former Willkie partner Keila Ravelo was arrested in December on charges of defrauding her employers, Willkie conducted an internal review and uncovered communications between Ms. Ravelo and plaintiff's attorney Gary B. Friedman, "which we believe raise questions," the firm told parties in the antitrust litigation in February. Willkie represented Master Card International in one of the cases and Friedman, of the Friedman Law Group, is among the plaintiff counsel in both cases. Ms. Ravelo and Mr. Friedman's friendship extends back to the early 1990s when they were associates at Sidley Austin, and their families have vacationed together over the years. Now Willkie and possibly Hunton & Williams, where Ms. Ravelo was a partner before joining Willkie in 2010, will produce a log of the communications and transferred documents to parties in the antitrust litigation to answer questions about what they discussed and disclosed to one another. Eastern District Magistrate Judge James Orenstein told the parties at a recent hearing, "There's a legitimate area of concern here where the court has to sign off on the independence of and on the arm's length nature of the negotiations that produced the settlement that's under review." The matter directly affects two class actions in the Eastern District over fees merchants pay for credit card transactions. One suit was brought by retailers against Visa and MasterCard, among other defendants, In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee And Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, 05-MD-01720, and the other by retailers against American Express, In re American Express Anti-Steering Antitrust Litigation, 11-MD-2221. In Interchange, after eight years of litigation, Judge John Gleeson in 2013 gave final approval to a $5.7 billion settlement in what was called the largest antitrust class action settlement in U.S. history. In American Express, Judge Nicholas Garaufis gave preliminary approval last year to a settlement that would allow merchants to charge a fee to customers who use a credit card or charge card, including American Express cards. A motion for final approval is pending. In December, the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey charged Ms. Ravelo and her husband, Melvin Feliz, with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Prosecutors said the couple used two vendors to fraudulently obtain more than $5 million from Willkie, Hunton and her client, MasterCard, by submitting fake invoices. Prosecutors allege the couple funneled most of the money into their joint bank account and used it to pay their personal expenses and investments. In February, in a separate case, Mr. Feliz pleaded guilty to a narcotics offense. MasterCard's lead attorney in Interchange is Kenneth Gallo -- kgallo@paulweiss.com -- a partner with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, but Ms. Ravelo was also part of the defense team. She had represented MasterCard while at Hunton & Williams. Ms. Ravelo resigned from Willkie on Nov. 14. After the U.S. attorney's office subpoenaed Willkie for documents and the firm conducted its own internal review, it found the communications between Ms. Ravelo and Mr. Friedman. In particular, Willkie said in a Feb. 19 letter that it found emails and attachments about the American Express litigation, where Ms. Ravelo had no role. Emails also appeared to show that Mr. Friedman sent Ms. Ravelo documents with information potentially protected by the American Express litigation protective order, according to Willkie. The firm said it found communications between Ms. Ravelo and Mr. Friedman that relate to the Interchange litigation and which appear to convey information such as discussions among counsel. "It also appears that in a few cases, Ms. Ravelo provided some confidential information of MasterCard to Mr. Friedman," Willkie said. Willkie has filed a stipulation, now ordered by the court, on its protocol for disclosing to the parties a log of the communications as well as the communications. Hunton & Williams and Mr. Friedman are also expected to submit their own protocol for disclosure of communications. Samuel Issacharoff, Friedman's attorney and a New York University law professor, said in a March 5 letter to the court that Mr. Friedman and Ms. Ravelo have been friends for more than 20 years. They continued to socialize after each married, he said. Mr. Feliz, Ravelo's husband, was a former pro bono client of Mr. Friedman and Ms. Ravelo. "Once they both had children, the families grew close and often vacationed together. The communications we will produce reflect the scope of their relationship, including the fact that Mr. Friedman and Ms. Ravelo often discussed their work and their professional ambitions," Mr. Issacharoff said, adding that Mr. Friedman had no knowledge of any alleged fraudulent activity involving Ms. Ravelo and Mr. Feliz. Retailer Concerns Dozens of large retailers that objected to the settlements have raised concerns about the attorneys' communications. In American Express, the settlement objectors -- retailers including Target, Wal-Mart, 7-Eleven and Macy's -- said they're concerned the violations may implicate the pending motion for settlement approval and that "the elements of procedural and substantive fairness" may have been compromised. In Interchange, objecting retailers told Orenstein in a Feb. 25 letter that they deserve a full disclosure of all communications between Mr. Friedman and Ms. Ravelo that bear on the adequacy of the class representation and the procedural fairness of the settlement. They also said Mr. Friedman's work and the adequacy of his representation are directly relevant to a pending appeal of the settlement. "There must be some reason why seasoned lawyers would share documents over the course of years in apparent violation of protective orders and duties they owed to others in the litigation," said the retailers' lawyers, adding that retailers are "entitled to find out whether there was any quid pro quo or a personal relationship that introduced compromising influences and loyalties to the representation they received." The letter is signed by Jeffrey Shinder -- jshinder@constantinecannon.com -- a partner with Constantine Cannon and Michael Canter -- mjcanter@vorys.com -- a partner with Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, both of whom represent large groups of retailers, as well as Home Depot's lawyer, Steig Olson -- steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- a partner with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. At a late February hearing, Mr. Olson said, "If there was a compromising financial relationship, if there was a compromising personal relationship that would impact the ability of Mr. Friedman to independently represent [class members], that would be an incredibly significant fact." Mr. Issacharoff, Friedman's attorney, objected at the hearing to any "promiscuous character insinuation." He said, "It's not an occasion, because there were some AmEx materials discovered, to simply go into people's lives for the prurient interest of what may be found there." While noting concerns over "arm's length" negotiations for the settlement, Orenstein questioned whether Friedman's role would affect the Interchange litigation. Meanwhile, Ms. Ravelo's attorney, Steven Sadow, special counsel at Schulten, Ward & Turner in Atlanta, told the Law Journal, "We believe we will be entitled to full disclosure from Willkie as to all matters that relate to Ms. Ravelo." Dechert partner Robert Jossen, who represents Willkie, did not return a call for comment. A Hunton & Williams spokeswoman declined to comment. MEDCO HEALTH: Workers Lose Bid for OT Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------- Richard Newman, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that more than 160 former employees of Medco Health Solutions Inc. in Franklin Lakes have been dealt a legal, and perhaps financial, setback because a federal judge in Newark denied a request to allow a collective legal action that sought to recoup overtime pay. Former Medco employee Roberta Henry of Glen Rock in May filed a lawsuit against Medco acquirer Express Scripts Holding Co., alleging the company owed her and other ex-Medco employees more than $50 million because the prescription drug manager did not pay overtime to certain workers prior to January 2014. Ms. Henry's most recent title at Express Scripts was senior security administration analyst. However, U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler said in a Feb. 24 order that Henry, represented by Hackensack lawyer James W. Boyan III, "failed to make the modest factual showing required" and Judge Chesler denied their motion to certify the case as a collective action. A collective action is similar to a class action, in that plaintiffs can sue on behalf of a larger group. According to the lawsuit, prescription drug benefit manager Medco had classified Ms. Henry, and certain other of its workers, as managers, and did not pay them time and a half for overtime. Exempt or not The lawsuit alleged that St. Louis-based Express Scripts, which bought Medco in April 2012, had different worker classifications and did pay overtime to workers with job descriptions similar to Henry's if they worked more than 40 hours in a week. Up until January of last year, Express Scripts continued to treat the former Medco workers as if they were exempt from an overtime pay requirement, the lawsuit said. "Express Scripts has intentionally, willfully and repeatedly engaged in a policy, pattern and/or practice of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act," the lawsuit said. Court papers show Express Scripts has repeatedly denied that its decisions amounted to willful violation of the fair labor law. The company's lawyers did not respond Friday to a request for comment. Judge Chesler said in his Feb. 24 order that Henry must "produce some evidence beyond pure speculation of a factual nexus between the manner in which the employer's alleged policy affected her and the manner in which it affected other employees." Ms. Henry could not be reached Friday to comment and her attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment. MERCK & CO: Judge Approves Vioxx Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Toby Biddle, Esq. of Norton Rose Fulbright reports that on February 26, 2015, Justice Jessup of the Australian Federal Court approved a settlement which brought to end the long-running representative (class) action brought on behalf of consumers of the arthritis drug, Vioxx. The settlement approval follows an earlier judgment of Justice Jessup in 2013, in which he had refused to approve a settlement. The case has had significant implications for product liability class actions, especially actions involving pharmaceuticals and medical devices. In particular, the Vioxx litigation has highlighted the difficulties in prosecuting healthcare product liability cases as class actions given the importance of varying individual patient factors, notably on issue concerning causation of damages. This article looks at the key aspects of the decision and provides commentary on the implications for life sciences companies and insurers which cover product risks. History of proceedings Vioxx was alleged to have caused adverse cardiovascular side- effects in several arthritis patients. One such patient, Graeme Peterson, was the lead applicant in Federal Court proceedings brought on behalf of Vioxx consumers. In March 2010 Peterson was awarded damages against the supplier of Vioxx by Jessup J on the basis of a finding that a myocardial infarction (heart attack) suffered by Peterson was caused by Vioxx. Jessup J also made a number of findings on issues common to the remainder of the class. In October 2011 the Full Court of the Federal Court allowed an appeal against the judgment for Mr. Peterson and in May 2012 the High Court refused special leave. This resolved the individual claim of Mr. Peterson but did not resolve the claims of other group members of the proceedings (being other patients who alleged they had taken Vioxx and consequently suffered adverse cardiovascular effects). In April 2013 Mr. Peterson (through his lawyers, Slater & Gordon) brought an application in the Federal Court for approval of a settlement agreement to resolve the claims of the remaining group members. Under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, a representative proceeding can only be settled with the approval of the Court. The proposed settlement agreement involved establishment of a scheme by which group members needed to satisfy two sets of criteria, the first being a diagnosis of myocardial infarction, and the second being proof of use of Vioxx within a certain number of days prior to the myocardial infarction taking place. Satisfaction of the criteria would entitle group members to a share of the settlement. The settlement was capped at total payments by the respondents for the entire class of living group members of $497,500 and for the entire class of deceased group members of $45,000. A total of 1660 group members of Mr. Peterson's proceedings had registered their intentions to advance individual claims. The settlement also involved the respondents abandoning their claim for costs against Peterson arising from the