/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150515.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 15, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 97 Headlines 2429 LINCOLN: Faces "Granados" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ABM SECURITY: "Thomas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ACCREDO PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims ADS WASTE: Class Actions on Improper Fees in Early Stage AKORN INC: Faces "Sarzynski" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ALFRESCO HOME: Recalls Charcoal Products AMBIT ENERGY: Wittels Firm Files Class Action Over Consumer Fraud AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Tiemann" Suit Over Anti-Steering Rules AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Discriminatory Policies ANTHEM INC: Warren Woman Files Data Breach Class Action ASCOM NETWORK: "Fletcher" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Law ASTRAZENECA PLC: Israel Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Cert. Motion ASTRAZENECA PLC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Nexium Consumer Suit ASTRAZENECA PLC: Amylin Faces Byetta/Bydureon Liability Cases ASTRAZENECA PLC: 707 Crestor Plaintiff Claims Remain in Calif. ASTRAZENECA PLC: 40 Nexium Product Liability Claims Still Active ASTRAZENECA PLC: Amylin Among Defendants in Onlgyza Lawsuits ASTRAZENECA PLC: Defending 2 Seroquel IR Cases ASTRAZENECA PLC: 2 Antitrust Suits Filed in Pennsylvania Pending AXA EQUITABLE: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Yale" Action AXA EQUITABLE: No Update on Motion to Dismiss "Zweiman" Action AXA EQUITABLE: Court Stayed Motion to Transfer "Shuster" Action BARNES & NOBLE: Trial Date Set in "Nguyen" Case BARNES & NOBLE: 2nd Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending BARNES & NOBLE: Hearing Held on Motion to Remand "Lina" Case BARNES & NOBLE: Court Stayed All Proceedings in "Jones" Case BARNES & NOBLE: May 28 Pre-Trial Conference in "Carag" Case BARNES & NOBLE: No Ruling Yet on Joint Request in Trimmer Case BMW: Faces Class Action Over TwinPower Turbo Engine Claims BRARA GEOLOGIC: Faces "Gotcher" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CAMP JOHN HAY: BCDA Pres. Calls on Sub-Lessees to File Class Suit CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Garrison Security Safe Digital Locks CAPE BANCORP: Seeks Class Action Status With Colonial Financial CFS ROOFING: Faces "Picard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CHICAGO-ILLINOIS: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime CHRYSLER: Recalls Grand Cherokee Models COAST MATERIALS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages COLORADO: OCC Faces July 1 Reauthorization Deadline CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Takes Motion to Dismiss Under Submission CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Granted Motion to Stay Rajasekaran Suit DUCATI: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Defective Shock Absorber ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Faces Class Action Over Water Waste ERMINIA RESTAURANT: Illegally Prints Cards Expiration, Suit Says EXPEDIA: North Charleston Agrees to Settle Hotel Tax Suit EXPRESS SERVICES: Scope of Discovery Bid in Stoddart Case Denied FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defending Against Tank Exchange Biz Claims FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Propane Service Case Has Not Been Certified FOREST RIVER: Faces Class Action; 8,000+ Starcraft Buses Recalled FOREST RIVER: Recalls Launch and Ar-One Starcraft Bus Models FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Canyon & Colorado Models GUGLIELMO & ASSOC: Final Approval Order in Hernandez Case Vacated GULF SOUTH: SE Louisiana Flood Protection Litigation Dismissed HERD ENTERPRISES: "Masi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Court Approved Class Action Settlement INTERACTER INC: Recalls Battery Chargers INVENTURE FOODS: Montantes Federal Class Action Dismissed INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Class Action J. STAFF: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Underwriters' Labor suit for $950,000 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Metal Leaching Risk Part of Class Action KAMADO JOE: Recalls Natural Charcoal Products KILLARNEY MARKET: Recalls Ground Beef Due to E. Coli KIRKLAND SIGNATURE: Recalls Natural Creamy Peanut Butter LEAD SERVICES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Chahal" Suit Claims LHC GROUP: Insurance Carrier Will Fund $7.9MM Settlement Amount M-QUBE INC: Cullan Has Until Aug. 13 to File Class Cert. Motion MAGO'S I: Faces "Palma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MATTHEW CATE: Sept. 24 Final Hearing on Mitchell Suit Settlement MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Evaluating Claims in Retirement System Suit MISSISSIPPI: DOC Wants Walnut Grove Settlement Decree Terminated MOBILEIRON INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports MXI CORP: Illegally Promotes Pyramid Scheme, "Martinez" Suit Says NATIONAL CORRECTIVE: Ordered to Stop Debt Collection Threats NEW YORK, NY: Public Housing Residents Seek to Enforce Settlement NICK & HOWARD: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over Discriminatory Policies NORDIC CRYOBANK: Sued Over Failure to Screen Sperm Donor NOVA BUS: Recalls LFS Models OCEAN POWER: Shareholder Litigation in Preliminary Stages OM SAMBA: Faces "De La Torre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PANDA EXPRESS: Settles Managers' OT Class Suit for Up to $2.98MM PARADIES SHOPS: Removed "Frazier" Suit to S.D. California PEDEGO INC: Recalls Ion Rechargeable Batteries Due to Fire Hazard PETROBRAS: AP1 Mulls Suit Over Corruption Scandal PINGTAN MARINE: Defending Against "Fila" Case PNC BANK: Faces "Dobson" Suit Over Forced-Placed Insurance RHODE ISLAND: Social Service Providers File Class Action RHODE ISLAND: Retirees' Pension Suit in Legal Limbo RJR PENSION: Supreme Court to Hear Reverse Stock-Drop Case ROLL N GO: "Wijaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SANOFI: Court Dismissed CVR Class Actions in Their Entirety SCENIC TOURS: Faces Class Action; April 2016 Hearing Set SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Court Certified Class in "Ubaldi" Action TAISHAN GYPSUM: Homeowners Await Ruling in Chinese Drywall Suit TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Actos Drug TNUVA FOOD: Donates to Animal Welfare Groups to Avert Suit UNITED STATES: Paid $3.3 Billion to Resolve Lawsuits in 2014 UPM MARKETING: Expands Recall on Voltage Thermostats URBAN OUTFITTERS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Denied VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaiting Court's Ruling in Israel Class Action VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Securities Case VIACOM INC: Says $7.2MM Intern Class Action Settlement Reasonable WE WASH: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages WORLD FUEL: Lac-Megantic Train Derailment Class Action Pending * Landowners Balk at Pennsylvania's Handling of Royalty Issue * Maryland Introduces Bill on Indigent Bail Hearing Representation * Milwaukee Gas Companies Defend Suits in Supreme Court * NY Officials Push for Right to Counsel Bill for Poor People * TRC Wants Mandatory Education on Canadian Residential Schools * Victims of Financial Wrongdoing Need More Help from SEC Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Telephonic Appearance ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals in "Brown" Suit Consolidated ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay Granted in "McCloskey" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: MD Fails to Win Summary Judgment in NY Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9 NY Fibro Suits Consolidated for Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont, ArvinMeritor Dropped in "Bell" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Abex Wins Dismissal of "Ricks" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assoc. Allowed to File Amicus Brief in NY Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Allowing Equipment in "Kelly" Trial Issued ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Denies Enforcement of "Bartel" Deal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $15.9MM Fibro Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Environmental Had 195 Fibro Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Brands Has 9 Exposure Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Has 254 PI Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,457 PI Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Had 1,326 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has 3,300 Product Liability Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Has 3,251 Fibro Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,314 PI Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Continues to Defend PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 54,000 Fibro Claims ********* 2429 LINCOLN: Faces "Granados" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joaquin Granados, on behalf of himself and all other employees similarly situated v. 2429 Lincoln Ave Inc. d/b/a Pizano's Pizza & Pasta on Lincoln and Rudy Malnati, Case No. 1:15-cv-03902 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com ABM SECURITY: "Thomas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Thomas and other similarly situated individuals v. ABM Security Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-21681-UU (S.D. Fla., May 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. AMB Security Services, Inc. provides custom, residential, and commercial security services throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq. Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com agp@rgpattorneys.com ACCREDO PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Cuadra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Accredo Packaging, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01184 (S.D. Tex., May 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Accredo Packaging, Inc. is a Texas corporation that manufactures and provides green packaging for its customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE BRAZIEL LLP 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com ADS WASTE: Class Actions on Improper Fees in Early Stage -------------------------------------------------------- ADS Waste Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that purported class actions alleging that the defendants charged improper fees are in the early stage. In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in Chester County, Pennsylvania in 2014. The Georgia complaint was dismissed in March 2014. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily allege that the defendants charged improper fees (fuel, administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach of the plaintiffs' contracts with the Company and seek damages in an unspecified amount. "The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue," the Company said. "Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated." AKORN INC: Faces "Sarzynski" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Mikojaj Sarzynski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Akorn, Inc., Rajat Rai, and Timothy A Dick, Case No. 1:15-cv-03921 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 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. Akorn, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets multisource and branded pharmaceuticals alongside prescription animal health products and over-the-counter health products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Benjamin Goldberg, Esq. Peter E. Cooper, Esq. John Scott Monical, Esq. LAWRENCE, KAMIN, SAUNDERS & UHLENHOP 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 372-1947 E-mail: mgoldberg@lksu.com pcooper@lksu.com jmonical@lksu.com ALFRESCO HOME: Recalls Charcoal Products ---------------------------------------- Starting date: May 8, 2015 Posting date: May 8, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Outdoor Living Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Labelling and Packaging Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53327 This recall involves the 9.07 kilogram bags of Fornetto brand Charcoal. Fornetto Charcoal is an all-natural, lump charcoal used for outdoor cooking. The affected product has UPC 9333417011941 and date code AH-SP-7 next to the bar code. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program project has revealed that the Fornetto Charcoal does not meet the warning label requirements under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA). The CCPSA requires warning labels be in both French and English. Fornetto Charcoal does not have a French warning label. Charcoal produces carbon monoxide. This can be toxic if it is burned inside or in an area without proper ventilation. Warning labels help to protect the public by telling them about this hazard. Neither Alfresco Home nor Health Canada have received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product. Approximately 43 of the recalled products were sold in Canada. The recalled product was sold from 2013-2015. Manufactured in Paraguay. Manufacturer: Garth Australia Pty Ltd. Melbourne AUSTRALIA Distributor: Alfresco Home Pottstown Pennsylvania UNITED STATES Consumers should stop using the product and contact Alfresco Home at 1-610-705-8808 or by email to receive a refund. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/58IfzE AMBIT ENERGY: Wittels Firm Files Class Action Over Consumer Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that another class action lawsuit was filed against a New York energy supplier in late March over allegations that it overcharged consumers. Steven L. Wittels -- slw@wittelslaw.com -- of Wittels Law in New York, filed the $100 million suit against Ambit Energy on March 23, alleging that the company gouged customers and charged shockingly high rates. Ambit also allegedly secretly switched its customers to more expensive energy plans without their consent. The energy company allegedly advertised a guaranteed savings plan that would save customers one percent over what their existing utility company would have charged. However, the lawsuit alleged the savings were never realized by consumers. Mr. Wittels is seeking a refund for consumers who overpaid and the one percent rebate on the energy costs. He also is asking for a court order to prevent further fraud by the energy company. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Tiemann" Suit Over Anti-Steering Rules --------------------------------------------------------------- Maryli Tiemann on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02507 (E.D.N.Y., May 1, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into illegal vertical agreements, arrangements, contracts, or combinations with merchants known as Anti-Steering Rules or Non-Discrimination Provisions which artificially inflated the cost of products and services sold by merchants who accept American Express credit cards. American Express Company is a multinational financial services corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. Delaware corporation and is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Express Company. It responsible for all aspects of the payment card business conducted under the American Express brand, including the operation of the American Express network. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Tabacco Jr., Esq. Todd A. Seaver, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com tseaver@bermandevalerio.com - and - Marvin A. Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 Facsimile: (312) 676-2676 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com - and - Susan A. Bernstein, Esq. SUSAN A. BERNSTEIN ATTORNEY AT LAW 200 Highland Avenue, Suite 306 Needham, MA 02494-3035 Telephone: (781) 290-5858 Facsimile: (781) 247-4266 E-mail: susan@sabernlaw.com - and - Simon Bahne Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Place Philadelphia, PA19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3985 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com - and - Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Donald L. Perelman, Esq. Paul Costa,Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Facsimile: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com dperelman@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Discriminatory Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard J. Kosh, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals v. American International Group, Inc., AIG Property Casualty Inc., and AIG Claims, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03430-VSB (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's employment discrimination practices, on the basis of age, disability, and unlawful retaliation, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. American International Group, Inc. is an insurance organization that maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in New York, New York. AIG Property Casualty Inc. handles property and casualty insurance operations for American International Group, Inc. AIG Claims, Inc. is a subsidiary of AIG Property Casualty, Inc. and provides insurance agent and broker services. The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Beranbaum, Esq. BERANBAUM MENKEN BEN-ASHER & BIERMAN LLP 80 Pine Street-32nd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 509-1616 Facsimile: (212) 509-8088 E-mail: jberanbaum@nyemployeelaw.com ANTHEM INC: Warren Woman Files Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Mike Gauntner, writing for WFMJ.com, reports that a Warren woman as filed a class action lawsuit against Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield over the health insurance giant's recently announced data breach. Marnetta Xides is the plaintiff in the suit filed by Cleveland area attorney Michael Pasternak in U.S. District Court. The civil lawsuit alleges that Anthem is guilty of negligence, fraud and breach of contract as a result of a data breach that could affect 80 million current and former customers around the nation. The complaint says that hackers gained personal information including names, birthdates, Social Security number, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, health insurer member identification numbers, employment information, and income data. The suit says that not only did Anthem fail to encrypt the personal data, but it also put customers at risk by using and keeping Social Security numbers instead of utilizing unique health insurer member identification numbers like those used by other insurers. Anthem has said that it discovered on January 27, 2015 that its computer systems has been breached as early as December 10, 2014. Anthem made information public on February 4, 2015. The suit says that Anthem did not implement reasonable security measures until after the data breach was discovered. The lawsuit does not say that Xides has personally been a victim of identity theft because of the breach, but she and other Anthem subscribers will face a number of negative consequences that could include fraudulent tax returns and medical identity fraud. The suit asks a federal judge to declare the suit a class action, which would allow other current and former Anthem customers to join as plaintiffs. A civil cover sheet filed with the lawsuit claims that damages are expected to exceed $5 million. Anthem has not filed a response to the lawsuit. The insurer has notified present and former customers about the data breach by mail and email. It is offering 24 months of identity theft repair and credit monitoring services to current or former members of an affected Anthem plan dating back to 2004. ASCOM NETWORK: "Fletcher" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Lewis Fletcher, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Ascom Network Testing, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00575-GBL-MSN (E.D. Va., May 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Ascom Network Testing, Inc. engages in national and international telecommunications network testing business operations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC. 836 Bonifant St Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (301) 587-9397 E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Law ------------------------------------------------------------ John T. Ward, individually and as Class Representative for all others similarly situated v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, Case No. 1:15- cv-01493 (N.D. Ga., May 1, 2015), violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by altering the Georgia statutory form summons for Magistrate Court in a manner designed to deprive consumers of important information for defending cases. Asset Acceptance, LLC is one of the largest purchasers of charged off debt and receivables. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven H. Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC 3575 Piedmont Road Building 15, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 513-6651 Facsimile: (404) 549-4654 E-mail: steve@kovalfirm.com - and - James W. Hurt Jr., Esq. HURT STOLZ, P.C. 345 West Hancock Avenue Athens, GA 30601 Telephone: (706) 395-2750 Facsimile: (866) 766-9245 E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com ASTRAZENECA PLC: Israel Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Cert. Motion --------------------------------------------------------------- Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a court in Israel has not yet ruled on a motion to certify a claim as a class action. In November 2012, a Motion to Certify a Claim as a Class Action and Statement of Claim were filed in Israel in the District Court in Tel Aviv, Jaffa, against AstraZeneca and four other pharmaceutical companies for alleged deception and failure to disclose material facts to consumers regarding potential adverse events associated with certain drugs, including Crestor. In July 2013, an amended Motion to Certify a Claim as a Class Action and Statement of Claim containing similar allegations to those in the first action were filed in the same court against the same defendants. The court has not yet ruled on the Motion to Certify. ASTRAZENECA PLC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Nexium Consumer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that AstraZeneca is a defendant in a class action filed in Delaware State Court alleging that AstraZeneca's promotion, advertising and pricing of Nexium (esomeprazole magnesium) to physicians, consumers and third party payers was unfair, unlawful and deceptive. The action, which is the last of a number of lawsuits previously resolved, was stayed until February 6, 2014. On January 9, 2015, AstraZeneca filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and, in the alternative, a motion to strike certain allegations. ASTRAZENECA PLC: Amylin Faces Byetta/Bydureon Liability Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Amylin Pharmaceuticals, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of AstraZeneca, and/or AstraZeneca are among multiple defendants in various lawsuits filed in federal and state courts in the US involving approximately 1,474 plaintiffs claiming physical injury from treatment with Byetta and/or Bydureon(exenatide). The lawsuits allege multiple types of injuries including pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer and thyroid cancer. A multi-district litigation has been established in the US District Court for the Southern District of California in regard to the alleged pancreatic cancer cases in federal courts. Further, a co-ordinated proceeding has been established in Los Angeles, California in regard to the various lawsuits in California state courts. ASTRAZENECA PLC: 707 Crestor Plaintiff Claims Remain in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that there are now a total of 707 plaintiffs remaining with claims pending in California state court and two plaintiffs with claims pending in the Eastern District of Kentucky related to Crestor product. AstraZeneca is defending a number of lawsuits alleging multiple types of injuries caused by the use of Crestor (rosuvastatin calcium), including diabetes mellitus, various cardiac injuries, rhabdomyolysis, and/ or liver and kidney injuries. The claims of 594 plaintiffs, comprising 102 California residents and 492 non- California residents, were aggregated in one co-ordinated proceeding in Los Angeles, California. The claims of additional plaintiffs are waiting to be added to the co-ordination. In October 2014, the co-ordination judge dismissed the claims of the 492 non-California plaintiffs whose claims were in the co- ordinated proceeding. Plaintiffs have appealed the October 2014 order dismissing the non-California plaintiffs from the proceeding. There are now a total of 707 plaintiffs remaining with claims pending in California state court and two plaintiffs with claims pending in the Eastern District of Kentucky. ASTRAZENECA PLC: 40 Nexium Product Liability Claims Still Active ---------------------------------------------------------------- Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that fewer than 40 plaintiffs' product liability claims related to Nexium remain active and pending in California state courts. AstraZeneca has been defending product liability lawsuits brought by approximately 1,900 plaintiffs who alleged that Nexium (esomeprazole magnesium) caused osteoporotic injuries, such as bone deterioration, loss of bone density and/or bone fractures, and approximately 1,700 of these plaintiffs' claims were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the US District Court for the Central District of California (the Court) through the multi-district litigation (MDL) process. Between November 2013 and September 2014, the Court dismissed approximately 1,440 plaintiffs' claims. In October 2014, the Court granted AstraZeneca's motion for summary judgment as to all of the claims that remained pending in the MDL and entered judgment in AstraZeneca's favour as to all pending MDL claims. Approximately 270 plaintiffs have appealed this judgment to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, fewer than 40 plaintiffs' claims remain active and pending in California state courts. ASTRAZENECA PLC: Amylin Among Defendants in Onlgyza Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Amylin Pharmaceuticals, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of AstraZeneca, and/or AstraZeneca are among multiple defendants in various lawsuits filed in federal and state courts in the US involving a total of nine plaintiffs claiming physical injury from treatment with Onlgyza (saxagliptin). The lawsuits allege injuries including pancreatic cancer. ASTRAZENECA PLC: Defending 2 Seroquel IR Cases ---------------------------------------------- Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that with regard to the Seroquel IR (quetiapine fumarate) product liability litigation in the US, AstraZeneca is currently defending two cases in active litigation, each involving a single plaintiff. With regard to insurance coverage for the substantial legal defence costs and settlements that have been incurred in connection with the Seroquel IR product liability claims in the US related to alleged diabetes and/or other related alleged injuries (which now exceed the total amount of insurance coverage available), disputes continue with two insurers about the availability of coverage under certain insurance policies. These policies have aggregate coverage limits of $100 million. An arbitration is ongoing against one of the insurers in respect of a policy with a coverage limit of $50 million. ASTRAZENECA PLC: 2 Antitrust Suits Filed in Pennsylvania Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the two anti-trust lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania state court by various indirect purchasers of Nexium are pending. AstraZeneca is a defendant in a multi-district litigation class action and individual lawsuits alleging that AstraZeneca's settlements of certain patent litigation in the US relating to Nexium violated US anti-trust law and various state laws. A trial in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts commenced on October 20, 2014 on certain liability issues for claims that remain in the case. On December 5, 2014, a jury returned a verdict in favour of AstraZeneca. On December 31, 2014, the plaintiffs filed motions for a new trial. On January 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed motions for a permanent injunction. AstraZeneca opposed those motions. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motions for a permanent injunction was scheduled for February 6, 2015. On December 10, 2014, following the favourable jury verdict, AstraZeneca filed a motion requesting dismissal of its appeal of the District Court's procedural decision to certify a class of end payers. On January 21, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied AstraZeneca's request to dismiss the appeal and issued a decision affirming the District Court's class certification ruling. The two lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania state court by various indirect purchasers of Nexium are pending. The cases are in their initial stages. AXA EQUITABLE: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Yale" Action ---------------------------------------------------- AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company has filed a motion to dismiss on substantial grounds the class action filed by Andrew Yale, AXA Equitable said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in April 2014, entitled Andrew Yale, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Life Insurance Company F/K/A AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities that, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by AXA Equitable from 2011 to March 11, 2014 (the "Policies"). The complaint alleges that AXA Equitable did not disclose in its New York statutory annual statement or elsewhere that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and thereby AXA Equitable allegedly misrepresented its "financial condition" and "legal reserve system." The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of the equivalent of all premiums paid by the class for the Policies during the relevant period. In June 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on procedural grounds, which was denied in October 2014. In February 2015, plaintiffs substituted two new named plaintiffs for the current named plaintiff, Mr. Yale, who had determined that he could not serve as the named plaintiff and class representative in the case. In March 2015, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss on substantial grounds. AXA EQUITABLE: No Update on Motion to Dismiss "Zweiman" Action -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, Commercial Division ("New York state court") in June 2014, entitled Jessica Zweiman, Executrix of the Estate of Anne Zweiman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of "all persons who purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable which subsequently became subject to the ATM Strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof." Plaintiff asserts that volatility management techniques -- which the complaint refers to as the "ATM Strategy" -- were implemented in certain variable investment options offered to plaintiff's mother under her variable annuity contract and that use of volatility management in those options "breached the terms of the variable deferred annuities held by plaintiff and the Class." The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. In July 2014, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In July 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to New York state court. In September 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint as precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. No updates were provided in AXA Equitable's Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. AXA EQUITABLE: Court Stayed Motion to Transfer "Shuster" Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The New Jersey federal district court has stayed AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company's motion to transfer the lawsuit filed by Arlene Shuster, AXA Equitable said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. In November 2014, a separate lawsuit entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County ("New Jersey state court"). The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of "all AXA [Equitable] variable life insurance policyholders who allocated funds from their Policy Accounts to investments in AXA's Separate Accounts, which were subsequently subjected to volatility- management strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof." Plaintiff asserts that volatility management techniques were implemented in certain variable investment funds offered to plaintiff under her variable life insurance contract and that use of volatility management in those funds "breached the terms of the variable life insurance policies held by plaintiff and the Class." The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. In December 2014, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and a motion to transfer to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In January 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to New Jersey state court. In January 2015, the New Jersey federal district court stayed AXA Equitable's motion to transfer, as well as its date to respond to the complaint, pending resolution of Plaintiff's motion to remand. BARNES & NOBLE: Trial Date Set in "Nguyen" Case ----------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the trial date is May 3, 2016, in the case Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California against the Company. The complaint is styled as a nationwide class action and includes a California state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company's website in August 2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and false advertising under both New York and California state law, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law, and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does not specify an amount. The Company submitted its initial response to the complaint on May 18, 2012, removing the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and moved to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012. The Company has also moved to dismiss the complaint and moved to transfer the action to New York. The court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration, and the Company appealed that denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court granted the Company's motion to stay on November 26, 2012, and the action had been stayed pending resolution of the Company's appeal from the court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. On August 18, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Company's motion to compel arbitration. On September 2, 2014, the Company filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 14, 2014, the court denied the Company's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and on October 23, 2014, the mandate issued returning the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company then refiled its motion to dismiss the complaint and motion to transfer the action to New York. On February 17, 2015, the court denied the Company's motion to transfer. The Company's motion to dismiss was taken under submission by the court on February 20, 2015, after oral argument. The parties are engaging in discovery and pursuant to the court's scheduling order dated December 17, 2014, all dates for the case have been scheduled, including the deadline for plaintiff to file for class certification of April 24, 2015, and trial date of May 3, 2016. BARNES & NOBLE: 2nd Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's second motion to dismiss the PIN Pad Litigation is pending. The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals. Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the Company was served with four putative class action complaints (three in federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. That motion is pending. BARNES & NOBLE: Hearing Held on Motion to Remand "Lina" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the hearing date for the motion to remand was March 23, 2015, in the case Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al. On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in California from August 5, 2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class. The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. On July 1, 2014 the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden to demonstrate common issues predominated over individual issues, that plaintiff was a sufficient class representative, or that a class action was a superior method to adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2014. No appellate briefing schedule has been set. On November 18, 2014, the trial court stayed all proceedings pending appeal. On January 14, 2015, Barnes & Noble removed the action to federal court based on new United States Supreme Court authority. On February 13, 2015 plaintiff filed a motion to remand. The Company filed its Opposition on February 23, 2015. The hearing date for the motion to remand was March 23, 2015. BARNES & NOBLE: Court Stayed All Proceedings in "Jones" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has stayed all proceedings in the case Jones et al v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al. On April 23, 2013, Kenneth Jones (Jones) filed a purported Private Attorney General Act action complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in California: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that Jones and other "aggrieved employees" were improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the plaintiff or the purported aggrieved employees. On May 7, 2013, Judge Michael Johnson (before whom the Lina action is pending) ordered the Jones action related to the Lina action and assigned the Jones action to himself. The Company was served with the complaint on May 16, 2013 and answered on June 10, 2013. On November 18, 2014, the court stayed all proceedings pending appeal in the related Lina action. BARNES & NOBLE: May 28 Pre-Trial Conference in "Carag" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a pre-trial conference is scheduled for May 28, 2015, in the case Cassandra Carag individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc, Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive. On November 27, 2013, former Associate Store Manager Cassandra Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento County Superior Court, asserting claims on behalf of herself and all other hourly (non- exempt) Barnes & Noble employees in California in the preceding four years for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged off-the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal and rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll records, and untimely pay at separation as a result of the alleged pay errors during employment. Via the complaint, Carag seeks to recover unpaid wages and statutory penalties for all hourly Barnes & Noble employees within California from November 27, 2009 to present. On February 13, 2014, the Company filed an Answer in the state court and concurrently requested removal of the action to federal court. On May 30, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court and denied Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the Answer to the Complaint (referring the latter motion to the lower court for future consideration). On September 2, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to disqualify counsel based on their prior role in the Lina matter. On January 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to federal court based on new US Supreme Court authority. On February 13, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to remand which has not yet been fully- briefed. A hearing on the remand motion is scheduled on March 13, 2015, and a pre-trial conference is scheduled for May 28, 2015. BARNES & NOBLE: No Ruling Yet on Joint Request in Trimmer Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a court has not yet ruled on a joint request in the case Trimmer v. Barnes & Noble. On January 25, 2013, Steven Trimmer (Trimmer), a former Assistant Store Manager (ASM) of the Company, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Specifically, Trimmer alleges that he and other similarly situated ASMs were improperly classified as exempt from overtime and denied overtime wages prior to July 1, 2010, when the Company reclassified them as non-exempt. The complaint seeks to certify a collective action under the FLSA comprised of ASMs throughout the country employed from January 25, 2010 until July 1, 2010, and a class action under the NYLL comprised of ASMs employed in New York from January 25, 2007 until July 1, 2010. The parties have completed the first phase of discovery with respect to the individual claims asserted by Trimmer and one opt-in plaintiff only. The Company filed a summary judgment motion on November 25, 2013, which was denied on July 18, 2014. Trimmer filed a motion for conditional certification under the FLSA and class certification under the NYLL on November 7, 2014, which was fully briefed and submitted to the Court on December 15, 2014. The Court has not yet set a hearing date for the pending class certification motion. On February 17, 2015, the parties submitted a joint request that the pending class certification motion be stayed for thirty days so that the parties could engage in settlement discussions. The Court has not yet ruled on that joint request. BMW: Faces Class Action Over TwinPower Turbo Engine Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, CarComplaints.com, reports that BMW is facing a class action. What's the difference between a BMW TwinPower Turbo engine and a single turbocharged engine? According to a class-action lawsuit against BMW, the engine name is everything. Even where the word "twin" is used in a phrase has created legal questions. The lawsuit says from model years 2007-2009, BMW manufactured its cars with the twin-turbo N54 engine which provided 8-cylinder engine levels of horsepower and torque while providing the fuel economy of a 6-cylinder. However, BMW later changed the N54 engine to the N55 engine. While the N54 is a true twin-turbo engine, the newer N55 is a single-turbo engine, and therein lies the legal rub. BMW named the N55 single-turbo engine the "TwinPower Turbo," a name used to describe all BMW turbocharged engines since 2010. The plaintiff claims the phrase "TwinPower Turbo" purposely is used to make people believe the cars have the more powerful N54 twin-turbo engines. Consumers who allegedly bought the cars with the newer N55 TwinPower Turbo engines were under the false impression they were getting the previous N54 