trial and the appeals. On May 20, 2013 Jessup J declined to approve the settlement. Among other things, Jessup J took issue with the fact that the settlement made no discrimination between group members who had risk factors for myocardial infarction other than Vioxx consumption, and group members who might have had no other risk factors (one of the issues in Mr. Peterson's case was that he had risk factors other than Vioxx use). Jessup J also expressed misgivings concerning a potential conflict if the lead applicant's lawyers, Slater & Gordon, would have an ongoing role in determining whether group members satisfied eligibility criteria. Modified settlement agreement and its approval In November 2014 the parties put forward a modified version of the settlement agreement for approval by the Court. In his judgment on this application, Jessup J indicated that he considered the amount of the settlement (which was unchanged from the previous version) to be small -- he noted the maximum any individual group member would receive would be $4,629.36. However, he considered that the amendments had addressed his concern about the lack of discrimination among patients with different circumstances. From the judgment, this appears to have been done though the introduction into the settlement agreement of a points system, recognizing different circumstances of different group members and damages being allocated accordingly. Jessup J was also satisfied on the issue of conflict of interest of the lead applicant's lawyers having a role going forward in determining which patients qualified. This was because the relevant determinations had now taken place and were part of the settlement being submitted for approval. Even with these issues addressed, Jessup J expressed ongoing concern with the settlement and made a comment suggesting he had anticipated that individual cases of group members other than Peterson may have been brought forward to be tested against the answers to the common issues (noting that Ms. Peterson's individual claim had failed largely on individual causation issues). Despite these concerns, Jessup J noted the following considerations which favored the approval of the settlement: All group members had been informed of the terms of the proposed settlement and there had been very few objections. The objections which were made were not sufficient to stand in the way of approval of the settlement. No group member had applied to step forward to replace Peterson as the lead applicant. Jessup J commented that he did not see why Peterson, having run the case in the interests of other group members but having failed in his individual claim, should continue to be exposed to risk "in the interests of others who are content to remain below the parapet". The applicants could not be compelled to prosecute the case. If the proceedings were not resolved and were not prosecuted, the result would be that sooner or later the proceedings would be dismissed, meaning group members would get nothing and the lead applicant would still be faced with substantial costs orders. MERCHANTS CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hardin" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tenley Hardin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly v. Merchants Capital Services, Case No. 2:15-cv-01951 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making calls using an automatic telephone dialing system. Merchants Capital Services is a merchant cash advance provider for small to medium sized businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com MERRILL LYNCH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Mutual Fund Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Craig M. Walker, on behalf of the 401k Plan, himself and all others similarly situated v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., Bank Of America Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01959 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the fiduciary duties under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by charging excessive mutual fund fees. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York City, which offers capital market services, investment banking and advisory services, wealth management, asset management and other services throughout the United States and world. Bank Of America Corporation is a national bank with its headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina with operations in all 50 states. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Michael Walker, Esq. WALKER LAW LLP P.O. Box 19 Pound Ridge, NY 10576 Telephone: (917) 880-7686 Facsimile: (203) 968-1005 E-mail: WalkerLawLLP@aol.com NEVADA: Attorney Attempts to Revive Constable Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Carri Geer Thevenot, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that an attorney is attempting to revive a class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of people he claims have been victims of an "illegal shakedown" by deputy constables in Las Vegas. Attorney Jeffrey Barr originally filed the lawsuit last year on behalf of former Utah resident Nicole McMillen. The case centers on a $100 fee the constable's office charged when citing new residents for not having Nevada license plates. Mr. Barr had asked to add more than 14,000 people as plaintiffs in the case, but U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon ruled in January that Ms. McMillen could not pursue her lawsuit as a class-action case. The attorney filed an amended complaint March 2 and added two more plaintiffs to the case, for which he is again seeking class-action status. "The constable's office unjustly deprived at least 14,000 of their constitutional rights," Mr. Barr said on March 5. "This lawsuit seeks to vindicate those rights." The defendants' attorney has described the case as "frivolous." After numerous controversies, the Clark County Commission voted in 2013 to abolish the constable's office. That decision became effective Jan. 4, when Constable John Bonaventura's term ended. The Metropolitan Police Department since has taken over the office. Nevada law allows the constable's office to collect a $100 fee from the owner or driver of a vehicle that is not properly registered. After Ms. McMillen was cited in March at the upscale Turnberry Towers in Las Vegas, she obtained Nevada license plates but refused to pay the $100 fee. In her lawsuit, Ms. McMillen claimed Bonaventura and his office violated her due process rights because she was given no opportunity to challenge the collection process in state court. Ms. McMillen received a letter informing her that she had been issued a citation. It also said she could avoid having charges filed if she paid a $100 fee to the constable's office. "You are responsible for the $100 fee regardless of judicial adjudication," the letter noted. In June, Judge Gordon granted a preliminary injunction that barred the constable's office from collecting the $100 fee for improperly registered vehicles. His recent order lifted that injunction, and Barr has appealed that aspect of his ruling to the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Judge Gordon's recent order also dismissed Ms. McMillen's due process claim. The judge ruled that her claim was moot because the defendants have waived her fee and her citation has been dismissed. "There are some individuals who actually paid the fee in response to receiving the letter from defendants, and those individuals could challenge the statute's constitutionality and defendants' means of enforcing it," Judge Gordon wrote. The amended lawsuit adds two plaintiffs who paid the fee: Susan Rymer, who lived in Wisconsin at the time, and Ruby Kendrick, who lived in Arkansas. It also revives Ms. McMillen's due process claim and includes her claim that a deputy constable conducted an illegal search and seizure. In addition, the amended complaint adds Clark County and Metro as defendants. NEW CHINA EXPRESS: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Romero, Jr., on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. New China Express, Inc., New China Express - Oaklawn, Inc., Tim Cheong and Raymond Auyeung, Case No. 1:15-cv-02305 (N.D. Ill., March 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants provide restaurant food services in the Chicagoland area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Judge Dismisses Officers' Discrimination Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Keshner, writing for Law.com, reports that current and former New York City police officers who were referred to the department's counseling services for alleged alcohol abuse could not convince a federal judge they were victims of discrimination. Eastern District Judge Roslynn Mauskopf granted the city's summary judgment motion March 23 in MacShane v. City of New York, 05-cv- 06021, holding that the plaintiffs "have not made out an actionable claim that defendants discriminated against them on the basis of a perceived disability." In the 11 consolidated cases, the plaintiffs were referred to the police department's counseling services unit following alleged instances of alcohol-related misconduct. They denied the misconduct allegations and said the treatment requirements were pretextual, leading to stigmatization, suspension and termination. They argued the counseling unit used faulty diagnostic methods when evaluating them to inpatient and outpatient treatment. The suits pressed a number of legal claims, one being a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Judge Mauskopf said the city offered reasons for treatment requirements and discipline for those who did not comply that were "both non-discriminatory and responsive to legitimate concerns." She said the discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act failed because the plaintiffs did not present evidence "tending to demonstrate that the defendants' actions or procedures were influenced by discriminatory animus or bad faith." Linda Cronin of Cronin & Byczek in Lake Success appeared on the plaintiffs' papers opposing summary judgment. One of the plaintiffs, Derek Miller, opposed summary judgment in a pro se motion. Assistant Corporation Counsel Eric Eichenholtz, chief of the law department's labor and employment division, appeared for the city. In a statement, he said: "We are pleased that the court agreed that the NYPD acted appropriately and provides essential counseling services to our police officers." NORIDIAN MUTUAL: Sued Over Illegal Market Allocation Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------- Galactic Funk Touring, Inc., et al., v. Noridian Mutual Insurance Company, d/b/a/ Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, Case No. 3:15-cv-00025 (D.N.D., March 17, 2015), arises out of the illegal market allocation agreements that limit or prohibit competition between each of the Individual Blue Plans (including Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota) and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA). Noridian Mutual Insurance Company is a health insurance plan operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in North Dakota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg Wright, Esq. Charles T. Schimmel, Esq. WRIGHT SCHIMMEL LLC 6900 College Blvd., Suite 285 Overland Park, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 534-8534 Facsimile: (913) 534-8536 E-mail: greg@wrightschimmel.com chuck@wrightschimmel.com - and - David Boies, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Facsimile: (914) 749-8200 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Michael Hausfeld, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com - and - Chris T. Hellums, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C. 2001 Park Place N, 1100 Park Place Tower Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com - and - William A. Isaacson, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com - and - Gregory Davis, Esq. DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC 7031 Halcyon Park Drive Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 832-9080 Facsimile: (334) 409-7001 E-mail: gldavis@knology.net - and - Megan Jones, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 744-1970 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mjones@hausfeldllp.com - and - Kathleen Chavez, Esq. FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC 10 West State Street, Suite 200 Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone: (630) 797-3339 Facsimile: (630) 232-7452 E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com - and - Cyril V. Smith, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202-1031 Telephone: (410) 949-1145 Facsimile: (410) 659-0436 E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com NORTHERN TRUST: Cuts Securities Lending Profits ----------------------------------------------- Randy Diamond, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that Northern Trust Asset Management, BlackRock Inc. and State Street Global Advisors are giving clients a bigger chunk of the profits from securities that are being lent by their investment vehicles such as collective trusts, mutual funds and ETFs. The Securities and Exchange Commission began an industrywide sweep in the fall of 2013, examining affiliate relationships in securities lending, said Christopher Kemp, senior principal consultant at ACA Compliance Group Holdings LLC in Boston. The SEC has been looking at the issue since at least 2004, sources said. All three firms hire another unit of their company to conduct securities lending. Using affiliated entities also had been the subject of lawsuits by institutional investors, who maintained the amount of securities lending profits kept by the affiliates was too high. The latest manager to implement changes is Northern Trust. It changed the share of profits retained by its agent, Northern Trust Bank, to 30% from 40% for securities lending in most of the funds in the Northern Trust Global Investments Collective Fund Trust, according to information provided by Northern Trust, Chicago. "The fee changes were the result of an annual review of securities lending practices, market dynamics, risk management and other factors," spokesman John O'Connell said in a statement. BlackRock spokeswoman Tara McDonnell said in a statement the firm implemented its changes to more closely reflect each fund's objectives and lending capacity. BlackRock, New York, twice cut its share of the lending revenue it splits with investors in its iShares exchange-traded funds and in mutual funds. In the first quarter of 2014, company officials dropped a "one-size-fits-all" policy -- under which it kept a uniform 35% of the profits -- and began keeping between 15% and 30%, depending on the fund. In January of this year, BlackRock lowered its take to 28.5% on some of its investment vehicles, said Ms. McDonnell. The Laborers Local 265 Pension Fund, Cincinnati, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local No. 572 Pension Fund, Nashville, sued BlackRock in U.S. District Court in Nashville in January 2013, alleging it charged excessive fees by taking 35% of the profits from securities lending in its iShares ETFs and an additional 5% of the revenue to cover administrative fees. The case was dismissed that August on procedural grounds; last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. SSgA fee reductions SSgA, another major player in what is called third-party securities lending, began some fee reductions in 2010, cutting State Street's share to 30% from 50%. SSgA fund documents for 2014 show SSGA fund investors now get 85% of the profit from securities lending. State Street spokeswoman Anne McNally did not reply to multiple requests for information on when the reductions took place and what prompted them. State Street was the defendant in a class-action suit filed in April 2010 by one small Massachusetts 401(k) plan on behalf of hundreds of other retirement plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The suit alleged State Street took an "unreasonably large" -- 50% -- share of the net income generated from lending securities owned by a collective trust that the firm ran for the institutional investors. State Street's action amounted to "fiduciary self-dealing and enrichment in violation of the defendants' fiduciary obligations," the suit said. State Street settled the lawsuit last year, paying plaintiffs $10 million and agreeing to inform fund investors about details of the revenue split and other securities lending information. Last month, Northern Trust agreed to pay $36 million to settle a securities lending suit filed by 1,500 corporate pension plans. The suit said, among other things, that keeping 40% of the profits was unreasonable and the company violated ERISA's prohibitions against self-dealing and from engaging in transactions with parties in interest. Northern Trust still faces another suit by the approximately $14 billion Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System over the revenue split and losses incurred during the financial crisis. Northern Trust had disclosed to shareholders in April 2014 that it had received a subpoena from the SEC over its securities lending practices. Other publicly held third-party securities lenders -- including BNY Mellon Corp. unit The Drefyus Family of Funds, which hired its parents as its securities lending agent, and BMO Asset Management, which hired an affiliate for securities lending -- do not break out their revenue split for investors. Mike Dunn, a spokesman for BNY Mellon, in a statement cited other information Dreyfus provides for investors, including the extent to which funds can lend portfolio securities, information on cash collateral and the risks of securities lending. The statement did not explain why the revenue split was not included in the publicly disclosed information. Northern Trust, BlackRock and SSgA also are disclosing some of the same information. BMO financial group spokesman Nini Krishnappa said for "competitive reasons we're not able to disclose our fee split." NOVA SCOTIA: Reference Terms for Public Inquiry Nearly Complete --------------------------------------------------------------- Aly Thomson, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that with the terms of reference for a public inquiry into alleged abuse at the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children nearly complete, a former resident says they are another step closer to starting the healing process. People who used to live in the Halifax orphanage allege that they were subjected to physical, psychological and sexual abuse over several decades up until the 1980s. Chad Lucas, a spokesman for the province, said on March 6 that a group tasked with designing the terms of reference has been meeting with interested parties and the terms should be finalized in a few weeks. Tony Smith, a former resident of the home who is part of the group designing the terms of reference, said the inquiry will give former residents the chance to tell their stories. "And it would be the first time that they actually tell their stories," said Mr. Smith, adding that former residents will be able to do so publicly or anonymously. "I think once that's over, then they can really, truly start the healing process." Premier Stephen McNeil apologized in October for the abuse, acknowledging that the pleas of former residents for help went unanswered in what he described as a chapter in the province's history of systemic racism. The formal apology came after years of a struggle for recognition by the former residents. 40 complainants came forward Mr. Lucas wouldn't reveal any details about the terms of reference and he couldn't say when the inquiry process would begin, but he said it would start sometime this year. An array of people, including representatives from multiple government departments, the board of the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children and former residents, were part of the group designing the terms of reference, said Lucas. "People seem quite responsive and receptive to the direction it's been going," said Mr. Lucas. In March 2012, the RCMP and Halifax police began urging people to come forward with their allegations of abuse. Investigators interviewed 40 complainants in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, but by December of that year police said the information collected didn't support the laying of criminal charges because it could not be corroborated. Class-action lawsuits were launched by the former residents against the home and the provincial government, which eventually ended in settlements totaling $34 million. NOVARTIS CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Gender Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- Elyse Dickerson and Susan Orr, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Novartis Corporation and Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01980 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' gender discrimination practices against female workers. Novartis Corporation, based in New York, is a multinational corporation engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing, marketing, and sale of pharmaceutical and healthcare products. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. is a subsidiary of Novartis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Heisler, Esq. Alexandra Harwin, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER KIMPEL, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (646) 402-5656 Facsimile: (646) 402-5650 E-mail: jheisler@sanfordheisler.com aharwin@sanfordheisler.com - and - David Sanford, Esq. SANFORDHEISLER KIMPEL, LLP 1666 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 499-5201 Facsimile: (202) 499-5199 E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com - and - Felicia Medina, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER KIMPEL, LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1206 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 795-2024 Facsimile: (415) 795-2021 E-mail: fmedina@sanfordheisler.com NZR RETAIL: "Neitzke" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Neitzke, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. NZR Retail of Toledo, Inc., Case No. 3:15- cv-00508 (N.D. Ohio, March 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. NZR Retail of Toledo, Inc. owns and operates gasoline convenience stores and is headquartered in Toledo, Ohio The Plaintiff is represented by: Kera L. Paoff, Esq. WIDMAN & FRANKLIN Ste. 1550, 405 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (419) 243-9005 Facsimile: (419) 243-9404 E-mail: kera@wflawfirm.com OCAMPO ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Paredes" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Paredes, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Ocampo Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Supermercado Tampico, and Jose Ocampo, Case No. 1:15-cv-02317 (N.D. Ill., March 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a grocery store located at 516 Main St, West Chicago, IL 60185. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Class Actions After Staples Merger Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- On February 4, 2015, Staples Inc. and Office Depot Inc. entered into the Staples Merger Agreement under which the companies would combine in a stock and cash transaction. Office Depot said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit was filed on February 9, 2015, by purported Office Depot shareholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Court") challenging the transaction and alleging that the defendant companies and individual members of Office Depot's Board of Directors violated applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches. The plaintiffs in David Raul, v. Office Depot, Inc. et al. seek, among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees and costs. Subsequently, seven other lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware making similar allegations, namely Beth Koeneke v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Jamison Miller v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Eric R. Gilbert v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., The Feivel and Helene Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Office Depot, et al., Charles Miller v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., David Max v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., and Steve Renous v. Staples Inc. et al. Two lawsuits were filed in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, namely Keny Petit-Frere v. Office Depot, Inc., et al. and John Sweatman v. Office Depot, Inc., et al. Other lawsuits may be filed with similar allegations. OFFICE DEPOT: Defending Against "Heitzenrater" Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Office Depot Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that Heitzenrater v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York in September 2012 as a putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant store managers ("ASMs") as exempt employees. The Company believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss in the matter. OfficeMax intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. OFFICE DEPOT: Defending Against "Rivet" Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------- Office Depot Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that Kyle Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that Office Depot's use of the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method of pay was unlawful because Office Depot failed to pay a fixed weekly salary and failed to provide its assistant store managers ("ASMs") with a clear and mutual understanding notification that they would receive a fixed weekly salary for all hours worked. The plaintiffs similarly seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The Company believes in this case that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss in these matters. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in these lawsuits. OMNICARE INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Bario, writing for Law.com, reports that both sides got something to celebrate -- and also plenty to complain about -- in the March 24 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Omnicare v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund. Securities class action defendants everywhere can thank Kannon Shanmugam of Williams & Connolly for persuading the court that Omnicare Inc. can't be held liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 just because it offered opinions in a regulatory filing that later turned out to be incorrect. The justices unanimously rejected the position of plaintiffs counsel Thomas Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell, who argued that it didn't matter whether Omnicare believed its own statements at the time, as long as the statements were false. (Omnicare told investors in 2005 that it "believed" its contracts with drug suppliers were lawful; two months later the company disclosed kickback allegations that ultimately cost it nearly $200 million in government settlements.) The decision, however, was far from a total victory for Omnicare. The ruling also offered a road map -- albeit not an easy one -- for class counsel at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd to press ahead with the underlying case in federal court in Kentucky. The high court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which had revived the class action in 2013 after finding that the appropriate trigger for Section 11 liability was the objective falsity of Omnicare's statements. But the justices also rejected Omnicare's position that all "subjective" statements of opinion are immune from liability. "If a registration statement omits material facts about the issuer's inquiry into or knowledge concerning a statement of opinion, and if those facts conflict with what a reasonable investor would take from the statement itself, then Section 11's omissions clause creates liability," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the unanimous court. "Omnicare would nullify that statutory requirement for all sentences starting with the phrases 'we believe' or 'we think.' But those magic words can preface nearly any conclusion, and the resulting statements, as we have shown, remain perfectly capable of misleading investors." The court remanded the case back to the district court, where Robbins Geller can attempt to show that Omnicare omitted important details from its regulatory filing. To succeed, however, the plaintiffs will need to establish that any omitted facts were enough to contradict Omnicare's subjective statement that its pharma contracts were kosher. "The investor must identify particular (and material) facts going to the basis for the issuer's opinion -- facts about the inquiry the issuer did or did not conduct or the knowledge it did or did not have -- whose omission makes the opinion statement at issue misleading to a reasonable person reading the statement fairly and in context," the court concluded. Predictions about the March 24 ruling were all over the map following oral arguments in November, with some observers expecting a clean win for Omnicare and others betting that the justices would easily uphold the Sixth Circuit. In the end, as a lawyer for the U.S. Solicitor General's Office had urged in November, the court came out somewhere in the middle. Defendants, as Justice Kagan wrote, can't invoke "magic words" to shield outright misstatements from Section 11 liability under the guise of opinion. But they also won reassurance that they can't be easily sued for events beyond their knowledge and control. Securities plaintiffs, meanwhile, have the burden of proving that a defendant used opinion to obscure the truth. But if they're able to do that, they can still win. PACIFIC MARITIME: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Health Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Robes Meeks, writing for The Pasadena Star-News, reports that port dockworkers are suing terminal operators and ocean carriers along the West Coast for what they say are tens of millions of dollars in unreimbursed health claims. The Pacific Maritime Association, along with Zenith American Solutions and Cigna Inc., the current and former third-party administrators of the employee health plan for International Longshore and Warehouse Union workers, are named in a class-action lawsuit filed in federal district court in Los Angeles. The suit also names Pacific Maritime Association trustees who manage the plan, saying that they are not acting in the best interest of employees. Officials with PMA declined to comment, and Zenith and Cigna did not return calls or emails seeking comment on March 4. The union declined to comment, referring media calls to the office that manages the PMA health plan, which did not immediately respond. The plaintiffs, Lorena Armijo and Kristen Andrich, who are married to ILWU Local 13 members covered by the PMA Plan, and Dr. Ralph Mayer, a Los Angeles surgeon who specializes in obstetrics and gynecology, are among the thousands whose claims have not been repaid even though care and treatment was deemed necessary and covered by the plan, the claim alleges. The plan covers longshore workers along West Coast ports, including the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and their families. "I got involved because the PMA plan denied payment after I devoted my time and expertise. I saved patients' health, dignity and often lives and was never compensated," Dr. Mayer said. "The PMA plan promises their employees medical care, promises doctors payment and then denies both." Michael McClelland, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the case, would not disclose what medical procedures Armijo and Andrich needed to be reimbursed for, citing health privacy law. If PMA's health benefit plan violated federal law, the port employers could be on the hook for as much as $100 million in unpaid expenses, Mr. McClelland said. Some 300,000 claims range from surgical procedures to steroid injections. Hospitals and surgical centers are owed millions of dollars, he said. "The PMA health benefit plan agreed in past contracts with the ILWU to provide specific health care benefits to ILWU members and their beneficiaries," Mr. McClelland said. "This case is about the PMA's undeniable failure to honor its requirements under federal law to pay those benefits, which have resulted in devastating harm." The unpaid claims have forced doctors to drop patients while other patients opt not to seek necessary care, he said. "People are not getting care to avoid paying for a bill they are not responsible for," Mr. McClelland said. PMA and the other defendants named in the lawsuit have 20 days to respond. PLANET FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Tanning Room Cameras ------------------------------------------------------------ Breitbart reports that Planet Fitness has over 900 clubs nationwide, one of which, in Moline, Illinois, precipitated a class action lawsuit charging it with negligence from members using their tanning salon who were videotaped by hidden cameras while they were undressed. Attorney Thomas Zimmerman told the Quad-City Times, "We do know the first camera was discovered Nov. 5 in the tanning room, and the company did not notify any of the members of this camera and simply allowed them to continue in the tanning rooms. The second camera was discovered Nov. 6, and then after that, Nov. 7, was when they actually notified members that there were cameras." PRICELINE: York County Gets $20,000 From Tax Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Bristow Marchant, writing for The Herald, reports that if you've reserved a hotel stay in South Carolina through an online booking site, you may have inadvertently skipped out on paying taxes. Several local governments in South Carolina recently brought suit against a number of hotel sites, claiming the companies that manage web surfers' travel destinations had failed to pay the state's accommodations tax when they booked those trips. Now, a settlement is being offered that could give those governments a financial boost. Because the suit was brought as a class action -- meaning the cities and counties that sought back taxes were acting as representatives of all local entities in the state owed accommodations taxes -- every government in the state could benefit. On March 2, York County Council voted to accept its portion of the settlement, an estimated contribution to the county budget of $20,206.19. The money will benefit counties based on the proportion of accommodations tax they could have expected to receive if they had been paid all along. Initially, the suit was brought by areas with large concentrations of hotels: the cities of Columbia and North Charleston and Aiken and Charleston counties. Filed in July 2013, the suit targeted a dozen of the web's top hotel sites, including Priceline, Hotwire, Expedia and Orbitz. The companies eventually offered a settlement, which must still go before a judge to be approved, setting aside cash for each local government in proportion to what it would have collected prior to Aug. 1, 2014. York County was not a party to the original lawsuit, and most local governments contacted for this story said they were unaware of the lawsuit until informed they were eligible to receive the money. "We received a proposal of the settlement, and we could either opt out or take a proportionate settlement," said Michael Kendree, the York County attorney. As a member of the class covered by the suit, York County didn't need to take any action to collect the money, but Mr. Kendree still took the issue to county council for approval because council members had the option to either decline the money or opt- out in favor of launching their own suit against the hotel sites. But the council ultimately decided to accept the proposal. "It's seemingly a fair settlement," Mr. Kendree said. Other area governments also could collect their piece of the pie. Lancaster County Administrator Steve Willis has scheduled discussion of the settlement for a county council meeting later in the month, although he doesn't expect the county to receive much. "There are only two hotels in the county," he said. "It's not going to be millions of bucks." Likewise, Chester County Attorney Joan Winters said Chester County Council will likely take up the matter as well, although she estimates the rural county's share of the settlement could be "less than $1,000." Cities are also eligible to receive a settlement, but Rock Hill spokeswoman Katie Quinn said the city's attorney has not made a recommendation to pursue a piece of the settlement. QUALITY ACCEPTANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Asaf Agazanof, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quality Acceptance, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01952 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of contacting consumer on the cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system. Quality Acceptance, LLC is a privately owned company that purchases retail installment sales contracts from various types of dealers and provides consumers with secured and unsecured financing structures for the purchase of vehicles, furniture, water systems, jewelry, appliances, and home electronics. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com QUANEX BUILDING: Manipulates Window Spacers Market, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ATN Holding, Inc., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quanex Building Products Corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-00516 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), arise out of the Defendants' anticompetitive scheme to monopolize the wholesale and retail market for flexible window spacers used in the manufacture of insulated residential windows. Quanex Building Products Corporation is a Texas corporation that manufactures and produces flexible window spacers that are used in the assembly and manufacture of residential windows. The Plaintiff is represented by: William L. Buus, Esq. Eric M. Schiffer, Esq. SCHIFFER & BUUS APC 3070 Bristol Street, Suite 530 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949)825-6140 Facsimile: (949)825-6141 E-mail: wbuus@schifferbuus.com eschiffer@schifferbuus.com RESONANT INC: Faces "Paggos" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- John Paggos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resonant Inc., Terry Lingren, and John Philpott, Case No. 2:15-cv-01970 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Resonant Inc. is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principal executive offices at 110 Castilian Drive, Suite 100, Santa Barbara, California 93117. It is a development-stage company, which focuses on creating innovative filter designs for RF front-ends -- the circuitry in a mobile device responsible for analog signal processing -- for the mobile device industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com RONALD REAGAN UCLA: "Superbug" Outbreak Suits Likely to Increase ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew R. Brunkhorst, Esq., in an article for The National Law Review, reports that on February 18, 2015, the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center reported two patients had died after being infected with a "superbug," known as carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), during endoscopic procedures performed at its hospital. UCLA also reported that five additional patients were infected and up to 179 were exposed to CRE from October 2014 to January 2015. UCLA professed that the source of the CRE outbreak stems from