twin-turbo engine, therefore getting a cheaper and less powerful engine. Calling the TwinPower Turbo a "false twin," the BMW lawsuit says the automaker is guilty of false advertising in attempting to use the word "twin" in the name when the engine is actually a single- turbo engine. While the focus is on the N55 engine, BMW has other engines (N20, N26, B38) the lawsuit claims are also "false twins." Some of those vehicles are the 2014 BMW 228i, M235i, 320i , 328i, 335i, 428i, 435i, 528i, 535d, 535i, 640i, 740i, 740li, Z4 sDrive28i, Z4 sDrive35i and Z4 sDrive35is. The plaintiff claims all these cars are equipped with the "false twin" engines marketed as the TwinPower Turbo. The BMW lawsuit says consumers have been damaged by BMW's misrepresentations, concealment and non-disclosure of the true nature of BMW's "TwinPower Turbo" engines. Further, BMW is accused of misleading consumers into purchasing or leasing vehicles of a quality different than they were led to believe they were getting. The plaintiff also claims he paid more for the vehicle than he would have if the true nature of the BMW "TwinPower Turbo" engine had been disclosed. The BMW TwinPower Turbo lawsuit was filed on behalf of all current and former owners and lessees of new and used BMW vehicles equipped with single-turbocharger engines that BMW calls "TwinPower Turbo" engines. The BMW TwinPower Turbo lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey -- Deepkarn Bedi v. BMW of North America. The plaintiff is represented by Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP. BRARA GEOLOGIC: Faces "Gotcher" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Gotcher, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Brara Geologic Consulting, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00033-SPW (D. Mont., May 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours a week. Brara Geologic Consulting, LLC provides geological services and mud logging to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. McGrady, Esq. McGRADY LAW FIRM, PLLC PO Box 40 Park City, MT 59063 Telephone: (406) 322-8647 E-mail: philip@mcgradylawfirm.com CAMP JOHN HAY: BCDA Pres. Calls on Sub-Lessees to File Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Voltaire Palana, writing for The Manila Times, reports that the state-owned Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) said on April 5 a private company with a 25-year lease on the Camp John Hay resort in Baguio City sub-leased various properties for 50 years and faced lawsuit from investors. BCDA President and Chief Executive Officer Arnel Cassanova said. The Camp John Hay Development Corp (CJHDevCo) sold 50-year sub- leases, which was made in bad faith. "There is also such as thing as seller in bad faith," Mr. Cassanova said and called on the sub-lessees to file a class suit against the company. CJHDevCo, led by Robert John Sobrepena, has a 25-year lease on Camp John Hay, a former American resort, which is renewable for another 25 years, but the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center has ordered the company to vacate the area. The Resolution Center ordered the BCDA to return the P1.42 billion, which CJHDevCo paid as lease payments. BCDA called on sub-lessees to seek legal advise to recover their investments from the payment. BCDA head for legal services Peter Flores said the order of the Arbitral Tribunal on CJHDevCo to vacate the area, including new constructions and improvements, was also binding on the subleases. He said the sub-lessees could demand reparation of damages through a class action suit against the CJHDevCo, which mislead the investors by telling them that BCDA was aware of their contracts. "Contrary to what the CJHDevCo has claimed, the BCDA is not privy to the contracts so how could the BCDA honor it," Mr. Flores said. He said BCDA had requested CJHDevCo copies of all contracts and other documents related to the development of residential homes, estates and condotels within the leased area but the company refused. CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Garrison Security Safe Digital Locks ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 7, 2015 Posting date: May 7, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Improper Safety Mechanisms Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53297 This voluntary recall involves the Garrison Small and Large Security Safe. The black Garrison safes have a digital keypad in the front. The Garrison brand name can be found in the top left corner of the panel, above the knob. The following Model numbers are included in this recall: Product UPC Product Name ------- --- ------------ 046-0035 6926373306997 Garrison Small Security Safe, 6926373306980 Digital Lock 046-0036 6926373307000 Garrison Large Security Safe, Digital Lock The affected Garrison safes are being recalled as a precautionary measure since the safe can be opened without using the digital code and key. The contents of the safe can be easily accessible to children, and provides a false sense of security. Canadian Tire has received one report regarding the above issue. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these safes. Approximately 5,983 units of the affected safes were sold at Canadian Tire stores across Canada in the last twelve months. The recalled Garrison safes were sold between January 2005 and April 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Ningbo Yongfa International Holdings Ningbo CHINA Importer: Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited Toronto Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the affected Garrison safes and return them to their local Canadian Tire store for a refund. For more information, consumer can call Canadian Tire toll-free at 1-800-387-8803 (English) or 1-800-565-3356 (French) or by email. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/lwg02a CAPE BANCORP: Seeks Class Action Status With Colonial Financial --------------------------------------------------------------- Cape Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a complaint was filed on February 24, 2015, against Colonial Financial Services, Inc. and the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, seeking class action status and asserting that Colonial Financial Services, Inc. and the members of its Board had violated their duties to Colonial Financial Services' shareholders in connection with the proposed merger with Cape Bancorp. The Company was also sued for allegedly aiding and abetting these alleged fiduciary breaches. On or about March 2, 2015, the complaint was supplemented to seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting consummation of the merger. The litigation is in its very early stages, and the time to answer has not yet run. The Company believes the complaint is baseless and without merit, and intends to vigorously defend it. CFS ROOFING: Faces "Picard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Picard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. David Crowther, CFS Roofing Services, LLC, and Crowther Holdings Inc. , Case No. 2:15-cv-00278-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., May 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a roofing services company that regularly transacts business in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A. Westshore Center 1715 N Westshore Blvd Ste 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com CHICAGO-ILLINOIS: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Zamarripa, on behalf of himself and all other employees similarly situated v. Chicago-Illinois Cleaning Service, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03908 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. Chicago-Illinois Cleaning Service, Inc. owns and operates a cleaning services company in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com CHRYSLER: Recalls Grand Cherokee Models --------------------------------------- Starting date: May 11, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 8567 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015193TC ID number: 2015193 Manufacturer recall number: R05 Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE 2014 COAST MATERIALS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Billy Vickers v. Coast Materials, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00196 (S.D. Tex., May 4, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Coast Materials, Inc. owns and operates a sand & gravel hauling company having its principal place of business located in Aransas Pass, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Kay Loftin, Esq. HERRERO & LOFTIN, PLLC 606 N Carancahua, Suite 506 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 882-1882 Facsimile: (844) 270-4827 E-mail: jennifer@herreroloftin.com COLORADO: OCC Faces July 1 Reauthorization Deadline --------------------------------------------------- Mark Jaffe and Joey Bunch, writing for The Denver Post, report that the state agency that fights for homeowners, farmers and small businesses in electric, gas and telephone rate cases is up against a ticking clock -- one that consumer advocates say is a time bomb. The Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel, or OCC, must be reauthorized by the legislature or it will expire on July 1. But with a month left in the four-month legislative session, a bill that would do that hasn't even been filed. There's potentially a lot of household budget money at risk. From 2008 to 2013, the office argued an average of 40 rate cases a year before the state's Public Utilities Commission, paring back $23 million from telephone company requests and $220 million in electricity cases, according to a legislative analysis that accompanies the office's sunset review. "When Xcel asks for a rate increase, the OCC goes line by line through their financial statements to make sure it's needed," said Katie Dahl, associate director of the liberal-leaning, public- integrity organization Colorado Common Cause. "Without the OCC, Colorado citizens have no voice." The OCC's seven-person staff includes four analysts who are economists, engineers and business experts. The OCC budget is about $1.5 million a year. "They can get down in the weeds in the huge files of spreadsheets that we tend to get from the utilities and figure out what's right and wrong," said Cindy Schonhaut, the OCC's executive director. "And in those details is a lot of money for consumers." Democrats in the statehouse think some Republicans are running a political gambit to weaken or kill opposition to regulation. A hearing on reauthorization was held in January, during which Sen. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, questioned how much the OCC was necessary, given the availability of contingency-based lawyers, class-action lawsuits and outside citizen advocate groups to represent ratepayers. Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy Committee, which controls the reauthorization bill, said it's not about killing the office but making it work as it should. "The OCC is important, but it's not our job to rubber-stamp any sunset review," he said. As the Senate debated next year's budget, Sen. Leroy Garcia, D-Pueblo, introduced a facetious budget amendment to defund the office, forcing a floor debate, which annoyed Sen. Sonnenberg and some other Republicans. The amendment was unanimously defeated. Sen. Garcia's use of the budget process to offer a bogus amendment "was political posturing at its worst," Sen. Sonnenberg said. Sen. Garcia, though, said the stakes are too high to dillydally, since his constituents already pay some of the highest electricity rates in the state, and without a strong advocate in future rate cases, they could pay even more. "If people disagree on the policy, the substance or the process, that's fair; that's what we're each here to do," Sen. Garcia said. "But what we're seeing here is Washington, D.C.-style politics where you put something off to the side, and the committee chair doesn't give it due regard until it's too late." Without legislative action, the agency would still be around for another year for the purpose of "winding up affairs," according to sunset guidelines. Next year, the responsibility for sunset legislation shifts to the Democrat-led House, meaning the agency theoretically could be resurrected, though such a move would be rare, according to statehouse staff. Sen. Sonnenberg said there are a handful of issues that need to be worked out before the committee offers up a reauthorization bill. Telecom industry representatives want to remove their industry from OCC involvement, since the industry will be largely deregulated in 2016. "The OCC was created in 1984 when there were telephone and electric monopolies, and a lot has changed in 31 years," said Peter Kirchhof, executive director of the Colorado Telecommunications Association, a trade group. The OCC's Schonhaut said there will still be telecom elements under the PUC that require consumer oversight. These include the state's 911 emergency response operations; the "high cost fund," which helps subsidize rural phone service; and reviewing deregulation. Sen. Sonnenberg said there also is a question of whether the office should be under the state Attorney General's Office instead of the Department of Regulatory Agencies. He couldn't predict when a bill might be ready for his committee to assign to a sponsor, vote on and send it on the Senate floor for a debate and a vote. If it clears those steps, it would bounce to the House to start all over. "I don't think it's going to be too late unless you get to that last week of the session," Sen. Sonnenberg said. CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Takes Motion to Dismiss Under Submission ----------------------------------------------------------------- CytRx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has taken the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation under submission and took the hearing off the calendar. On June 13, 2014, three purported securities class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, were consolidated in the matter of In re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx), and lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed. On October 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of CytRx between November 20, 2013 and March 13, 2014, against CytRx, certain Company officers and directors, a freelance writer, and certain underwriters. The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements in press releases, promotional articles, SEC filings and other public statements. The complaint further alleges that certain of the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 by making materially misleading statements and omitting material information in the shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on December 6, 2012 and Prospectus Supplement on Form 424(b)(2) filed with the SEC on January 31, 2014. These allegations arise out of the Company's alleged retention of The DreamTeam Group and MissionIR, external investor and public relations firms unaffiliated with the Company, as well as the Company's December 9, 2013 grant of stock options to certain board members and officers. The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages, including interest, in an unspecified amount, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and any equitable, injunctive, or other relief that the court may deem just and proper. On December 5, 2014, CytRx and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court was scheduled to hear argument on this motion on March 2, 2015. On February 25, 2015, the Court took this motion under submission and took the hearing off the calendar. CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Granted Motion to Stay Rajasekaran Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CytRx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has granted the parties' joint ex parte motion to stay the Rajasekaran proceeding pending resolution of motions to dismiss in the CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation. On April 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain officers and each director, as well as certain underwriters, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, captioned Rajasekaran v. CytRx Corporation, et al., BC541426. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's secondary common stock offering, which closed on February 5, 2014. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements in filings with the SEC. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, rescission, and attorney's fees and costs. On October 14, 2014, the court granted the parties' joint ex parte motion to stay this proceeding pending resolution of motions to dismiss in the related federal action, In re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx). DUCATI: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Defective Shock Absorber --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 6, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Suspension Units affected: 0 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015186TC ID number: 2015186 On certain motorcycles, the rear shock absorber may not have been manufactured correctly. The piston rod nut may have been tightened before the piston had the correct full metal-to-metal contact. This could result in the nut loosening, which would prevent proper rear suspension action, and could cause poor handling that may result in a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will send the rear shock assembly to the suppliers repair facility or replace the rear shock absorber with a new part supplied by Ducati. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- DUCATI 1199 PANIGALE S 2014 DUCATI 1199 PANIGALE R 2014 DUCATI 1199 SUPERLEGGERA 2014 ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Machado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., Hari Ravichandran, and Tivanka Ellawala, Case No. 1:15-cv- 11775-GAO (D. Mass., May 4, 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. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., provides cloud-based platform solutions for small and medium-sized businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Leviton, Esq. Mark A. Delaney, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9 150 Facsimile: (310) 432-1495 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com csadler@glancylaw.com - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 E-mail: hsmith@howardsmithlaw.com EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Faces Class Action Over Water Waste ----------------------------------------------------- Tom Leyde, writing for Monterey Herald, reports that about 70 residents of a Castroville mobile home park are so concerned about the amount of water wasted there that they have filed a lawsuit over it. Residents at Monte Del Lago Mobile Home Community are suing park owner Equity Lifestyle Properties, which is owned by billionaire Sam Zell. The company owns 30 mobile home parks in California. Water waste is just one of a litany of complaints in the suit, but park residents are especially concerned about it because of California's drought, now entering its fourth year. Gov. Jerry Brown ordered mandatory water use restrictions with a goal of reducing use by 25 percent statewide. Paul Curatolo, a five-year park resident, said residents have received no instructions on cutting water usage. The park, at 13100 Monte Del Lago, is on its own well and there are no water meters for mobile homes. "We are out here wasting water constantly every day, all day long . . .," Mr. Curatolo said. "We have water running constantly, 24 hours a day, into a pond and it's being refilled, and we're in a drought." The pond is about 100 by 50 feet and 2 feet deep. It has a mud seal, but residents say water seeps out of it and it has to be rebuilt constantly. The park also has two swimming pools and a spa. Mr. Curatolo said a car wash at the park does not use recycled water and water from it drains into Castroville's drainage system. Residents, he said, also wash vehicles in their carports and pressure-wash the outside of their mobile homes. More than 300 people live at Monte Del Lago. The lawsuit was filed in February in Monterey County Superior Court on behalf of the residents by San Diego's Allen, Semelsberger & Kaelin. Last April, the firm won a $111 million class-action lawsuit against Equity Lifestyle Properties for 61 residents of California Hawaiian Mobile Estates in San Jose. A judge later overturned the jury's verdict and granted Equity Lifestyle a new trial on monetary damages, which the judge found excessive and ruled there was "insufficiency of evidence to support the verdict." Marv White, another resident of Monte Del Lago, said the suit filed by residents is similar to the San Jose case. "We're claiming failure to maintain (the park), everything from infrastructure to landscaping to providing areas for parking and for children and for kids . . . keeping the place looking respectable," Mr. White said. Residents also are trying to get a rent control agreement with Equity Lifestyle Properties. They have been in contact with former Salinas Mayor Anna Caballero, now state secretary of the Business Consumer Services and Housing Agency in Sacramento. "If it (a rent control effort) goes statewide, we might have a better chance of creating a better result," Mr. White said. Equity Lifestyle Properties has been the subject of many lawsuits and complaints across the United States. The website Ripoff Report contains a several stories about the company. Complaints range from breach of contract and deceptive practices to victimizing the elderly. Monte Del Lago residents said they have complained many times to park management about conditions there, but to no avail. ERMINIA RESTAURANT: Illegally Prints Cards Expiration, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Staci Palazzo, individually on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Erminia Restaurant Corporation d/b/a Lattanzi Restaurant, Case No. 1:15-cv-03478-JSR (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to protect its costumers against identity theft and credit card and debit card fraud by continuing to print the expiration date on paper receipts that they provided to the Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs at the point of sale. Erminia Restaurant Corporation owns and operates an Italian restaurant located in the New York's Theater District's Restaurant Row. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq. Joseph P. Griffin, Esq. Michael John Borrelli, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com jpg@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com EXPEDIA: North Charleston Agrees to Settle Hotel Tax Suit --------------------------------------------------------- John McDermott, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that as tax season enters the home stretch, a couple of local governments are anticipating some hefty refunds. Not from the IRS, though. The city of North Charleston and Charleston County stand to collect more than half of a seven-figure legal settlement with a long list of travel websites, most of them owned and operated by Expedia, Priceline, Travelocity and Orbitz. It's the latest turn in a long-running nationwide dispute over hospitality taxes that many municipalities charge hotels and, in turn, their guests. The issue first reared its head about a decade ago, when cash- strapped local and state governments felt they were being short- changed by Web-based travel sites. It centered on the industry's standard practice of reserving blocks of hotel rooms at discounted rates and then reselling them one by one at a profit. The lawsuits began to fly when tax officials discovered that the booking businesses were basing their remittances, if they were remitting them at all, on the lower prices. The online firms have argued that only the wholesale rate they negotiate with hotels is taxable. The spreads don't amount to much on a single booking, but they sure add up. An analysis this year by BloombergBusiness estimated that Expedia could be on the hook for an $847 million retroactive tax bill -- that is, in the highly unlikely event it loses all of the legal challenges it's still facing. The S.C. Supreme Court already has weighed in on the issue in a 2011 decision that sent a chill across the online travel landscape. It upheld a previous legal ruling and ordered Expedia subsidiary Travelscape in 2011 to pay more than $6.3 million in sales taxes for Internet hotel bookings it had brokered within the state. Charleston and Mount Pleasant also have gone to the mat over the accommodations money in a court case they filed with North Myrtle Beach. Their 2006 lawsuit was settled for $900,000 about three years ago. Of that, Charleston pocketed $657,000, and Mount Pleasant was paid $50,000. North Charleston, which charges hotels a 2 percent room tax, brought its own challenge in mid-2013 with Columbia and Aiken County. Charleston County joined in later. Circuit Judge R. Markley Dennis approved class-action status for the complaint in February. The original lawsuit didn't say how much money was at stake. Described as a compromise to avoid further litigation, the $3.5 million settlement figure was reached after two mediation sessions and an analysis of hotel transactions by forensic accountants at Dixon Hughes Goodman. After the plaintiffs' attorneys are paid their requested 25 percent cut and reimbursed about $97,000 for expenses, about $2.49 million will be left for everyone else, assuming the deal is approved. The pot would be divided up among 23 counties and nearly 50 cities and towns all over South Carolina, unless they opt out of the settlement. Of the four main plaintiffs, Charleston County is poised to cash the biggest check, almost $1.16 million. North Charleston will collect about $240,600. Columbia and Aiken County are expecting to recover $303,689 and $8,431, respectively. The other South Carolina government bodies were added to the class because they hadn't previously brought their own lawsuits, said Charleston attorney Jesse Kirchner, who helped file the case. Their proposed payments from the travel websites range from about $67,953 for Richland County to just $16.39 for tiny Westminster, in Oconee County. The settlement was up for approval at a fairness hearing n the heart of downtown Charleston, the land of many a hotel room. EXPRESS SERVICES: Scope of Discovery Bid in Stoddart Case Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In MICHAEL STODDART, Plaintiff, v. EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-1054 KJM CKD, (E.D. Cal.), the plaintiff's motion regarding the scope of discovery was referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney by minute order entered on May 4, 2015. The motion was originally set for hearing on May 8, 2015 before the District Judge. This action is a putative class action and has been pending in the court since April 20, 2012. After filing the motion regarding the scope of discovery, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Defendant thereafter moved to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is currently set for hearing on June 5, 2015. Resolution of the motion to dismiss will determine the allowable contours of discovery. Given the expansive breadth of discovery sought by plaintiff and the intrusive nature of the information sought which impacts the privacy rights of nonparties to this action, the court has determined that the motion is premature. For this reason, Mag. Judge Delaney ruled that plaintiff's motion regarding the scope of discovery is denied without prejudice to its renewal after resolution of the pending motion to dismiss. Before the filing of a renewed motion regarding the scope of discovery, the parties were directed to meet and confer. The motion will be briefed in accordance with the format set forth in Local Rule 251. A copy of Mag. Judge Delaney's May 5, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/HWYHbRfrom Leagle.com. Michael H. Stoddart, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Lynn Connor -- jconnor@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Kimberly Dawn Neilson -- kneilson@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Marta Manus -- mmanus@grahamhollis.com -- GrahamHollis A.P.C., Michael D. Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer & Graham S.P. Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com -- GrahamHollis, APC. Express Services, Inc., Doing business as Express Employment Professionals, Defendant, represented by Janet Lynn Grumer -- janetgrumer@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Jason W. Kearnaghan -- jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Morgan Patricia Forsey -- mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Richard J Simmons -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Aaron N. Colby -- aaroncolby@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Elizabeth Scott Wood -- elizabeth.wood@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, APC & Jessica John Bowman -- jessica.johnbowman@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, APC. Phillips & Associates, Inc., Doing business as Express Employment Professionals, Defendant, represented by Janet Lynn Grumer, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Jason W. Kearnaghan, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Morgan Patricia Forsey, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Richard J Simmons, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Aaron N. Colby, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. Western Wine Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alison H Hong -- Alison.Hong@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Douglas George Johnston -- Douglas.Johnston@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Fraser Angus McAlpine -- fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Scott C Lacunza -- LacunzaS@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defending Against Tank Exchange Biz Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.; Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp.; Ferrellgas, L.P.; and Ferrellgas Finance Corp. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the Company believe it has strong defenses to the claims in the complaints, filed on behalf of direct and indirect customers of the Company's tank exchange business. The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") initiated an investigation into certain practices related to the filling of portable propane cylinders. On March 27, 2014, the FTC filed an administrative complaint alleging that Ferrellgas and one of its competitors colluded in 2008 to persuade a customer to accept the cylinder fill reduction from 17 pounds to 15 pounds. The complaint does not seek monetary remedies. Ferrellgas reached a settlement with the FTC during the three months ended October 31, 2014 without any financial payment; the settlement has been approved by a vote of the Commission and is in a public comment period. Ferrellgas has also been named as a defendant, along with a competitor, in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions. "The complaints, filed on behalf of direct and indirect customers of our tank exchange business, reference the FTC complaint," the Company said. "The lawsuits allege that Ferrellgas and a competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the putative class. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one case by a multidistrict litigation panel." "We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against the consolidated case. Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class action lawsuit," the Company said. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Propane Service Case Has Not Been Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.; Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp.; Ferrellgas, L.P.; and Ferrellgas Finance Corp. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the lawsuit regarding the propane service has not been certified for class treatment. Ferrellgas has been named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Kansas. The complaint was the subject of a motion to dismiss which was granted, in part, in August 2011. The surviving claims allege breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, both of which allegedly arise from the existence of an oral contract for continuous propane service. Ferrellgas believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. The case has not been certified for class treatment. Ferrellgas recently prevailed on an appeal before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the appellate court ordered the trial court to determine whether the case must be arbitrated. Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to this putative class action lawsuit. FOREST RIVER: Faces Class Action; 8,000+ Starcraft Buses Recalled ----------------------------------------------------------------- South Bend Tribune reports that more than 8,000 shuttle buses manufactured by Starcraft Bus will be recalled as the result of a class-action suit. From 2002 to 2007, the maximum cargo capacity was mislabeled on buses the Goshen company manufactured, according to a news release from the law firm Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook and Brickman. It was discovered that the buses were not weighed with a full tank of fuel, as required by federal law, which can affect the safety standards of the vehicle. The problem was found when a church noticed the label on its bus showed it could not carry cargo, even though the vehicles came with luggage racks. The church's bus was then weighed and was found to exceed the weight rating, according to the release. Originally, about 400 buses were recalled, but further investigation found a little more than 8,000 needed to recalled. Starcraft and its parent company Forest River will have to modify the recalled buses to comply with federal regulations and pay owners $1,500 for each seat removed, according to the release. FOREST RIVER: Recalls Launch and Ar-One Starcraft Bus Models ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: May 5, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Label Units affected: 3 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015183TC ID number: 2015183 On certain travel trailers, the certification, tire and loading information labels do not contain correct tire size information. The labels incorrectly indicate a tire size of ST205/75R14C while the correct tire size is LT235/75R15C. As a result, the vehicle may inadvertently be fitted with incorrect replacement tires. Overloaded tires may lead to poor vehicle handling characteristics, which could result in a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Updated labels will be mailed to owners of affected vehicles, along with instructions for proper installation. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- STARCRAFT LAUNCH 2016 STARCRAFT AR-ONE 2016 FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freescale Semiconductor, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:15- cv-00360 (W.D. Tex., May 4, 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. Freescale Semiconductor, Ltd. is a Bermuda exempted company with its principal executive offices located at 6501 William Cannon Drive West, Austin, Texas. Freescale designs, develops, manufactures and sells through a world-wide distribution network microcontrollers and digital networking processors, commonly called embedded processors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall C. Owens, Esq. WRIGHT & CLOSE, LLP One Riverway, Suite 2200 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (713) 572-4321 Facsimile: (713) 572-4320 E-mail: owens@wrightclose.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. James M. Wilson Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Canyon & Colorado Models ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: May 6, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 4956 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015185TC ID number: 2015185 Manufacturer recall number: 15150 Certain vehicles may fail to comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207 -- Anchorage of Seats. Certain seat-frame attachment hooks that secure the front driver and/or front passenger's seat may not have been properly attached to the vehicle body during the assembly process. If this condition were present, the seat could fail to meet the requirements of the standard. This could increase the risk of injury in a crash. Correction: Dealers will inspect seats for proper installation, and if required, disassemble and properly reassemble the seats. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- GMC CANYON 2015 CHEVROLET COLORADO 2015 GUGLIELMO & ASSOC: Final Approval Order in Hernandez Case Vacated ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lloyd D. George inadvertently signed the proposed final approval order along with the preliminary approval to class action settlement in the case captioned CARLOS HERNANDEZ and RYAN A. EVANS, Plaintiffs, v. PAUL D. GUGLIELMO, dba GUGLIELMO & ASSOCIATES, Defendant, NO. 2:09-CV-0830-LDG-GWF, (D. Nev.). Accordingly, Judge George on May 5, 2015, vacated the final approval order. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/vpiL9Xfrom Leagle.com. Carlos J Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Friedberg -- cbfriedberg@justice.com -- Law Offices of Craig B. Friedberg, Craig M Shapiro -- craig@horwitzlaw.com -- Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates & O. Randolph Bragg -- rand@horwitzlaw.com -- Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates. Ryan A Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Friedberg, Law Offices of Craig B. Friedberg, Craig M Shapiro, Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates & O. Randolph Bragg, Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates. Paul D Guglielmo, Defendant, represented by Tomio B. Narita -- tnarita@snllp.com -- Simmonds & Narita LLP, Joseph P Garin -- JGARIN@LIPSONNEILSON.COM -- Lipson Neilson Cole Seltzer & Garin, P.C. & Shannon D Nordstrom -- SNORDSTROM@LIPSONNEILSON.COM -- Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C. GULF SOUTH: SE Louisiana Flood Protection Litigation Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has dismissed with prejudice, the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Litigation. Gulf South and Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, along with approximately 100 other energy companies operating in Southern Louisiana, have been named as defendants in a petition for damages and injunctive relief in state district court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana (Case No. 13-6911) by the Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority - East (Flood Protection Authority). The case was filed in state court, but was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New Orleans (Court) in August 2013. The plaintiff has moved for remand back to state court, which motion has been argued and is under consideration by the court. The lawsuit claims include negligence, strict liability, public nuisance, private nuisance, breach of contract, and breach of the natural servitude of drain against the defendants, alleging that the defendants' drilling, dredging, pipeline and industrial operations since the 1930s have caused increased storm surge risk, increased flood protection costs and unspecified damages to the Flood Protection Authority. In addition to attorney fees and unspecified monetary damages, the lawsuit seeks abatement and restoration of the coastal lands, including backfilling and revegetating of canals dredged and used by the defendants, and abatement and restoration activities such as wetlands creation, reef creation, land bridge construction, hydrologic restoration, shoreline protection, structural protection, bank stabilization, and ridge restoration. On February 13, 2015, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. HERD ENTERPRISES: "Masi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- John Masi v. Herd Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Broward Factory Service, Case No. 0:15-cv-60929-JIC (S.D. Fla., May 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Herd Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates a major appliance repair business and maintains a corporate office in Hollywood, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq. HICKS, MOTTO & EHRLICH, P.A. 3399 PGA Blvd., Suite 300 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 683-2300 Facsimile: (561) 697-3852 E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Court Approved Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Heritage Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has approved a class action settlement and entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice awarding plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses totaling $450,000 and terminating the litigation. On April 4, 2014, Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage entered into and documented an agreement in principle among Washington Banking, its directors, Heritage and the plaintiffs for the settlement of the putative shareholder class action lawsuit captioned In Re Washington Banking Company Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 13-2-38689-5 SEA, pending before the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County (the "Action"). The Action alleges that Washington Banking's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Washington Banking and its shareholders in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 23, 2013 (the "Merger Agreement"), under which Washington Banking and Heritage combined their organizations in a strategic combination, with Washington Banking merging with and into Heritage. The Action also alleges, among other things, that Heritage aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Washington Banking's directors and that the public disclosures concerning the Washington Banking Merger are misleading in various respects. On December 15, 2014, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement of the consolidated litigation and ordering WBCO to provide notice of the proposed settlement to those persons who held WBCO shares during the purported class period. On February 27, 2015, the Court held a hearing to consider whether the settlement was fair and reasonable to the class members and, if so, to approve the settlement and to consider plaintiffs' counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and costs from Washington Banking. At the hearing, the Court approved the settlement and entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice awarding plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses totaling $450,000 and terminating the litigation. The settlement of the Action did not affect the Washington Banking Merger consideration paid to Washington Banking's shareholders in connection with the completion of the Washington Banking Merger on May 1, 2014. Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage took the position that the Action was without merit and denied any wrongdoing of any kind. Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage entered into the settlement solely to eliminate the costs, risks, burden, distraction and expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest. Nothing in the stipulation of settlement or any public filing, including this Annual Report on Form 10-K, shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity of filing or the materiality under applicable laws of any of the additional information contained herein or in any public filing associated with the settlement of the Action. INTERACTER INC: Recalls Battery Chargers ---------------------------------------- Starting date: May 7, 2015 Posting date: May 7, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Unauthorized products Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53229 This recall involves Interacter Inc. Professional and Lineage Series model battery chargers. The affected products display an unauthorized CSA Group certification mark and/or CSA file number 92516 on the unit label. The affected battery chargers are advertised with an unauthorized CSA certification mark and have not been evaluated by CSA Group. It is unknown if the affected products have been tested and evaluated to the applicable standard for safety and performance for Canada or the United States. Neither Health Canada nor CSA Group has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these battery chargers. The number sold is unknown. The time period sold is unknown. Affected units were found for sale online on various websites and in stores in Ontario, Canada. Manufactured in the United States. Manufacturer: Interacter Inc. Wallingford Connecticut UNITED STATES Consumers with the affected models are advised to immediately discontinue use of the product and to contact their retailer, point-of-sale or the distributor. For more information, consumers can contact CSA Group by email and view the CSA Group public notice on their website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/10fnzD INVENTURE FOODS: Montantes Federal Class Action Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the federal class action filed by Vanessa Montantes was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. On February 13, 2014, the Company was sued in two putative class actions filed by Vanessa Montantes alleging that it recorded telephone calls made to its consumer affairs telephone number without obtaining consent to recording as allegedly required by California law. One of the actions was filed in California State Court and captioned Vanessa Montantes v. Inventure Foods, Inc. doing business as Boulder Canyon Natural Foods, Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles Case No. BC536218. This state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff within a few days of its original filing date. The other action was filed in Federal Court and captioned Vanessa Montantes v. Inventure Foods d/b/a Boulder Canyon Natural Foods, United States District Court for the Central District of California Case No. CV14-1128 MWF (RZx). The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 21, 2014, which was denied on June 9, 2014. The Company also demanded indemnity from EMS, Inc., the independent contractor that answered the consumer affairs calls, but EMS, Inc. has not agreed to indemnify the Company. On July 15, 2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding EMS, Inc. as a defendant. The Company answered the First Amended Complaint on August 1, 2014. On January 7, 2015, the federal action was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Invivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a hearing on the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit was scheduled for March 24, 2015. On July 31, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and Mr. Reynolds, as defendants (the "Securities Class Action"). "The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements related to the timing and completion of the clinical study of our Neuro-Spinal Scaffold," the Company said. "The plaintiff seeks class certification for purchasers of our common stock during the period from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013 and unspecified damages. On December 12, 2014, we moved to dismiss this lawsuit, and a hearing on that motion is scheduled for March 24, 2015. We intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit." J. STAFF: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Jose Aguilar, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b) v. J. Staff Corp. a/k/a Pepe's Grocery Store, and Chung Hyon Cho, Case No. 3:15-cv-01379-P (N.D. Tex., May 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate Pepe's Grocery Store in Dallas County, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq. Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq. Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL PC 6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net zabogado@aol.com josh.a.petersen@gmail.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Underwriters' Labor suit for $950,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- LawyersandSettlements.com reports that JPMorgan Chase has agreed to pony up $950,000, according to the terms of a preliminary settlement agreement reached in a California labor law class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the company's California underwriters who alleged the bank failed to pay overtime and provide proper breaks. No comment. The proposed agreement potentially ends the three-year-old lawsuit, which was filed by two loan modification underwriters who worked at a Chase location north of San Diego. They alleged the bank was in violation of federal and state labor laws and that they suffered from overwhelming workload requirements. Filed in 2012, by plaintiffs Mary Loeza and Angie Reveles, the suit claims that Chase saddled its underwriters with unrealistic quotas for processing mortgage loan modification applications that they could not achieve without working overtime. The plaintiffs further claimed that Chase had a strict policy on approval of overtime and would punish employees who worked it without authorization, leaving employees to work off-the-clock and through meal breaks and rest periods to meet the elevated quota, according to the settlement agreement. "Based on their knowledge of this action, plaintiffs determined that the settlement would constitute the best outcome for class members," court documents state. "Likewise, Chase concluded that this action should be settled in order to avoid the expense, inconvenience and burden of further legal proceedings, and the uncertainties of trial and appeal." The proposed class consists of approximately 838 current and former Chase employees who worked at the bank between December 11, 2008, and the date the judge preliminarily approves the agreement. If certified, the settlement will see each class member receive a share of the settlement funds, fees and expenses are paid. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Metal Leaching Risk Part of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Money, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that hundreds of Australians with metal hip replacements fear their bodies have been poisoned by cobalt and chromium leaching from the implants. While the national Therapeutic Goods Administration maintains there is "insufficient evidence" of a definite link, many patients have reported matching symptoms -- nausea, vertigo, headaches, heart problems and more. The possibility of illness through metal leaching is part of the class action, now under way in the Federal Court, against Johnson & Johnson over its DePuy metal-on-metal (MOM) hip -- but there are many Australians with MOM hips of other brands. They are excluded from any benefit the class action may achieve. Hip replacement -- traditionally with ceramic and plastic prostheses -- is regarded as the "world's most successful surgical operation" but evidence has been mounting for years that MOM hips -- where a metal ball fits into a metal socket -- can produce metal ions which seep into the body. Four years ago three specialists sounded the alarm in the Medical Journal of Australia, stating there was an "emerging clinical problem" with MOM hips and citing hand tremors, depression and hearing loss. In 2013 three South Australian ophthalmologists reported eyesight "complications" from cobalt toxicity. They said it was an emerging problem with the "increasing number of . . . metal-on- metal hip implants". Patients with different brands of MOM hips have told Fairfax Media that they have been plagued by mystery ailments since having the devices fitted. Di Harvey, of Charlton in Victoria, said she often felt like she was "about to drop dead". The former nurse had a BHR (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing) device implanted in 2003 but had it removed eight years later because of a series of crippling ailments. "But I've been told that once the cobalt gets into your body the damage has been done," Ms. Harvey says. KAMADO JOE: Recalls Natural Charcoal Products --------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 5, 2015 Posting date: May 5, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Outdoor Living Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Labelling and Packaging Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53271 This recall involves Kamado Joe 100% Natural Charcoal. Kamado Joe Charcoal is an all-natural hardwood lump charcoal used for barbeque cooking. The product comes in a red bag with black and white writing. It has a net weight of 10kg (22lbs) and a UPC code of 5226400202. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that the Kamado Joe 100% Natural Charcoal Charcoal does not meet the bilingual warning label requirements under Canadian Law. Charcoal produces carbon monoxide. This can be toxic if it is burned inside or in an area without proper ventilation. Warning labels help to protect the public by telling them about this hazard. Neither Kamado Joe nor Health Canada have received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product. Approximately 6,744 units of the affected product were sold in Canada at various retailers. The recalled product was sold from March 2012 to April 2015. Manufactured in Argentina. Distributor: Kamado Joe Company Duluth Georgia UNITED STATES Consumers should stop using the product and contact Kamado Joe Company at 1-877-215-6299, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EST (Monday to Friday) for information on how to receive a corrective label. Consumers may also visit the Kamado Joe's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/sYXK6x KILLARNEY MARKET: Recalls Ground Beef Due to E. Coli ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Killarney Market Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9825 Killarney Market is voluntarily recalling Killarney Market brand ground beef from the marketplace due to possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled products described below. The following products were sold from Killarney Market, 2611 East 49th Ave., Vancouver, British Columbia. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody diarrhea. In severe cases of illness, some people may have seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis or live with permanent kidney damage. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC ---------- ----------- ---- product --- ---------- Killarney Lean Ground Variable All Sell By Starts with Market Beef dates from 200089 May 05, 15 up to and including May 11, 15 Killarney Lean Ground Variable All Sell By Starts with Market Beef Family dates from 200115 Pack May 05, 15 up to and including May 11, 15 Killarney Extra Lean Variable All Sell By Starts with Market Ground Beef dates from 200117 Less than May 05, 15 up 10% Fat to and including May 11, 15 Killarney Extra Lean Variable All Sell By Starts with Market Ground Beef dates from 200117 Family Pack May 05, 15 up to and including May 11, 15 Killarney 100% Hormone Variable All Sell By Starts with Market Free Black dates from 200820 Angus Lean May 05, 15 up Ground Beef to and including May 11, 15 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/5Z5B7t KIRKLAND SIGNATURE: Recalls Natural Creamy Peanut Butter -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 5, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9816 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC ---------- ----------- ---- product --- ---------- Kirkland Natural Peanut 2 x 1 Best By dates 0 96619- Signature Butter - Creamy kg 17NOV2015 up 89682 to and including 08JAN2016 LEAD SERVICES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Chahal" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Manpreet "Mark" Chahal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lead Services, LLC d/b/a Auto Protection Department, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:15-cv-00711 (C.D. Cal., May 4, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing calls on the class members' cellular telephone using an automated telephone dialing system. Lead Services, LLC owns and operates call centers and maintains its principal place of business at 1575 Anton Boulevard, Third Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626. The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. David L. Weisberg, Esq. KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com david@kristensenlaw.com LHC GROUP: Insurance Carrier Will Fund $7.9MM Settlement Amount --------------------------------------------------------------- LHC Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's insurance carrier will fund the entire $7.9 million settlement amount in a class action lawsuit. On June 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv- 1609-JTT-CMH. The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between July 30, 2008 and October 26, 2011. Plaintiff generally alleges that the defendants caused false and misleading statements to be issued in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is a control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 2, 2012, Lead Plaintiff City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System filed an Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws ("the Amended Complaint") on behalf of the same putative class of LHC shareholders as the original Complaint. In addition to claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the Amended Complaint added a claim against the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The Company believes these claims are without merit. On December 17, 2012, the Company and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was denied by Order dated March 15, 2013. On June 16, 2014, following mediation, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. On August 5, 2014, the District Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice. The District Court held a final fairness hearing on December 11, 2014 and issued two Report and Recommendations on February 11, 2015 approving the settlement plan of allocation and Lead Plaintiff's fees and expenses. On March 3, 2015, the District Court entered its Judgments adopting the Report and Recommendations previously issued. The Company's insurance carrier will fund the entire $7.9 million settlement amount. The Company's balance sheet reflects the entire settlement in current assets as a receivable due from insurance carrier and correspondingly reflects the entire settlement in current liabilities as a legal settlement payable. M-QUBE INC: Cullan Has Until Aug. 13 to File Class Cert. Motion --------------------------------------------------------------- CULLAN AND CULLAN LLC, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, v. M-QUBE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff, and MOBILE MESSENGER AMERICAS, Inc., a Delaware corporation; CF ENTERPRISES PTY., LTD., an Australian company; and JOHN DOES 1- 200, Defendants, NO. 8:13CV172, (D. Neb.) came before the court on the parties' joint motion for extension of briefing deadlines and for continuance of hearing date. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken granted the motion on May 5, 2015, holding that: * Any motion to certify this case as a class action must be filed on or before August 13, 2015. * On or before September 11, 2015, the defendants must file and serve any objections to class certification specifying with particularity the factual and legal basis of the objections and identifying any facts in which an evidentiary dispute exists. * On October 29, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., an evidentiary hearing will be held before the magistrate judge in Courtroom No. 7, Second Floor, Roman L. Hruska, U.S. Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska, to consider all questions coming within the class action issues under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). At the hearing to be conducted on October 29, 2015, the parties may present extracts of depositions, interrogatories, and documentary evidence relevant to any factual dispute, and only upon a showing of good cause will a party be permitted to call a witness to testify in person at the hearing. * A conference with the undersigned magistrate judge will be held following the class certification hearing on October 29, 2015, for the purpose of reviewing the preparation of the case to date and the scheduling of the case to trial. A copy of Mag. Judge Thalken's ruling is available at http://is.gd/Z9VLXkfrom Leagle.com. MAGO'S I: Faces "Palma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Palma, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Mago's I, Inc. and Antelmo Mejia, Case No. 1:15-cv-03924 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. The Defendants own and operate two restaurants, one located on West Fullerton Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, and the other located on West Diversey Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com MATTHEW CATE: Sept. 24 Final Hearing on Mitchell Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Troy L. Nunley issued an order on May 4, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/HCD6g9from Leagle.com, granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement in ROBERT MITCHELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants, NO. 2:08-CV-01196-TLN-EFB, (E.D. Cal.). The Court found that, for purposes of settlement only, the Stipulated Settlement meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 3626(a)(1). The Stipulated Settlement is granted preliminary approval, subject to the right of class members to challenge the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Stipulated Settlement. A Final Fairness Hearing will take place at 2:00 p.m. on September 24, 2015, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, United States Courthouse, 501 I St., Sacramento CA 95814, in Courtroom 2, to determine whether the proposed settlement of this action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulated Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved by the Court, and whether this action should be dismissed under the settlement. Any further briefing from the parties in advance of the hearing must be filed no later than September 10, 2015. Regarding the fairness of the settlement, a written comment must contain the author's full name and CDCR number, must include all objections and the reasons for them; must include any and all supporting papers (including, without limitation, all briefs, written evidence, and declarations), must be signed by the Class Member, and must be postmarked by September 1, 2015. Plaintiffs in this action, Robert Mitchell, Alvaro Quezada, and a class consisting of all male prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, subjected to CDCR's modified program and lockdown policy, allege that CDCR has a policy and practice of implementing modified programs and lockdowns that violate the Eighth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to statewide injunctive relief to address their claims. MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Evaluating Claims in Retirement System Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Millennial Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is currently evaluating the claims asserted in the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Millennial Media, Inc. et al. and Travis Ostroviak v. Millennial Media, Inc., et al. The Company said, "On September 30, 2014, plaintiff Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws against a group of defendants including us, certain of our current and former executive officers, directors, and large shareholders, and the underwriters associated with our initial public offering and secondary offering. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that certain defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of our common stock by making false and misleading statements to investors. On October 17, 2014, plaintiff Travis Ostroviak also filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which Plaintiff makes certain of the same allegations made in the action brought by Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi. The complaint names us and certain of our current and former executive officers and directors as defendants." "On February 10, 2015, the Court consolidated these two purported class actions. On February 17, 2015, the Court ordered that a consolidated amended complaint be filed in the actions by March 20, 2015, and that Defendants file any motion to dismiss the complaint by April 17, 2015. We are currently evaluating the claims asserted in these two matters." MISSISSIPPI: DOC Wants Walnut Grove Settlement Decree Terminated ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Le Coz, writing for The Clarion-Ledger, reports that the Mississippi Department of Corrections reneged on a five-year agreement it had made with plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit over violence at Walnut Grove Correctional Facility, an unprecedented move that raises legal questions and leaves inmates without court-ordered protections. The bombshell announcement came at the end of the first day of a three-day federal court hearing to determine whether MDOC had been violating the terms of the agreement, called a consent decree. MDOC entered into the decree in 2012 to settle a lawsuit alleging severe and systemic violence at the privately run correctional facility. As part of the agreement, MDOC promised to make numerous improvements and submit to regular visits by court- appointed monitors. The agency also had waived its right to seek to terminate the decree after two years, as allowed under the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act, and instead accept the full five-year agreement. But just two weeks before the hearing, MDOC filed a motion to terminate the decree. By law, the decree becomes invalid as soon as the motion is filed and remains so until a court rules it. Law also requires the court grant MDOC's request unless it finds a continuing and ongoing violation of prisoners' federal rights. That changes the purpose of the hearing, said attorney Margaret Winter of the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project. Instead of determining whether MDOC violated the decree, she said, it now must determine whether it's violating prisoners' federal rights. "Nobody has ever done what they've done," Ms. Winter said about the state breaking its own agreement. "There's no law on this. We were stunned." U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves appeared confused by the information, which came after a full day of testimony on what he thought was the plaintiffs' attempt to prove consent decree violations. "I've been prepared to hear the motion to enforce the consent decree," he said. The consent decree is gone, Ms. Winter said. MDOC attorney Gary Friedman would not answer media questions but told the court earlier that Walnut Grove made substantial improvements in the past three years. Among them, he said, is a significant reduction of its inmate population, elimination of its long-term segregation and maximum- security units, and more staff training. The facility is run by Utah-based Management and Training Corp., or MTC. But the plaintiff's expert witness, Eldon Vail, said those changes came amid pressure from litigants and the court-appointed monitors -- not because of MDOC's or MTC's desire to implement best practices. He also said prison officials learned nothing from two 2014 riots involving hundreds of inmates and injuring many. They could improve, he said, but they're not. "It illustrates to me," Mr. Vail said, "a lack of seriousness about MTC's commitment to keep people safe." MOBILEIRON INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Salman Panjwani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mobileiron, Inc., Robert Tinker, and Todd Ford, Case No. 3:15-cv-01984-SC (N.D. Cal., May 1, 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. Mobileiron, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides a purpose-built mobile IT platform that enables companies to secure and manage mobile applications, content, and devices while providing their employees with device choice, privacy, and a native user experience. 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 MXI CORP: Illegally Promotes Pyramid Scheme, "Martinez" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Enrique Martinez, Michelle Martinez, and Sunshine Martinez-Valdez, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. MXI Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00243 -RCJ-VPC (D. Nev., May 1, 2015), is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged false statements made in the course of operating and promoting the pyramid scheme. MXI Corp. is a Nevada corporation headquartered in Reno, Nevada. MXI promotes itself as an organization that sells product through a network of salespeople who are financially encouraged to bring in new salespeople, and create their own networks of salespeople. The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Desmond, Esq. Justin J. Bustos, Esq. GORDON SILVER 100 West Liberty Street, Suite 940 Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 343-7500 Facsimile: (775) 786-0131 E-mail: jdesmond@gordonsilver.com jbustos@gordonsilver.com - and - R. Adam Swick, Esq. J. Benjamin King, Esq. REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP 1301 S. Capital of Texas Hwy, Suite C300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 647-6100 Facsimile: (512) 647-6129 E-mail: aswick@rctlegal.com bking@rctlegal.com NATIONAL CORRECTIVE: Ordered to Stop Debt Collection Threats ------------------------------------------------------------ Bob Egelko, writing for SFGate, reports that a federal consumer agency has ordered a California debt collector to stop using district attorneys' letterheads or threatening criminal punishment in their notes seeking payment from debtors -- the practices challenged in four Bay Area counties in a lawsuit filed five months ago. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced a settlement last week with a company called National Corrective Group, which operates CorrectiveSolutions in San Clemente (Orange County). The settlement includes a $50,000 civil penalty and an end to what the agency called "deceptive communications to consumers." Those include use of a district attorney's letterhead or signature, any other effort to impersonate a prosecutor, or any false threats that debtors who fail to pay what they owe will face arrest and possible imprisonment unless they take part in "diversion," a company-run education program for bad-check writers. "National Corrective Group masqueraded as prosecutors and used deceptive tactics to intimidate consumers into paying hundreds of dollars in extra fees to avoid potential criminal prosecutions," the federal agency's director, Richard Cordray, said in a statement. The company's chief operating officer, Thomas Jonsson, said the changes ordered by the agency "will not substantially change the program" and would have no effect on the private lawsuit still pending in a San Francisco federal court. But a lawyer for the debtors who sued CorrectiveSolutions said the government's action should resolve all their complaints except one: the fees the company and affiliated firms collected for everything from diversion classes to processing payments. NEW YORK, NY: Public Housing Residents Seek to Enforce Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marian Wang, writing for ProPublica, reports that plaintiffs are taking the New York City Housing Authority back to court. At Maria Santana's public housing apartment on New York's Upper West Side, dirty, black water has periodically poured in from the walls, from the pipes, from the radiator. She says the problems started two years ago. "It's so much water, it looks like it's raining in here. I am scared," Ms. Santana said. She has placed buckets throughout her apartment. Her couch is covered in plastic to keep it from getting wet. Ms. Santana, 60, says she lives in fear that dripping water will come down on the electrical outlets and start a fire. She's taped and covered some of her outlets with plastic as a precaution. Her red folder is a testament to how many times she's tried to get help from her landlord, the New York City Housing Authority. Inside, scrawled in Spanish and broken English, are long lists of ticket numbers and notes from her calls to NYCHA's hotline. Workers would come to the apartment sometimes and make small fixes, she said, but they never actually solved the problems. "They gave me ticket, ticket, ticket, ticket, ticket," Ms. Santana said, paging through her papers. "Over here too, ticket, ticket, ticket, ticket. They just give you tickets. But they don't do nothing." (NYCHA's media office declined ProPublica's requests for updates on specific tickets, directing us instead to make formal records requests.) Ms. Santana, who's been in public housing for more than two decades, has seen the decline of the NYCHA, which was once considered one of the nation's best-run housing authorities. The agency, which is the country's largest public housing authority and home to more than 400,000 tenants, has suffered from a decade of underfunding and aging infrastructure. To hear NYCHA officials tell it, though, the agency is making strides despite continued underfunding. Officials speak of improved customer service and quicker repairs. In recent years, NYCHA has issued press release after press release about its progress in clearing out a backlog of 330,000 repair requests, cutting it down by as much as 95 percent. "If you call us with a leak on Monday, what we're saying is we're going to send someone to your house within seven days," NYCHA General Manager Cecil House told ProPublica. He said that the agency's expectation is that even complex repairs of apartments should take about 15 days. "While NYCHA is a very large and complicated organization with more work to do," House said, "I do think we've made a lot of progress." But residents and NYCHA's own numbers offer a more sobering picture. Residents, housing attorneys and community advocates say that across New York City's public housing developments, they've continued to fight for months, even years, to get the agency to fix falling paint, moldy walls and water leaks. "It's not true. Let me just state that emphatically. It's not true that repairs are getting handled in much of a different way than they've been handled in the past 20 years," said Grant Lindsay, a community organizer affiliated with the Industrial Areas Foundation, a network of religious congregations and community groups. Judging by the agency's own metrics, while the housing authority has done better in some areas, it's still performing far below expectations. Basic maintenance in February, on average, took about twice as long as the seven-day target, and longer than it did a year ago. A plumbing job, on average, took 49 days. A paint job took 53. Plaster work? 63 days. What's more, NYCHA's method of tracking repairs makes it impossible to tell whether underlying problems are actually being addressed. A closed work order may mean that a problem was fixed, said NYCHA executive Cecil House, or it may mean that "some component of the problem was fixed." Closed work orders also don't convey whether the response was adequate. Consider the water that has been dripping from a light fixture in the lobby of Ms. Santana's apartment building in the Douglass Houses for more than a week. "It was leaking water like a faucet," said Santana's downstairs neighbor, Ralph Pinkcombe. Concerned, he immediately called NYCHA and the fire department. "Everyone knows water and electricity don't mix." NYCHA put in an emergency work order, assigned a ticket number, and sent somebody over to the building within a few hours. The fix? A bucket under the leak. A week later, the light fixture is still leaking, and when Mr. Pinkcombe called about it again, he learned that NYCHA had already closed his earlier ticket. When he told the rep the problem hadn't actually been solved, he was simply given a new ticket number. NYCHA's media office said that the ticket closure was "an oversight." "We apologize that it delayed resolution of this situation for the residents," a spokesperson said, adding that it plans to send a plumber to follow up. "Putting in a ticket number doesn't mean anything here. It's garbage," Mr. Pinkcombe said. He's lived in the building for nearly two decades, but it still surprises him that the agency allows dangerous conditions to persist. "These people will wait, they will wait until it's a catastrophe for them to act upon it." Asked whether the housing authority has data that looks at actual problems fixed rather than work orders closed, NYCHA's House said it would be "challenging" to aggregate the data that way. "Our focus has been on trying to identify the components of all the problems. We use that data for staffing purposes, to help us track and count materials and costs. The system was designed with those things in mind," he said. "It wasn't designed to explain this complex system to the public." A court-approved settlement of a federal class action case last year offers another window into what NYCHA considers a repair. As part of the settlement, the housing authority agreed to address nearly all mold and moisture-related work orders within a week or two. The housing authority also agreed to fix underlying problems rather than literally painting over them. But in a letter NYCHA submitted in March to the judge who approved the settlement, the housing authority argued that multiple work orders may be submitted for a given problem, and that each work order gets its own 15 days. "So if they hire a plumber, that can be a 15 day work order. If they hire a plasterer, that's another 15 days. If they hire a painter, that's another 15 days. So that could be 30, 45, 60 days." said Greg Bass, an attorney with the National Center of Law and Economic Justice, which helped bring the case. "They literally don't agree that there is any specific limit to getting the actual job done to get mold and water out of the apartment." Mr. Bass said the plaintiffs are taking NYCHA back to court to enforce the settlement because they say the agency's work to get rid of mold hasn't come close to what the settlement requires. (NYCHA disputes that, arguing it is "not in systemic non- compliance.") "A frequent scenario is they come out and do what they've always done," Mr. Bass said. "They wash down the moldy wall with bleach or detergent, and don't address the underlying moisture. Mold comes back time and time again. We've heard horror story after horror story both before and after we've filed the lawsuit." Javonne Carl has lived that sort of horror story. It took her three and a half years and four housing-court lawsuits to get relief from the mold that plagued her apartment in the Smith Houses on the Lower East Side. "I was constantly putting in tickets," Carl said. When she'd call, NYCHA would tell her the ticket was closed out. "Why? I never understood it." Sometimes they came, made a superficial fix, and the problem would come right back. "It was so bad. So bad. The walls in the bathroom, they bubbled like bubble gum," Carl recalled. They were so soggy that the bathroom sink fell off the wall more than once. In 2011 and 2012, a social worker who paid Carl's teenage daughter home visits was so horrified by the extent of the mold in the apartment that she wrote letters documenting the conditions and even accompanied Carl to housing court to press for a remedy. "Two children living in the apartment, aged 16 and 4 individually, are experiencing excessive coughing and skin rash problems," the social worker's October 2011 letter said. "Several items of clothing and furniture in the apartment have become covered with the mold and the odor associated with the mold." For years, that's how she lived 2013 bleaching walls and scraping mold, tossing out moldy clothes and furniture and replacing them, taking NYCHA to court and waiting at home for repairs. Ms. Carl said she had to miss work so often that she ended up losing her job at Whole Foods. It took until this March for NYCHA to move Ms. Carl and her children out of that apartment and into another. The moisture problem, she says, was never truly solved. For the first time in years, Ms. Carl said, she finally can breathe easy. Her daughters are loving the new apartment. NICK & HOWARD: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over Discriminatory Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zonahi Ariana Zamudio, Leslie Morales, and Brianne Stringham, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Nick & Howard LLC d/b/a The Underground, Rockit Ranch Productions, Inc., and Scott Horwitch, Case No. 1:15- cv-03917 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of all female employees of the Defendants who were routinely subjected to discrimination and harassment on the basis of their sex. The Defendants own and operate multiple restaurants and nightclubs in in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen Ann Salas, Esq. Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq. Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq. Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com dwerman@flsalaw.com NORDIC CRYOBANK: Sued Over Failure to Screen Sperm Donor -------------------------------------------------------- Sanchez Manning and Stephen Adams, writing for Mail Online, report that a British mother is among nearly 100 women who have had babies by a Danish sperm donor who has triggered an international scare over the spread of an incurable genetic disease. The man, known only as Donor 7042, carries a defective gene known as neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) that can pass on a severe, life- limiting condition to his offspring. With demand for Danish sperm soaring, the donor is understood to have fathered 99 'Viking babies' -- as they are widely dubbed -- across the world through the clinic Nordic Cryobank. Ten of his offspring have already been diagnosed with NF1 -- a condition which can increase the risk of cancer, cause learning difficulties and reduce a sufferer's lifespan by up to 15 years. A child born from a parent with the defective gene has up to a 50 per cent chance of developing the disease. Now four families are suing the sperm bank and the case has raised questions among fertility experts about Denmark's booming, and unregulated, sperm export trade. Laura Witjens, from the National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT), said: "The distribution and use of Danish and American sperm donors is not regulated or monitored, but patients are not told this. "NF1 is a rare disease, but the terrible spread of the gene via this prolific Danish donor highlights the worrying dangers of the widespread use of a single donor." The British mother was one of 20 women treated at an IVF clinic in Belgium who conceived using the rogue sperm, the Belgian federal health authority revealed. But reports from a variety of countries show the donor has fathered many more children -- 99 in total, including the ones on Belgium, along with 44 across Scandinavia, 34 in America and one in Iceland. Danish mother Lone Sogaard-Kristensen, whose daughter inherited Donor 7042's illness, claims she was contacted by as many as 17 women with his children who had the condition. Ms. Witjens on April 4 said that it was possible more British women could have bought his donations with the defective gene online. Donor 7042's sperm was also exported to a closely associated centre in America -- the California Cryobank. But in 2009 it was discovered he carried the NF1 gene -- despite undergoing tests and stating in a questionnaire for Nordic Cryobank that there were no genetic disorders in his family. The shock discovery was made when a baby conceived with his sperm in Belgium was diagnosed with the condition. Ms. Sogaard-Kristensen was "stunned" to be informed of his medical status by the Danish health authorities. And when her daughter Andrea subsequently developed the illness, she became one of the families -- three from Denmark and one from the US -- who are taking legal action against Nordic Cryobank. A class action lawsuit claims it failed to properly screen for the disorder before using his specimens. "The case is not about money or revenge, it is about the fact we have not been able to get any information and the only way we can do this is through a court," Ms Sogaard-Kristensen said. "There are no rules that say you must be told how many children these donors make and the sperm banks will not tell you." The case comes as leading fertility scientists from Birmingham University and the Netherlands are calling for new international rules limiting the number of children one donor can produce to 100. They say if a donor exceeds this there is a risk of siblings inter-breeding and suffering psychological damage on finding out they are related to hundreds of other children. Dr Jackson Kirkman-Brown, the fertility expert who led the research at Birmingham University, said: "What is clear when buying sperm from abroad is that although the number of families a donor is allowed to father in the UK is capped, it could be hundreds elsewhere. "If you can imagine finding out that you have 500 siblings across the globe -- that could have a real risk to the mental health of a child." It is understood that The Nordic Cryobank will claim that the legal claims against them are unfounded. Managing director Peter Bower has previously stated that Donor 7042 could not be "clinically classified as having NF1, as it only occurs in some of his cells". The company's website states that it carries out genetic testing for a range of diseases including cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anaemia. But it adds the disclaimer: "It is impossible to rule out genetic disease with 100 per cent certainty since it is not possible to test for all inheritable diseases." NOVA BUS: Recalls LFS Models ---------------------------- Starting date: May 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Engine Units affected: 4 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015191TC ID number: 2015191 On certain buses with Cummins Westport ISL natural gas engines, excessive engine crankcase pressure could cause the vent tube assembly elbow to detach from the breather. This could allow engine oil to come in contact with hot surfaces, increasing the risk of fire. Excessive engine crankcase pressure could also cause a loss of motive power and cause the engine diagnostic lamps to illuminate. These issues could result in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will install clamps at both ends of the elbow of the breather tube assembly and reprogram the Electronic Control Module (ECM) to improve diagnostic capabilities. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- NOVA LFS 2013 OCEAN POWER: Shareholder Litigation in Preliminary Stages --------------------------------------------------------- Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the shareholder litigation cases are still in their preliminary stages and defendants have not yet responded to the complaints. The Company is a defendant in four putative securities class actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. See Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG; Chew, et al. v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. et. al., Case No 3:14-cv-03815-MAS- DEA; Konstantinidis v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04015-FLW-DEA; Turner v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04592. The Company's former Chief Executive Officer is named as a defendant in each of the lawsuits and the Company's Chief Financial Officer is named as a defendant in two of the lawsuits. The complaints allege claims for violations of Sec.10(b) and Sec.20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of public statements relating to a now terminated agreement between Victorian Wave Partners Pty. Ltd. and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency for the development of a wave power station (the "VWP Project"). All four complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On August 12, 2014, five motions for appointment of lead plaintiff were filed. The motions also seek to consolidate the actions. The Court has not ruled on the motions. The cases are still in their preliminary stages and defendants have not yet responded to the complaints. OM SAMBA: Faces "De La Torre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Ana Rosa De La Torre and other similarly situated individuals v. OM Samba, LLC, Susan G. Farkas, Leon Miguel A. Wilensky, and Amechaye, LLC, Case No. 0:15-cv-60930 (S.D. Fla., May 4, 2015),is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a real estate company that does business in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq. Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com agp@rgpattorneys.com PANDA EXPRESS: Settles Managers' OT Class Suit for Up to $2.98MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Penton, writing for Law360, reports that a class of Panda Express general managers who accused the Chinese fast food chain of stiffing them on overtime pay have agreed to settle the matter for up to $2.98 million, according to a filing in New York district court on April 2. Attorneys representing the 155 members of the class action and the California-based restaurant chain signed off on the nine-page settlement letter that could bring closure to a matter that has dragged out for more than six years, ever since the initial January 2009 filing. As part of the agreement, the restaurant chain will pay up to $2.98 million, depending on hours billed and other details. "A substantial amount of work undertaken by both sides is not necessarily reflected in the court docket," the attorneys wrote. The employees claimed they regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week and performed a substantial amount of nonmanagerial duties -- taking out trash, taking customer orders and cleaning, for example -- but did not get paid for the extra time. Over the six years since the initial complaint was filed, the two sides have fought over several details in determining whether the general managers should be considered exempt or nonexempt. For example, attorneys representing Panda Express have objected to the plaintiffs including preaddressed, postage-paid envelopes in a mailing for a collective action notice to restaurant employees. "We believe that the provision of a self-addressed stamped envelope encourage participants to join," lawyers representing Panda Express wrote to a judge back in 2011. The judge allowed the plaintiffs to include the envelopes. Ultimately, both sides agreed to take the matter before a private mediator in December, when they participated in an "all-day" session that extended into the night, according to the April 2 letter. Panda Express, which calls itself "America's favorite Chinese restaurant" on its website, began operations in 1983 in a mall in Glendale, California. By 2013, it had more than 1,600 restaurants in 47 states, according to the site. The employees are represented by Sara Wyn Kane -- skane@vkvlawyers.com -- of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP and Mary E. Marzolla of Feerick Lynch MacCartney PLLC. Panda Express is represented by Joshua B. Waxman -- jwaxman@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC. The case is Kudo v. Panda Restaurant Group Inc. et al., case number 7:09-cv-00712, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. PARADIES SHOPS: Removed "Frazier" Suit to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The Paradies Shops, Inc. removed the class action lawsuit styled Stacy Frazier v. The Paradies Shops, Inc. d/b/a The Paradies Shops, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2014- 00043818-CU-OE-CTL from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00983-JAH-RBB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Isaac Dychter, Esq. DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1835 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 487-0777 Facsimile: (619) 330-1827 E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sat Sang Khalsa, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 E-mail: skhalsa@gordonrees.com PEDEGO INC: Recalls Ion Rechargeable Batteries Due to Fire Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 11, 2015 Posting date: May 11, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53305 This recall involves 36-volt and 48-volt lithium ion rechargeable batteries. The recalled batteries were sold separately and as original equipment with Pedego electric bikes. The batteries came in two styles. One style has a silver or black metal case that measures 13-1/2 inches (34 centimeters) long and 6-1/2 inches (16.5 centimeters) wide and 2-1/2 inches (6.25 centimeters) high with black plastic end caps and a handle. The other style has a black or white plastic case that measures about 14 inches (35.5 centimeters) long, 6-1/2 inches (16.5 centimeters) wide and 2-1/2 inches (6.25 centimeters) high with a red indicator lamp on one end. Serial numbers that start with 'DLG' are included in this recall. The serial number can be found on a label on the side of the batteries with metal casing and on the underside of the batteries with plastic casing. The batteries can overheat, posing a fire hazard. Health Canada has not received any consumer reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these batteries. Pedego Inc. has received one report of a battery overheating, resulting in minor property damage in Canada. Approximately 400 units were sold in Canada. The affected batteries were sold between January 2010 and September 2013 at various retailers. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: DLG Shanghai CHINA Distributor: Pedego Inc. Irvine California UNITED STATES Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/FSNkVO PETROBRAS: AP1 Mulls Suit Over Corruption Scandal ------------------------------------------------- Madison Marriage and Joe Leahy, writing for The FT, report that one of Sweden's largest investors has pledged to take direct legal action against Petrobras, becoming the third large investor to seek damages individually from the Brazilian oil group. The $30 billion AP1 pension fund plans to sue Petrobras separately from an existing class action lawsuit after revelations of a multibillion-dollar corruption scandal at Brazil's biggest company by sales. A spokesperson for AP1, which held 3.7 milion of Petrobras shares at the end of December, told FT: "We have opted out from the class action and intend to have our own process against the company." In the past two weeks, Dimensional Fund Advisors, the US fund house, and six New York City pension funds also opted out of the class action to sue Petrobras for losses suffered as a result of bribery alleged to have taken place at the company between 2004 and 2012. A spokesperson for Dimensional said: "We, along with several other funds, have decided to take action against Petrobras. Usually we do this by joining a class-action suit. This time we thought it in our shareholders' interest to pursue our claims directly." Investors may secure better settlement terms by pursuing a claim separately to a class action, according to several lawyers. The investor suits, which have been filed in the New York court system, claim that the company misstated the value of its assets and made misleading statements about its anti-corruption policies and internal financial reporting controls. Petrobras stock was consequently sold at artificially inflated prices, according to the legal filings. Petrobras's share price dropped 43 per cent last year. The company declined to comment. Several European pension funds that invested in Petrobras are also assessing their legal options. A spokesperson for AP3, the second largest of the five Swedish government pension funds, with $33 billion of assets, told FT: "[We] have not yet decided to join any class action suits against Petrobras. However, we will make sure we receive our eventual share of [any] settlement." The $20 billion AP7 fund confirmed it owns 3.3 million Petrobras shares worth EUR10 million but said it "has not planned any class action lawsuit". Nick Butler, visiting professor at King's College London and former vice-president for policy at BP, the UK energy company, believes the investors "have a very strong case". "The investor relations statements from the company over several years have clearly been misleading," he said. Simon Hart, a partner at RPC, the law firm, added: "The underlying facts about the bribery allegations seem to be well advanced in terms of being admitted or evidenced." However, David Seidel, chief executive of the Institutional Investors Tort Recovery Association, which helps institutions decide which class actions to join, was more circumspect. He said: "There are some very serious allegations that have to be addressed and this is probably the biggest corruption trial I have seen. How that resolves itself is another question." Dozens of US pension funds have filed lawsuits against Petrobras since December. In March the claims were consolidated into one group class action with the Universities Superannuation Scheme, the GBP40 billion UK pension fund, selected as the lead plaintiff. Union Investment, the German asset manager, and the Hawaiian state pension fund were named as additional plaintiffs in the suit. USS has claimed that it lost $84 million as a result of the Petrobras turmoil. ABP, the largest Dutch pension fund, and PGGM, which holds 0.8 per cent (EUR61.5 million) of Petrobras stock, confirmed they were participating in the class action. PINGTAN MARINE: Defending Against "Fila" Case --------------------------------------------- Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is defending against the case Paul Fila, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd., Xinrong Zhuo, Roy Yu, Jin Shi, and Xuesong Song. The Company said, "On January 14, 2015, a purported class action was filed by Paul Fila, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, against us and certain of our executive officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of allegedly untrue or misleading statements of material facts included in the financial statements we filed with the SEC during the purported class period, May 14, 2013 through November 6, 2014 (including certain improperly disclosed related party transactions). The complaint seeks compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and other class members for all damages sustained in an amount to be determined at trial, including interest thereon." "We believe that the class action lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend the action and seek dismissal of the complaint. Due to the early stage of the proceeding, we believe that the probability of an unfavorable outcome or loss related to the proceeding and an estimate of the amount or range of loss related to the claims, if any, from an unfavorable outcome is not determinable at this time." PNC BANK: Faces "Dobson" Suit Over Forced-Placed Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Dobson, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated borrowers v. PNC Bank, N.A. and American Security Insurance Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-00582-LPL (W.D. Pa., May 4, 2015), is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendants' alleged anti-consumer and predatory practice of charging for "force-placed" flood insurance. PNC Bank, N.A. is a national banking association with its headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. American Security Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stanley M. Stein, Esq. STANLEY M. STEIN, P.C. 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard Suite 150 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 904-4573 Facsimile: (412) 904-4726 E-mail: smstein@smsteinlaw.com - and - Stephen J. Fearon Jr., Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com RHODE ISLAND: Social Service Providers File Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Richard Salit, writing for Providence Journal, reports that mental health and family therapy workers are suing two social service providers -- The Providence Center and Family Service of Rhode Island -- for allegedly failing to compensate them for work they performed. The workers say that while they receive a typical flat fee of $40 for providing 45-minute therapy sessions, they are not paid for the additional time they are expected to work. That includes travel to clients, waiting a mandatory 15 minutes for no-show clients and conducting the outreach and paperwork required of no- show appointments. The workers' lawyer, Richard Sinapi, filed the pair of lawsuits in U.S. District, Providence, on March 30. Each suit names three plaintiffs, but Sinapi is seeking to expand the case into a class- action complaint by representing others who have worked for the two agencies with similar grievances. Mr. Sinapi said his clients have college degrees and are licensed professionals. An estimated 40 workers at the Providence Center and Family Service of Rhode Island could potentially be included in the case, according to court papers. "These unlawful employment practices -- which appear to be largely industrywide -- not only make it difficult for these therapists to support themselves and their families but it deters others from obtaining advanced degrees and pursuing careers as mental health and family therapists -- thereby leading to a potential future shortage of such trained professionals," Mr. Sinapi said in a statement. Stephen Hug, spokesman for Family Service of Rhode Island, said in a statement, "We value our employees and the valuable contribution they make to serving some of RI's most vulnerable communities. We are unaware of this lawsuit as we have not been legally served. Therefore we have no comment at this time." Garry Bliss, director of government and external relations for The Providence Center, said his agency had no comment on the case. Not only are workers cheated, so are employers who follow the law and are put at a competitive disadvantage as well as the state which loses out on payroll and income taxes, said Mr. Sinapi. Darlene D'Arezzo, the lead plaintiff in both lawsuits, said in a statement, "This practice is occurring at a number of agencies in Rhode Island and it must be rectified. I hope my colleagues are inspired to join us and assert their right to be compensated for all work performed." Joelle Depeyrot, who works for The Providence Center, said, "There is a tendency in our field to take advantage of clinicians. The organizations seem to forget that without us licensed service providers, there is no agency. The culture needs to change." RHODE ISLAND: Retirees' Pension Suit in Legal Limbo --------------------------------------------------- Katherine Gregg, writing for Providence Journal, reports that a year ago, four dozen retired state workers and public school teachers who vehemently objected to being lumped into a potential class-action settlement of the legal war over state pension cuts filed their own lawsuit. Their fight centered on the General Assembly's cost-cutting overhaul of Rhode Island's public employee pension system in 2011: specifically, the suspension of annual cost-of-living adjustments until the retirement system is 80 percent funded. But they were not listed on April 2 among the groups that had either agreed to the state's new-and-enhanced settlement offer -- or rejected it -- in a status report that former Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank Williams filed in Superior Court, as a special master in the case. The reason why surfaced on April 3: Their legal challenge to the constitutionality of the pension cuts is still alive, but the retirees are so deeply split, their lawyer, Sean O'Leary, wants out and their lawsuit is in legal limbo. Mr. O'Leary has asked the court's permission for him and his associate, Jonathan F. Whaley, to withdraw from the case. In recent filings with the court, he said conflicts within the group have made it virtually impossible "to represent any/all plaintiffs." He said some have "directed [him] to take no further actions in connection with this matter." He said some have expressly terminated his services, and some have informed him "that they refuse to remit further payment(s) in connection with this action." In recent weeks, the number of plaintiffs "has decreased from 199 to 99, as 100 former-plaintiffs directed counsel to discontinue their respective claims . . . . A concurrent conflict of interest has arisen amongst the remaining plaintiffs subsequent to the recent settlement offer," he wrote. He told the court that the positions taken by "several of the remaining plaintiffs . . . conflicts with the position(s) of several other plaintiffs. "He told the court that his continuing involvement in the case would result in "an unreasonable financial burden," since he and his firm are owed in excess of $30,000 for past legal services already rendered, and "save withdrawal, Counsel would otherwise be required to expend, upon information and belief, between $60,000 and $160,000 in expert-witness fees, in the coming days -- and substantially more monies and time prosecuting this action at trial." Mr. O'Leary said the case was also undermined by the actions of one or more of the plaintiffs who, "despite multiple express directives . . . on (and before) March 30, 2015 to refrain from contacting this Court (and the media) . . . contacted Your Honor, in direct contravention of Counsel's directives, on that very same day." "At this juncture, the relationship between the undersigned and the remaining plaintiffs is, quite regrettably, beyond repair. It is the sincere hope of this practitioner that Counsel's withdrawal may enable the remaining Plaintiffs, without being saddled with the aforementioned debilitating challenges, to continue any pursuit of their interests." Court spokesman Craig Berke said Mr. O'Leary's motion will be considered at the court's next anticipated hearing in the case, April 13. The 'Clifford case' In their lawsuit, these retirees argued that retirement benefits -- and specifically, the annual payment of COLAs -- were contractual promises the state cannot arbitrarily break. Mr. O'Leary filed the suit for them on April 3, 2014, as other groups of employees and retirees were voting on an earlier settlement proposal, which was ultimately defeated. The lawsuit -- known as the "Clifford case" -- raises many of the same constitutional issues raised by other litigants, who in recent weeks voted to settle before their cases go to trial, and a judge has a chance to rule on their legal arguments. Named for the lead plaintiff, retired Scituate high school history teacher Joseph Clifford, the retirees' alleged breach of contract and violations of the due process and takings clauses within the state Constitution and a legal concept called "promissory estoppels." In this case, estoppel means the retirees made life plans based on what they believed were contractual promises yanked away after the fact. Many, if not all, of these retirees left work when the state retirement system was still providing retirees with guaranteed 3- percent compounded COLAs every year. The 2011 rewrite of state pension law suspended the payment of annual COLAs until the retirement system is 80 percent funded, but allowed intermittent increases every 5 years. The estimated date for the reinstatement of annual increases: 2031. The settlement would increase the retirees' chances of getting COLAs every 4 years instead, and on a larger portion of their benefits: $30,000, adjusted for inflation, plus two $500 one-time stipends a year apart. 