contaminated Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) duodenoscopes used during endoscopic procedures to diagnose and treat diseases of the liver, bile ducts and pancreas. Despite UCLA's decontamination and sterilization efforts, which it claims exceeds the manufacturer's (Olympus Medical Systems Group) standards and national guidelines, these reusable scopes reportedly had residual body fluids and organic debris from prior procedures within the device's crevices. The presence of such material exposed subsequent patients to serious CRE infections. In response to the contaminated scopes, UCLA averred that the manufacturer's cleaning standards did not completely eradicate CRE and that either additional cleaning techniques are required or a significant redesign of the product is necessary. In addition to UCLA's announcements, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on February 19, 2015, released an alert to health care professionals, including those working in reprocessing units in health care facilities, explaining the particular challenge of effectively cleaning ERCP duodenoscopes. According to the FDA, the process of cleaning and disinfecting or sterilizing reusable duodenoscopes, known as "reprocessing," may be challenging due to its design and unique mechanisms. To prevent CRE transmissions, the FDA recommended device users to adhere to the manufacturer's cleaning instructions despite the devices inherent reprocessing difficulties. On February 20, 2015, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) also released a featured article reporting the rise of lethal CRE infections. According to the CDC, it has warned about CRE for more than a decade but the number of CRE infections has only substantially increased in recent years. In fact, the CDC reported a "seven-fold increase in the spread of the most common type of CRE during the past 10 years." The CDC also reported that CRE has been detected in at least one medical facility in 42 states. This considerable increase is alarming because of the antibiotic resistant nature of CRE and the fact that nearly half of those with a CRE infection die. As a result of the UCLA outbreak, product liability lawsuits were quickly filed by infected UCLA patients or their family against Olympus Corporation. See Young v. Olympus Am. Inc., No. BC573399 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County, filed February 23, 2015); The Estate of Antonia Torres Cerda v. Olympus Am. Inc., No. BC573665 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County filed February 25, 2015). These recent cases, however, are not the first time the issue of contaminated endoscopes were the subject of a lawsuit. See Alwine v. South Hills Endoscopy Ctr., No. GD-12-017815 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, filed September 24, 2012). In Alwine, plaintiff asserted a class action lawsuit against a medical center alleging its failure to properly clean, sterilize and disinfect endoscopes and thereby increasing the risk of contracting a viral or bacterial infection. In light of the escalating number of CRE infections and heightened public awareness of the UCLA CRE outbreak, additional lawsuits are likely to increase nationwide. With this in mind, it is imperative for manufacturers and device users to comply with federal and state regulations, particularly the mandatory reporting requirements for when an adverse event involving a medical device is discovered. See 21 C.F.R. Sec. 803. Manufacturers should also review their product's warnings, labels, and instructions to reduce CRE transmissions and limit potential liability. In addition, health care personnel should continue to strictly comply with manufacturer instructions and thoroughly explain associated risks to patients when using reprocessed endoscopic devices. SWEDBANK ROBUR: Attempts to Block Closet Tracking Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Madison Marriage, writing for The Financial Times, reports that Swedbank Robur, the asset management arm of Sweden's largest bank, has been accused of bullying its own clients in an attempt to block a class-action claim filed against the lender in December. The Swedish Shareholders' Association, which filed the claim on behalf of Swedbank investors, has accused the bank of mis-selling funds that charge high fees for active management but do little more than mimic an index. The practice, known as "closet tracking", has been widely condemned by academics, consumer groups and senior industry figures. Swedbank, which is being sued for SKr7 billion ($840 million), has denied its funds are closet trackers. More than 3,000 Swedbank Robur clients have signed up to the lawsuit, which is being closely watched across Europe as a test case for legal action against closet tracking funds. The claim was filed with Sweden's National Board for Consumer Disputes, known as ARN, but Swedbank has said ARN is not the appropriate authority to try this case. Swedbank added that if the authority tries the case and the bank is ordered to repay its investors, it might be forced to sue those clients in court. This would set a legal precedent in Sweden, where ARN decisions are rarely challenged by financial institutions in court. Carl Rosen, CEO of the Swedish Shareholders' Association, has accused the bank of pursuing "mafia" like tactics to intimidate the class action participants into dropping the case, comments that have been picked up in the Swedish media. Mr. Rosen told FTfm: "The fact that Swedbank says it is prepared to sue individuals in the class action and that this will mean considerable costs for them is extremely disturbing. This is not America in the 1930s, this is Sweden in 2015. We see this as an empty threat, but it is very aggressive behavior." Cecilia Hernqvist, communications director at Swedbank, described the accusations as "absurd". "To have this issue tested in court is completely normal," she said in a statement. Ms. Hernqvist told FTfm the bank is unhappy with ARN judging the case as the authority only accepts written evidence and it is not possible to appeal its decisions. "We think ARN is a very good authority for consumer disputes, but not for a group class action which comprises SKr7 billion and concerns an industry-wide issue," she said. "If this unfortunate situation leads to ARN choosing to try this matter, the consequences might be that we have to bring this to court. We do not want this to happen, however, we think it is important to understand that this could be the result." Maria Johannson, a lawyer at ARN, said the authority "is the right body to try this dispute", although it has not yet decided whether it will handle the claim. An executive at a rival Swedish bank described the legal dispute as "very damaging" for Swedbank's reputation as it is "extremely well followed" by the Swedish public. Ms. Hernqvist said: "So far 3,000 people have signed up [to the claim], which is not that many. Whether or not this has damaged our brand is too early to say." SYNGENTA: Debate Arises Over Seed Traits Commercialization ---------------------------------------------------------- According to High Plains Journal's Sara Wyant, ask just about any farmer leader if he supports science and innovation in agriculture and the answer will usually be a resounding "yes." But ask him about how to commercialize new seed traits and avoid sending those products to unapproved international markets, and there's little consensus. It's a debate that's been playing out in farm groups, federal agencies, in Congress, international markets and most recently in the courts. Flocks of lawyers are buying ads on the Internet and attending farm meetings across the U.S. in an attempt to recruit farmers to sue Syngenta, a seed and crop protection company based in Switzerland with U.S. headquarters in Minnesota. More than 750 lawsuits were filed. The global company sold over $15 billion in products last year. In the lawsuits, which are being consolidated in the U.S. District Court in Kansas, plaintiffs allege that they suffered financial losses in 2013 after China started to reject shipments of U.S. corn and distilled dried grains containing Syngenta's Agrisure Viptera (event MIR162). Of the 762 lawsuits, 696 were filed by individual plaintiffs (growers of non-MIR162 corn and exporters such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland), and 66 by putative classes of both growers of non-MIR162 corn and of exporters and others affected, Syngenta noted in a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Syngenta's corn, which has been engineered to protect against damage from insects such as corn borers and rootworms, was approved for use in the U.S. in 2010; Argentina and Brazil gave their blessing shortly afterward. After almost four years of trying to persuade the Chinese to approve the trait, Syngenta finally won approval last December. During the lengthy approval process, while China's demand for corn soared from under 1 million metric tons a year to over 5 million tons, the Asian giant originally approved imports containing the corn trait. However, in 2013, China stopped taking corn and DDGs -- rejecting entire shiploads and causing huge disruptions in the supply chain. Syngenta believes the lawsuits are without merit and "strongly upholds the right of growers to have access to approved new technologies that can increase both their productivity and crop yields," said Chuck Lee, who heads Syngenta's North American corn marketing, in a written response to Agri-Pulse. "The right to market a safe and effective grain that benefits farmers and consumers must be defended," he said. "Syngenta has done what a good company should do. We developed a superior product that helps farmers, we applied for and received government approvals from the U.S. and major export markets at the time and we submitted an import application to the Chinese government that was timely, accurate and complete," Mr. Lee added. Yet, the National Grain and Feed Association, which also says it "strongly supports agricultural biotechnology and other scientific and technological innovations," along with the North American Export Grain Association sent a letter to Syngenta in January 2014 asking the company to immediately halt commercialization of both its Agrisure Viptera corn and Agrisure Duracade "until such time as China and certain other U.S. export markets have granted required regulatory approvals/authorizations." NGFA also conducted studies that estimated up to $2.9 billion in economic losses have been sustained by the U.S. corn, distillers grains and soy sectors in the aftermath of the China's enforcement of a zero-tolerance policy on Syngenta's Agrisure Viptera MIR 162 corn technology in U.S. export shipments. Its analysis suggests actual losses could be much higher. The debate over commercialization and stewardship is sometimes pitting farmer against farmer -- even within associations like the National Corn Growers Association which has a long-standing policy in support of biotechnology. Take the case of former NCGA President Wallie Hardie, one of the plaintiffs suing Syngenta. While the North Dakota farmer would not provide specifics, he told Agri-Pulse he believes legal action is necessary because "what happened was significant in the corn and DDGs markets." Yet, another former NCGA president, Kansas Farmer Ken McCauley, has been encouraging farmers who are being recruited by lawyers to join the Syngenta lawsuits to "just say no, no, no." Farmers are "sending the wrong signal by joining the lawsuits, by basically "selling biotechnology providers down the river," McCauley said -- even describing some of his fellow farmers who joining in the lawsuits as "ambulance chasers." "China accepted the corn for two years before rejecting shipments and everyone knew the risks involved," he emphasized. Even lawyers don't always see eye to eye on the topic. While several legal firms are encouraging farmers to sign up for the class action lawsuit against Syngenta, San Antonio, Texas, attorney Martin Phipps has been advising his farmer clients to avoid being part of any class, where he says plaintiffs could end up getting "pennies on their dollar," versus an individual filing where he will provide expert witnesses to prove up individual losses. "If a farmer believes he has a case, it behooves him to sign up as an individual or else he will be lumped into a much larger class of plaintiffs," he argued. Phipps started working with farmers in 2006, after Bayer's GM LibertyLink trait had been found in U.S. rice supplies. Bigger questions surface While the legal challenges are ongoing, so is a much broader debate over how to handle the rejection of biotech traits in international markets. Val Giddings, a senior fellow with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said it is "completely understandable that farmers would get their noses out of joint and seek to recoup damages from the responsible party. But in my opinion, they are making a grave, strategic mistake going after Syngenta. "You could make the argument that Syngenta should not to have sold the seed to American farmers until the approvals were in hand in all of the appropriate big export markets. But to make that argument presupposes that those countries that are the export markets are honoring their commitments under the WTO (World Trade Organization) to make sure that they don't have protectionist trade barriers disguised as phytosanitary or other requirements. "The primary offender is not Syngenta, it's China," emphasized Mr. Giddings. "There is a severe disconnect between China's international treaty obligations and the way they are administering their system for the approval of new crop varieties. "These folks who sued Syngenta to recoup their losses would have been far wiser if they would have grabbed their pitchforks and torches and headed to the offices of the U.S. Trade Representative to demand that they initiate conversations in Geneva with China about the unacceptable deviations between their practices and their treaty obligations," Mr. Giddings added. "I don't understand why these plaintiffs have taken a shortsighted and long-shot approach when a more enduring fix is not difficult to imagine." Focus on USBCA Outside of the courts, representatives of several farm, grain trade and biotech companies have been meeting on a regular basis to try to develop better "rules of the road" for new product introduction. The U.S. Biotech Crops Alliance aims to find common ground on the introduction, stewardship and distribution of commodities and processed products containing or derived from modern biotechnology. The group has been working to communicate up and down the value chain about the risks associated with the introduction of a new biotech product and how to manage those risks. On the international front, participants are still grinding out how to establish protocols in international markets for low-level presence, ensuring that small amounts of unapproved seed varieties don't lead to another full-scale rejection of a grain shipment. But the effort to is still very complicated and may take many more years to resolve. And the longer it takes, the more reluctant some companies may be to bring new products to the market -- especially when you consider it takes about 13 years and $136 million to take a new biotechnology trait from the point of discovery through the domestic and international approval process, according to Syngenta. And that same trait may only enjoy a patent life of 20 years. TCP: Minority Shareholders Seek to Oust CEO Ellis Yan ----------------------------------------------------- Chuck Soder, writing for, Crain's Cleveland Business, reports that a lawsuit against TCP CEO Ellis Yan portrays him as a guy who runs roughshod over his management team and, in the process, minority shareholders. As a guy who acts like he owns the place. Technically, he does not own the place. Technically. But he still has a huge amount of control over the Aurora-based company -- a major player in the lighting products industry. So if you're a minority shareholder who agrees with the claims made in the lawsuit, know this: You have options, but it might be hard to replace Yan as CEO or make other big changes at the company. TCP general counsel Laura Hauser filed a lawsuit against Yan and the company itself. The suit alleges that Yan "physically assaulted" her, threatened her and pressured managers to release mislabeled products. It also claims that Yan barks orders, ignores company policies and makes big decisions without consulting other managers. Yan issued a statement saying the lawsuit is "meritless," but he argues that his "results-oriented leadership style" is the reason why TCP now has 7,000 employees worldwide and $400 million in sales. And to some degree, he can do things his way: He and his family own 70% of TCP's shares, and the family has agreed to let Yan choose who gets elected to the company's board. Some board members apparently do want Mr. Yan to make changes: The lawsuit states that TCP's audit committee told Mr. Yan he needs to "promptly and substantially" change the way he runs the company. But it's unclear if the entire board will force Yan to do so, given that he sits on the board and decides who sits next to him. Even so, minority shareholders who want a company to make changes do have some options, according to local lawyers who aren't affiliated with TCP. For instance, they could file more lawsuits. That's already happening in TCP's case, though the shareholders aren't leading the charge: Law firms have filed at least seven class action lawsuits claiming that TCP misled investors about its product certifications and other issues. None of them had announced a lead plaintiff as of last Thursday, March 5. Or they could file a shareholder derivative lawsuit -- a tool shareholders can use to sue third parties on behalf of the company itself. Those third parties can be company executives and directors believed to be harming the company. Getting religion Before they can file a derivative action, however, they have to petition the board to make changes. And sometimes that alone will prompt a board to make changes, according to attorney Christopher Hubbard, who leads the corporate securities group at Kohrman Jackson & Krantz of Cleveland. "Sometimes the threat of a derivative action can give the board more religion than they had," Mr. Hubbard said. Lawsuits also can be good tools for larger minority shareholders who want to change the makeup of a company's board. Maybe they don't control enough shares to sway who gets elected, but they can use lawsuits to put pressure on board members who may not want to go to court -- or give a deposition under oath, according to a local securities lawyer who did not wish to be named. Even so, lawsuits against board members sometimes don't inflict as much pain as one might think: They typically are provided with insurance that will compensate them if they lose a lawsuit. However, even small minority investors who can't afford to duke it out in court have other tools at their disposal. Like free speech. Shareholders can sometimes effect change by going public with their complaints, according to Scott Lewis -- slewis@meyersroman.com -- administrative partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis. Sure, a good argument might sway company leaders to make changes. But "the power to embarrass is another potential weapon," Mr. Lewis said. But what if shareholders at a company like TCP wanted to replace the CEO, who happens to own a supermajority of the company's stock? How could they do that if he alone has the power to elect board members? Two lawyers who asked not to be named said that would be particularly hard. He's the man And in TCP's case, removing Mr. Yan would come with additional complications. The company is "particularly dependent" on Mr. Yan, according to the registration statement TCP filed with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission last year, when it was preparing to go public. "Ellis Yan has major responsibilities with respect to sales, product development and overall corporate administration. We do not have a formal succession plan in place for Ellis Yan," the document stated. Plus, Mr. Yan, who grew up in China, is a key link to the company's multiple manufacturing plants in that country. His brother Solomon has been president of the company's Chinese subsidiaries since 1995. Of course, no matter how much control a large shareholder has, they do have at least one incentive to please smaller ones. If minority shareholders don't like a stock, they will sell it, which drives down the value of everyone's shares. And that's what TCP shareholders have been doing. When the company went public in June of last year, its stock initially sold for $11 per share, but the price dropped several times over the next two months and hovered in the $6 to $7 range in the months before Hauser filed her lawsuit. The suit caused the price to drop by more than 50%; it was trading at $2.72 on the afternoon of Thursday, March 5. In TCP's case, the board still might make changes. The company -- which technically is called TCP International Holdings Ltd. -- said in a statement that the claims against the business are "without merit." However, it did not comment on the claims against Mr. Yan. The statement said the audit committee is still investigating Hauser's claims. And according to the lawsuit, the committee had scolded Yan before the suit was filed. According to Mr. Hubbard, "that may be indicative that the board is trying to do the right thing." TIFFANY'S CABARET: Trial Begins in Strippers' Wage Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Guillermo Contreras, writing for San Antonio Express-News, reports that a federal trial was scheduled to begin on March 9 in a lawsuit filed by a pair of strippers who allege Tiffany's Cabaret shorted them on pay. Alexis Alex, 27, and Nicolette Prieto, 31, sued KHG of San Antonio LLC (which does business as Tiffany's) in 2013, alleging the club committed several violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The women worked at the Northwest Side club for four to five years before they filed suit. "Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to compensate the plaintiffs for all hours worked," the suit said. "That is, plaintiffs work more than forty hours a week on average. However, defendant pays plaintiffs for well below half of their hours worked and no pay at the premium hourly rate for overtime hours worked over forty in a work week. Consequently, plaintiffs were wrongfully denied their minimum wage and overtime due to 'off the clock' work required by defendant." The suit also said dancers were paid tips by customers for table dances, and that the club does not take a tip credit against the women's hourly rate. Yet, the suit alleges, Tiffany's violated the FLSA by requiring its dancers to split their tips with other workers who don't normally get tips, such as the "house mom, " bouncers and disc jockey, and are forced to pay a "house fee" to dance there. The tip pool, the suit said, is invalid. The suit seeks the wages the women claim they were shorted, plus attorney costs and fees. In a court-filed response, the club and its operators deny the allegations, said Ms. Prieto and Ms. Alex never worked more than 40 hours a week, made the "applicable" minimum wage for each hour they worked, and that they waited too long to sue beyond the two- year statute of limitations. "At all relevant times . . . defendant acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds to believe its actions were not in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act," the club said. Lawyers for the women claim that as a result of the suit, Tiffany's told employees to sign arbitration agreements, and that they must use that out-of-court process for any labor disputes. The trial before Senior U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth could last much of this week. A separate class-action lawsuit filed against Tiffany's by other strippers with similar wage dispute claims is pending before another federal judge. UNIT CORP: Plaintiffs' Claims Stayed Pending Certification Issues ----------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class certification issues are pending in the case, Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma. Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly, Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing related fees. "Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production. We have asserted several defenses including that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We have also asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease," the Company said. On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the supreme court for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a class of royalty owners that was slightly smaller than their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners entitled to royalties under certain leases located in Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma. In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where, in addition to the defenses described above, we argued that the amended class definition is still deficient under the court of civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification. Closing arguments were held on December 2, 2014. There is no timetable for when the court will issue its ruling. The merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class certification issues are pending. UNITED STATES: Federal Employees to Get Shutdown Lawsuit Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- Leada Gore, writing for al.com, reports that as many as a million federal employees will soon be notified they are eligible to participate in a lawsuit that arose from the 2013 government shutdown. Government employees will receive notification from the Justice Department through their federal email accounts, Government Executive reports. The notice will advise them of their rights to join the suit and the possibility there may be compensation from it. The original suit was filed last year by a small group of Bureau of Prison employees and later expanded to class-action status. It covers all federal employees who worked during the 2013 government shutdown but saw their paychecks delayed. The suit alleges the government violated the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act delaying pay for employees who remained on the job during the 16-day shutdown. The suit asks for exempted employees to be reimbursed at a rate of $7.25 per hour times the number of hours they worked for the pay period between Sept. 22 and Oct. 5, 2013 as well as any overtime. The act requires the government to pay workers at least minimum wage, as well as any overtime pay, on their scheduled payday. By delaying pay during the shutdown, the workers technically received pay below the minimum wage, the suit contends. Federal employees must join the lawsuit to recover any damages. The email will tell eligible employees they have 105 days from today to sign on to the suit. As many as 800,000 federal workers, including 400,000 from the Department of Defense, were furloughed at the start of the shutdown on Oct. 1. UNITED STATES: ACLU Searches for Deportees for Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Jean Guerrero, writing for KPBS, reports that the American Civil Liberties Union has started searching for deportees in Mexico who may be eligible to return to the United States as part of a class- action lawsuit against the federal government. The campaign was launched after U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt gave the ACLU a green light to broaden its class of plaintiffs. Eleven plaintiffs and three Southern California immigrant-rights groups accused the federal government of coercing the plaintiffs, all Mexican immigrants, into signing voluntary return forms. By signing the forms, the plaintiffs forfeited their rights to an immigration hearing and, in some cases, were subject to a 10-year prohibition of legal re-entry. The lawsuit was brought against the U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration Customs and Enforcement in 2013. The lawsuit was settled last year, allowing plaintiffs like Isidora Lopez-Venegas to return to the U.S. A single mother and elementary school teacher, Lopez-Venegas spent three years exiled in Mexico with her U.S.-citizen son. "I felt paralyzed," she said in an interview. Ms. Lopez-Venegas said she signed a voluntary return form because immigration officials threatened to take away her son if she didn't. "I became afraid. I became so nervous," said Ms. Lopez-Venegas, who now lives in San Diego. "They were intimidating me, threatening me, and that's why I got scared and said, 'OK, I'll sign it.'" Deportees qualify to join the ACLU's class-action lawsuit if they signed the voluntary return form between June 1, 2009, and August 28, 2014. They must have been deported to Mexico from the San Diego or Los Angeles field offices, and they had to have reasonable claims to reside in the U.S. at the time of signing. Reasonable claims include having qualified for the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or having paperwork in process for an immigration status change. They could additionally claim that they had a citizen spouse, that they had lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years or had family members with citizenship or green cards. "We are working with a lot of different organizations across California and throughout Mexico in order to diffuse this information as widely as possible," said Gabriela Rivera, a staff attorney for ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. As part of the 2014 settlement, the federal government agreed to provide immigrants with detailed information about the consequences of signing a voluntary return form in the future. Immigration officials will also allow ACLU attorneys to monitor their compliance with the settlement for a period of three years. The ACLU has four months to find possible additional plaintiffs for its class-action lawsuit. It will then file applications on their behalf through Dec. 22. UNITED STATES: 7,000+ Immigrant Children Face Deportation --------------------------------------------------------- Kate Linthicum, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that more than 7,000 immigrant children have been ordered deported without appearing in court since large numbers of minors from Central America began illegally crossing the U.S. border in 2013, federal statistics show. Flawed legal system The high number of deportation orders has raised alarm among immigrant advocates, who say many of those children were never notified of their hearing date because of problems with the immigration court system. In interviews and court documents, attorneys said notices sometimes arrived late, at the wrong address or not at all. In some cases, children were ordered to appear in a court near where they were initially detained, rather than where they were living, attorneys said. "What was a border crisis has now become a due process crisis," said Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, an advocacy group. Immigration activism In February, dozens of advocacy groups asked the government to temporarily stop issuing removal orders when a child fails to appear in court, and to reopen cases in which deportations were ordered. Unprecedented numbers of immigrant children started showing up at the southern U.S. border in the fall of 2013. Many traveled without an adult and said they were fleeing rising gang violence in Honduras and El Salvador. Heavy caseload The government filed deportation cases against 62,363 minors between October 2013 and January of this year, according to federal data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. At least 7,706 of them were ordered removed after they failed to show up in court. It is not known how many of those children were aware of their hearings and chose not to appear. It is also not known how many have actually been sent home. According to the most recent data available from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that carries out deportations, 1,901 unaccompanied immigrant children were deported from the United States in fiscal year 2014, but some of those cases may have predated the recent surge. Reports of notification errors come as the Obama administration has sped up deportation hearings for arriving youth -- in part to dissuade others back home from making the journey north. Last summer, Obama instructed courts to realign their dockets so underage immigrants would appear before a judge within 21 days of ICE officials filing a deportation case against them. Previously they would wait months or more than a year for their initial hearing. Immigrant advocates say the crush of fast-tracked cases may have overwhelmed the courts. Kathryn Mattingly, a spokeswoman for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which administers the courts, said immigrants who don't appear are ordered removed "when the immigration judge is satisfied that notice of the time and place of the proceeding was provided to the respondent at the address the respondent provided." Ms. Mattingly said she could not comment on alleged notification errors because her agency is fighting a class-action lawsuit demanding that the government provide attorneys to immigrant children. The case includes several plaintiffs who say they did not receive proper notice to appear in court. A federal judge in Washington state was to hear arguments on March 6 on the government's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups. In an indication that the government is aware of some problems, immigration officials recently reopened the case of one of the plaintiffs, a 17-year-old from El Salvador who was ordered deported in September for failing to appear at his hearing. In court documents, government attorneys said officials had "uncovered some discrepancies" that called into question whether he had received notification of his court date. Immigrant advocates say they have heard of hundreds of similar problems, some of which were detailed in last month's letter demanding that judges stop ordering deportations when children fail to show up. The letter cites a Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service attorney who said that at one point last year, only one of her 13 clients had received a notice to appear before their first hearings. Another advocate said a child was ordered to appear in court in New Orleans while still in government custody in Virginia. The head of the union that represents immigration judges said she had seen notification problems in her own San Francisco courtroom. In one case, a notice was sent to a rural address where the child lived, instead of the P.O. box where the child's family received mail, said Dana Leigh Marks, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. "Our system is far from foolproof," Ms. Marks said. "It's a difficult situation to try to know what percentage of those cases are innocent errors and lack of understanding, and which percentage of people who do not appear are consciously trying to avoid the process." Ms. Marks said she often gives immigrants a second chance to appear before ordering them deported. But she said other judges do not, perhaps because of their interpretation of a 1996 law that stiffened the consequences for immigrants who fail to show up. Advocates for stricter enforcement of immigration laws said they were also concerned by reports that the government has failed to notify children of their court dates. "They're supposed to know where these kids are going when they release them," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. He said he also suspects some people may receive notices but choose not to go to court because they believe they can live in the country undetected. "They know that nobody is coming out looking for them," Ms. Mehlman said. "The reason we had this surge is that people understood that these laws weren't being enforced." VOCE COLUMBUS: "Mahbub" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Malik Mahbub, Mohammad Anwarul Islam, and Nizam Uddin, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly-situated v. A Voce Columbus LLC, Marc Ltd., and Marlon Abela, in his individual and 15 professional capacity, Case No. 1:15-cv-01990 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant located at 10 Columbus Circle, Third Floor New York, NY I 00 I9. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph D. Nohavicka, Esq. MAVROMIHALIS PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP 3403 Broadway Astoria, NY 10006 Telephone: (718) 777-0400 Facsimile: (718) 777-0599 E-mail: jnfirm@aol.com WAGNER BROTHERS: Grantham Residents Mull Quarry Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Australian reports that Grantham residents in the Lockyer Valley, inland from Brisbane, are considering launching a class action against the former owners of a nearby quarry following a new investigation that suggests the quarry contributed to the severity of the 2011 flooding of the town. The Queensland government has also left the door open for another inquiry into the flood that killed 12 people and was the most traumatic event of the flooding throughout much of Queensland in early 2011. An original government inquiry into the January flood -- under first the ALP administration of Anna Bligh and then the Liberal National Party administration of Campbell Newman -- found that the presence of the quarry had helped to slow the rapid progress of water towards the town. But an investigation by hydraulic engineers DHI, commissioned by The Australian, concluded that the original inquiry had underestimated the extent of the collapse of an embankment wall at the quarry. The original inquiry, which used the technical expertise of SKM and its expert hydrologist Phillip Jordan, found that only 55m of the embankment wall had collapsed, but the DHI inquiry found that 260m of the wall had collapsed. The DHI report found that the flooding of Grantham was inevitable after rainfall of up to 600mm in an hour had been recorded in the area in the hours before the flood. However, it found the larger collapse of the wall than that claimed in the previous inquiry meant the flood had occurred quicker and there was less time for evacuations. The quarry owner at the time of the flood, Toowoomba-based Wagner Brothers, has always said the embankment was part of the natural landscape, but many locals claim it was man-made. A spokesman for Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said yesterday the government would "seek advice" about the findings of the report commissioned by The Australian. Victoria-based law firm Maddens has undertaken several site visits to Grantham and spoken to residents. The firm says that in many instances its observations are at odds with the account of events in the SKM report. Maddens has made a formal demand on Wagner Brothers requesting an admission of liability or voluntary mediation. No admission has been forthcoming and no voluntary mediation has taken place, and Maddens is considering launching legal action. Maddens lawyers will soon hold a meeting of affected property owners and flood victims. Maddens lawyers class action principal Brendan Pendergast, who has led the investigation on behalf of residents, said the original SKM report had been based on incorrect assumptions, and that the direct evidence of witnesses should be preferred over modelling outcomes when the two were at odds. "While it is accepted that the flood levels in the Lockyer Valley on 10 January 2011 were very high, that fact alone does not explain the inland tsunami which caused the tragic loss of life and the unprecedented property damage which occurred in Grantham," Mr. Pendergast said. "Our investigations point to the intervening influence of a man-made quarry wall which distorted the flood flow . . . This was not an act of God. This devastation was brought about by human intervention. It could have been avoided." The Wagner family strongly believes in the original expert finding, supported by the floods inquiry, that the quarry gave the townsfolk more time and slightly reduced the Grantham flooding. WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Burns" Suit Over Product Misbranding ------------------------------------------------------------ John Burns, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 4:15- cv-00157 (E.D. Ark., March 17, 2015), arises out of false and misleading statements in connection with the sale of its Spring Valley(TM) brand supplements that it contain major ingredients listed on the product label, when in fact it failed to contain the medical herbs represented on the label but rather contain various filler ingredients that were not listed on the label. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Bentonville, Arkansas. It is the world's largest retailer, and operates more than 4, 100 retail stores in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Joseph Henry "Hank" Bates III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC 2800 Cantrell, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com Hbates@cbplaw.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (866) 367-6510 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com nkulesa@zlk.com * D&O Liability Insurance Vital for Independent Directors --------------------------------------------------------- Priya Nair, writing for Business Standard, reports that top officials of three brokerages were recently arrest ed for their alleged involvement in the NSEL commodities scam. They have been charged with cheating, criminal conspiracy, forgery of documents and inducement for cheating and will be tried in court. In such circumstances, while there are legal implications, there is a financial side, too, for the company and individual. Will the expenses incurred in fighting such cases be paid for under the Directors & Officers Liability Insurance (D&O)? D&O insurance, offered by general insurance companies, will cover for legal cases filed against directors and officials in managerial positions until proved guilty. If the officials are proved guilty, the cover will cease. The insurance company has the right to recover the expenses (paid by it if individuals are proved guilty) from the company, says Sanjay Datta, chief- underwriting & claims, ICICI Lombard General Insurance. D&O, taken by a company for individual directors, was envisaged as a cover to protect directors from the financial perspective if any case was filed against them, by any shareholder, customer, vendor or other third party. This is because even if the case is against the company, it is the director who is the face. Its importance increases especially in the event of death of the director or if the director leaves the company. There could be cases pending against him/her or a case could be filed against some decision taken by the director, after he/she has left the company. In such a case too, the policy taken by the previous company will cover the case because the D&O policy pays for current directors and also past directors, for a certain period. Typically, the policy covers the director up to three to six years after the individual has left the company. If the company does not take a D&O policy, then the official is liable to pay the legal costs from his pocket. The premium for a D&O policy works out to 0.5 per cent of the limit of the cover or sum assured. For a Rs 100-crore cover, the annual premium works out to Rs 50 lakh. Among instances where a director of the company could be liable to face legal action include regulatory investigations, accounting irregularities, exposures relating to mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance requirements, shareholder/stakeholder complaints, complaints related to mismanagement of funds, unfair allotment of shares, using insider information, unwarranted dividend, salary, compensation, unfair dismissal of an employee, etc. Initially, only directors were covered under the policy. Later on it was extended to officers too. This includes all officers who take managerial decisions, that is, officials ranked lower than the CEO, says Datta. "Today, with so much importance on corporate governance under the new Companies Act, any stakeholder can file a case against the company's director or official. While it is important even for proprietary firms to take D&O insurance, in India only listed companies take it, since it is not mandatory. But if you want to list on the New York Stock Exchange, for instance, taking a D&O cover is mandatory," he says. According to K K Mishra, CEO, Tata AIG General Insurance, D&O cover is particularly useful for independent directors. "The new Companies Act has the provision for class action suit. So, there could be cases filed against the independent companies, even if they are not involved in any wrongdoing. In such cases, it is important for companies to take D&O cover," he says. For instance, in the Satyam scam, the D&O cover paid for defense costs of independent directors, but not the directors who were found guilty of perpetuating the fraud. If the court awards compensation to the complainant, then the cover will pay for it only if it is proved that there is no breach of law, says the CEO of Vantage Insurance Brokers & Vantage Wealth Management Service. "It varies on a case-to-case basis. If there is no negligence on part of the director or if the wrong doing is due to an oversight, but the court asks the company to pay compensation, then that would be typically covered by the insurance," he says. Instances of insurance companies recovering the defense costs from the corporation if fraud is established, however, are very rare, says Datta. It can only be done by filing a counter case against the corporation. "It is like trying to recover a bad loan," he says. Nevertheless, why take chances, when the stakes are so high. * Securities Settlement Values Hit 16-Year Low in 2014 ------------------------------------------------------ Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Law.com, reports that securities class action litigation has been lucrative for plaintiffs attorneys in the years following the financial crisis. Shareholders squeezed during the Great Recession have gotten some blockbuster settlements after 2008, but it looks like 2014 may signal the end of big paydays for these plaintiffs. The latest iteration of an annual report by legal and regulatory consulting firm Cornerstone Research shows that in 2014 total settlement dollars paid out in these cases have reached a 16-year low. "It's been a very unusual year," Laura Simmons, a senior adviser at Cornerstone and one of the report's authors, told CorpCounsel.com. The numbers are striking. According to the report, total settlement dollars paid out in securities class actions in 2014 declined 78 percent compared with the previous year. This was 80 percent lower than the average for the nine years leading up to 2014. The average settlement size dropped drastically as well -- from $73.5 million in 2013 to $17 million in 2014. However, there was almost the same number of settlements in 2014 as the year before -- 63 and 66, respectively. The median settlement values, which represent the typical case in a given year, remained relatively close too. In 2014 the median suit settled for $6 million, down only $600,000 from the previous year's. The dramatic decrease in the average settlement value versus the much smaller decrease in median value seems to indicate that what made 2014 different was that it lacked some of the big-ticket settlements of recent years, for example, the nearly $2.5 billion securities class action settlement Bank of America agreed to in 2013. Indeed, according to the report, there was only one mega- settlement (categorized by Cornerstone as being equal to or above $100 million) in 2014, a $265 million settlement with Massey Energy Co. that came on the heels of a massive coal mine disaster. In contrast, 2013 had six mega-settlement payouts. Many of these huge settlements were negotiated in cases involving financial firms in the aftermath of the financial crisis. "What's changed this year is that we have a much smaller proportion in the financial industry, because we've really gotten through the resolution of the credit crisis cases," said Simmons. Only 11 percent of cases settled in 2014 were brought against entities in the financial sector. The lower number of credit crisis and finance cases, the report explained, also likely influenced the lower average of "estimated damages" awarded to plaintiffs in 2014. Estimated damages are Cornerstone's simplified calculation of potential shareholder losses, and are used to predict settlement amounts. The average value of estimated damages for securities class actions in 2014 was lower than it has been in 12 years. The lower calculation of average estimated damages this past year also might be because of an overall lessening of market volatility. According to the report, increased estimated damages are correlated with increased market volatility around the time of case filing, which is often between two to four years before a case settles. So it appears that the lower estimated damages have finally caught up to the less volatile market in 2014, unlike the past few years where the cases settling were initiated at a time when the markets were less stable. * Supreme Court Limits Suits That Challenge Company Opinions ------------------------------------------------------------ Tony Mauro, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on March 24 limited, but did not erase, the liability that companies face when they offer opinions or predictions in securities filings that turn out to be wrong. "A statement of opinion is not misleading just because external facts show the opinion to be incorrect. Reasonable investors do not understand such statements as guarantees," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the March 24 decision in Omnicare Inc., et al. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund. But she went on to say that if a company's filing omits material facts about the statement of opinion that would conflict with what a "reasonable investor" might take from the statement, the company could be liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act, which bars "untrue statement[s] of material fact." Investors had sued the pharmaceutical company for what they alleged were false statements made in its initial public offering in 2005, including: "We believe our contract arrangements with other healthcare providers, our pharmaceutical suppliers and our pharmacy practices are in compliance with applicable federal and state laws." The statement hid the fact that the company was involved in illegal kickback arrangements, the lawsuit alleged. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sided with the investors, ruling that the case could go forward with the mere allegation that the company's statement of opinion was "objectively false," even if company officials believed the statement at the time it was made. That strict standard alarmed business advocates, and the high court rejected it on March 24. Justice Kagan said the Sixth Circuit wrongly viewed the securities laws as "an invitation to Monday morning quarterback an issuer's opinions." The court sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit for review in light of the new ruling. A statement from Omnicare applauded the decision: "Under the legal standard the Supreme Court announced on March 24, plaintiffs' case against Omnicare is without merit and should be dismissed." The ruling is something of a compromise between the positions of both sides, but it appeared to give companies more ammunition in combatting so-called "opinion litigation" in securities cases. Mere proof that the opinions were wrong won't be enough to make a claim, the court said. But Justice Kagan also told companies that merely adding the "magic words" "We think" or "We believe," won't immunize companies from liability. "If a statement is sincerely held and a pure opinion, the court clearly holds that there is no liability . . . regardless whether an investor can ultimately prove the belief wrong," said Matthew Matule -- matthew.matule@skadden.com -- a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. "Overall, the Omnicare decision helpfully restricts the kind of unrestrained opinion litigation that the court of appeals decision below would have fostered," Mayer Brown partner Joshua Yount -- jdyount@mayerbrown.com -- said. Scott Nelson of Public Citizen, which filed a brief supporting the investors in the case, said the decision may make it harder for plaintiffs to challenge misleading statements by corporations. "The opinion may go too far in limiting the circumstances in which statements in the form of opinion can actually be construed as statements of fact," Mr. Nelson said. The decision was unanimous in its basic holding, though Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas quarreled with some of the reasoning. ********* 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 * * *