3 groups refused On April 2, Williams filed a report, in his role as the special master in the pension case, that identified only three groups -- representing about 733 employees -- who had refused to go along with the settlement: Cranston police, Cranston firefighters and affiliates of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. The IBPO case covers officers in Barrington, Bristol, Cranston, East Greenwich, Foster, Glocester, Hopkinton, Johnston, Middletown, New Shoreham, North Kingstown, North Smithfield, Richmond, South Kingstown, Warren, West Greenwich and Woonsocket. While emphasizing, again, her belief that "the state had a strong case," Governor Raimondo on April 2 said taking "the litigation risk off the table is the right thing to do . . . for all the people of Rhode Island." Mr. Raimondo and lawyer Mark Dingley said the proposed settlement would also preserve "over 90 percent" of the $4 billion in long-term savings anticipated by the 2011 overhaul, and dismiss six of nine pending lawsuits. But the proposed deal unveiled on April 2 does not settle the legal questions raised by the lawsuits, and it does not necessarily avert a trial if the groups that rejected it opt for trial on their own constitutional challenges to the reduced benefits, increases in minimum age-and-work age requirement for a pension, and suspended COLAs. RJR PENSION: Supreme Court to Hear Reverse Stock-Drop Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Steyer, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court might hear a case in which a defined contribution plan sponsor is being sued for selling a stock fund too soon -- the opposite of what a typical fiduciary lawsuit alleges. This reverse stock-drop case -- RJR Pension Investment Committee et al. vs. Tatum et al. -- will include some knotty legal questions if the court does review it. Key issues include DC plan executives' responsibility to follow and document investment decisions to meet the guidelines for fiduciary prudence contained in the Employee Retirement Investment Security Act. The case could hinge on whether the Supreme Court decides to rule on a standard of fiduciary prudence distinguishing between the words "could" and "would." In the RJR case, a federal District Court issued a pro-RJR ruling, saying the plan needed to show that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary "could have" acted in a similar manner as RJR plan executives. This is a more flexible standard. But an appeals court reversed the District Court, saying RJR had to show that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary "would have" acted in the same manner -- a stricter standard. ERISA attorneys say there's a big difference between the two standards. In December 2014, the RJR plan petitioned the Supreme Court. In March, the Supreme Court asked the solicitor general to submit views on the case, a strong indication to ERISA attorneys that the court is interested in ruling on the case. The RJR case is based on a 1999 decision by RJR Nabisco Holdings to split into a tobacco company (R.J. Reynolds) and a food company (Nabisco). When the tobacco company was spun off in June, it had a separate 401(k) plan whose investment options included publicly traded shares of the tobacco company, the food company and the old parent company (whose primary asset was its stake in the food company). The tobacco company 401(k) plan froze the latter two stock investments. Court documents show plan executives sold the two stocks at a substantial loss on Jan. 31, 2000. The food-company stock was down 40% from the spinoff and the parent company stock was off 60%. However, the food-company stock rose, thanks to a bidding war in which Philip Morris Cos. Inc. was the victor in December 2000. Court documents show the parent company stock rose 247% and the food-company stock rose 82% from the day the tobacco 401(k) plan sold them. In May 2002, participants in the tobacco company 401(k) plan filed a class-action suit against the plan, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty for imprudently selling its holdings in the food company and the old parent company. A federal District Court judge in Greensboro, N.C., ruled in favor of the RJR plan in February 2013. Participants appealed. In August 2014, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Richmond, Va., voted 2-1 to reverse the District Court ruling. In their petition to the Supreme Court, RJR plan attorneys said the plan held "large amounts of Nabisco stock solely because of a historical accident." "Those holdings were not the result of ERISA's pro-diversification policies," the attorneys wrote. RJR officials acted prudently to avoid being saddled with multiple single-stock investment options, the petition said. The plan participants' petition to the Supreme Court said the actions by the RJR plan were punctuated with multiple failures to "investigate or monitor the reasonableness" of its decision, representing a breach of fiduciary duties. They said the court shouldn't overturn the appeals court's ruling. Attorneys unaffiliated with the case don't expect the solicitor general's opinion for several months, meaning the Supreme Court is likely to wait until at least the fall to decide if it wants to take the case. The current court session ends June 30. Poor planning ERISA attorneys agree the RJR 401(k) plan executives did a poor job of planning and documenting their decision to divest the plan's food-company investments. "This is a classic case of what not to do when you are changing investment options," said Mary Ellen Signorille, senior attorney for AARP Foundation Litigation, a unit of the AARP, Washington. "This process was just awful. The takeaway for other employers is "do the process right.'" AARP supports the RJR plan participants, having written an amicus brief when the appeals court reviewed the federal District Court's decision. "The biggest takeaway for the benefits community is something we have been preaching forever -- procedural prudence," said Russell Hirschhorn, a New York-based senior counsel for Proskauer Rose LLP, whose firm defends employers in fiduciary breach cases. "Other fiduciaries should do a better job of documenting their decisions," said Jeremy Blumenfeld -- jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- a Philadelphia-based partner at Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, whose firm represents employers in fiduciary breach cases. "RJR didn't document." However, the District Court judge ruled in favor of RJR, saying that "a hypothetical prudent fiduciary could have decided to eliminate" the food stock investments from the plan. "The court concludes that the fiduciaries' failure to properly investigate their decision . . . was not the cause of any of Tatum's or the class' alleged injuries." The appeals court noted the many procedural problems presented during the District Court trial, including the fact that an RJR working group spent "only 30 to 60 minutes" considering whether the tobacco company 401(k) plan should sell the food-stock investments. The appeals court said RJR should be held to a higher standard -- that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary "would" have made the same decision as the RJR 401(k) plan executives. The appeals court remanded the case to the District Court, where it remains pending. Attorneys not involved in the case said the "could" standard is a fair approach to prudence that gives fiduciaries greater leeway to make decisions. The "would" standard, they added, is tougher on plan sponsors. The appeals court ruling "set a very difficult burden for plan fiduciaries," said Mr. Hirschhorn of Proskauer Rose. The appeals court ruling" is a bad decision; it is a pro- litigation decision," said James P. McElligott Jr. -- jmcelligott@mcguirewoods.com -- a Richmond, Va.-based partner at McGuireWoods LLP, whose firm represents DC plans in fiduciary breach cases. "When you make an investment decision, there is no way to guarantee success." Mr. McElligott acknowledged that the RJR executives made procedural errors. But he supports the District Court's "could" standard because the court said, in effect, that the RJR plan executives' ultimate decision was "one of a number of reasonable alternatives." By contrast, Ms. Signorille of the AARP Foundation Litigation endorses the appeals court's use of the stricter "would" standard for determining prudence. "It troubles me that fiduciaries would go through such a terrible process and get away with it," she said. ROLL N GO: "Wijaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Geraldy Wijaya, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Roll N Go Inc. d/b/a Roll And Go, Three Guys Pizza & Burgers Inc. d/b/a Roll and Go, Noam Svilem, and Nir Tetler, Case No. 1:15-cv-03445 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a limited-service restaurant located at 570 8th Avenue, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael K. Chong, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL K. CHONG, LLC 300 Hudson Street, Suite 10 Hoboken, NJ 07030 Telephone: (201) 708-6675 Facsimile: (201) 708-6676 E-mail: mkc5001@yahoo.com SANOFI: Court Dismissed CVR Class Actions in Their Entirety ----------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a Court dismissed the CVR Class Actions in their entirety with prejudice. In December 2013, Sanofi and certain of its officers were named as defendants in two putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints in the lawsuits, which were filed on behalf of a putative class of holders of NASDAQ-traded contingent value rights ("CVRs") originally issued in connection with Sanofi's acquisition of Genzyme in 2011, principally allege that Sanofi's public disclosures materially misrepresented (i) the efficacy and safety of Lemtrada(R) (alemtuzumab) and (ii) the design of two Lemtrada(R) clinical trials, CARE-MS I and CARE-MS II. Such alleged misrepresentations, according to the complaints, caused an artificial inflation in the price of the CVRs during the period March 6, 2012 through November 7, 2013. Based on these allegations, the complaints allege violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In June 2014, Sanofi filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, and on January 28, 2015 the Court dismissed both complaints in their entirety with prejudice. The plaintiffs have 30 days to appeal this judgment. SCENIC TOURS: Faces Class Action; April 2016 Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- Louise Hall, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a class action has been filed against leading Australian travel company Scenic Tours. David Moore and Janette Howell spent their life savings -- $26,200 -- on what they expected to be a relaxing river cruise through the picturesque French and German countryside. Instead, they spent hours on substandard coaches, including one without a working toilet and airconditioning, and missed out on much of the promised sightseeing. They are leading a class action against Scenic Tours, claiming its "expensive, luxury river cruises" turned into "cheap, second-rate bus tours" because of extensive flooding in Europe. Up to 1300 people who travelled with Scenic Tours and Evergreen Tours in Europe between May 10, 2013 and June 14, 2013 will be invited to join the class action being run in the NSW Supreme Court. Heavy rainfall in France and Germany in April and May 2013 caused extensive flooding and water levels on the Rhine, Saone, Rhone and Danube rivers rose so high that cruise boats were unable to operate as scheduled for about six weeks. The affected tours included Amsterdam to Budapest, Amsterdam to Basel and the rivers of southern France. Mr. Moore, a Lake Macquarie school teacher, said Scenic Tours did not give passengers any warning of the significant changes, disruption or delays to the itinerary necessitated by the weather. He said given his chronic back problems, "no way in this lifetime would I have booked a bus tour". In a statement of claim, the group said Scenic Tours breached Australian Consumer Law by failing to cancel or delay the cruises, offer alternative tours, or warn of expected disruptions, particularly to passengers who travelled to Europe from Australia. Instead of visiting cities and sites via the river and spending nights on a boat, the passengers said they endured very long bus rides and in some cases stayed overnight at "low-budget hotels". Sydney firm Somerville Legal initiated the class action after founding partner Tim Somerville and his wife Julie were passengers on a cruise in southern France that began on May 19, 2013. More than 120 people have signed up and the firm will be writing soon to all passengers from the 16 affected cruises asking them to join. "Passengers chose to book these holidays to enjoy a relaxing cruise along rivers, not a second-rate bus tour. Many chose to cruise because of limited mobility or other health problems. Travelling long distances by bus was the last thing they expected, and nothing like what they paid for," Benjamin Hemsworth, from Somerville Legal, said. Scenic Tours is defending the case. It said the standard terms and conditions of the contract allowed it to make changes to itineraries, including because of road, river or weather conditions. It said it was not liable for any loss, cost or damage, including the failure to perform its obligations because of a force majeure event such as high water levels. Furthermore, it said the river cruises were not operated by it but by independent contractors, including Scenic Tours Europe AG, and any claim must be pursued against them. Scenic Tours chief operating officer Damien Thomas said the company's aim to provide the "highest-quality service and travel experience . . . does not alter in circumstances where a change to an itinerary is unfortunately required due to prevailing weather or river conditions, such as those experienced in northern Europe in April/May 2013". After taking redundancies from their government jobs, Alan and Charmaine decided to take the "trip of lifetime" and paid $20,000 for a 15-day cruise between Amsterdam and Budapest. But after just four days cruising, the boat docked and passengers were bussed to and from attractions for the remainder of the tour. Alan said other cruise companies cancelled or delayed tours, but Scenic carried on as if it was "business as usual". "I appreciate they can't control the weather but it's the way they handled it, which to me seemed to be disdainful of their passengers," he said. Once home the couple complained and were offered a "paltry" $500 refund or $1000 off their next cruise. Other passengers have taken Scenic Tours to consumer tribunals and been offered $2500. Somerville Legal said those people were not prohibited from joining the class action. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation and/or personal injury damages for inconvenience, distress and disappointment and the lost opportunity to cancel. If successful, the litigation lender will take its fees and a percentage of the settlement. The case returns to court in July and the substantive hearing will take place in April 2016. SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Court Certified Class in "Ubaldi" Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a Court has certified a class with respect to claims of improper late fees, but denied class certification with respect to plaintiffs' usury claims in the Ubaldi class action. On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL (the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as a putative class action with respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by Sallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks, including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiff claims that Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it intends to vigorously defend the action. On March 26, 2014, the Court denied the plaintiff's request to certify the class; however, the Court permitted the plaintiff to amend its filing to redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion on June 23, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on the renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to claims of improper late fees, but denying class certification with respect to plaintiffs' usury claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional parties, which Sallie Mae has opposed. Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action. However, in the first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi Case (the "Notice"). Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question were made by Bank SNB. Bank SNB has substantial defenses with respect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend against any such claims. TAISHAN GYPSUM: Homeowners Await Ruling in Chinese Drywall Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Chesley, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, reports that for homeowners who suffered problems from defective Chinese drywall, a recent surprise announcement is not the end of their ordeal. But a conclusion, at long last, could be in sight. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., after years of stonewalling, paid a $3.2 million judgment in a test case involving seven families from Hampton Roads. A federal judge in New Orleans had ordered the payment in 2010, but the company filed appeal after appeal, refused to appear in court and otherwise thumbed its nose at the legal system. U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon wasn't having it. He barred the state-controlled firm and its parent company from doing business in the United States, and Taishan finally ended its recalcitrance in March. Think about it: China ranks second on the list of trading partners with the United States, behind only Canada. Yet over the past decade, China has been the source of lead-laden toys, tainted pet food, toothpaste containing antifreeze and contaminated seafood. What a teammate. Now, 4,000 other people in a class-action suit -- including 300 who lived in Virginia -- hope a resolution will come quickly. A trial was set for April 28 before Fallon. They're folks like Suzy Lenander. She and her family now live in the Phoenix area, but they spent several fretful years in the mid- to late 2000s in a new home in Williamsburg built with the tainted material. The recent development involving Taishan "gave us some hope after many years of feeling nothing is happening," she told me by phone on April 3. "But it's guarded. Until the check is in our hands, and we can do something to get this off our necks . . . "I had to stop thinking about it, because it made my stomach hurt," continued Ms. Lenander, a 44-year-old wife and mother of two young children. "Now, I'm thinking there's some hope." Ms. Lenander's story parallels those of other local residents that The Pilot's Sarah Kleiner Varble detailed in a four-part series last year. The defective drywall often emitted a sulfur odor. Many homeowners suffered health issues including headaches, nosebleeds, respiratory problems and fatigue. The drywall damaged wiring and appliances. People had to move. Some couldn't afford to rip out the drywall. They had to decide whether to keep paying the mortgage. Their credit ratings tanked. Homeowners sought loan "forbearance" from lenders. Some marriages crumbled. Ms. Lenander said she came to Hampton Roads in 2007 because her husband was in the military and had been ordered to Fort Eustis. They spent nearly $460,000 on a 2,370-square-foot house in Wellington Estates. After moving in, she'd get bad headaches. The skin on her hands would peel. Fortunately, she said, no one suffered serious health problems that seemed permanent. They joined the lawsuit in 2009. After her husband left the military, they moved out in 2011. They still own the Williamsburg house, but no one lives there. "It's an albatross," Ms. Lenander said. "I had perfect credit when this happened, and my husband almost had perfect credit." Not anymore. She's "guardedly hopeful" a resolution is coming, by way of the courts. The Lenanders deserve that -- and so do thousands of others. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Actos Drug ------------------------------------------------------------ Cesar Castillo, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03505-UA (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2015), s an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the designing, developing, manufacturing, distributing, labeling, advertising, marketing, promoting, and selling of Actos (pioglitazone Hcl). Actos is a prescription medication used to improve blood sugar (glucose) control in adults with Type II diabetes. Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business located at One Takeda Parkway, Deerfield, Illinois 60015. Takeda is involved in the research, development, sales and marketing of pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bradley J. Demuth, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 702-7053 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com - and - Juan R. Rivera Font, Esq. JUAN R. RIVERA FONT LLC Ave. Gonzalez Giusti #27, Suite 602 Guaynabo, PR 00968 Telephone: (787) 751-5290 E-mail: juan@riverafont.com TNUVA FOOD: Donates to Animal Welfare Groups to Avert Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Chen Ma'anit, writing for Globes, reports that Tnuva will donate NIS4.2 million to animal welfare and food for the needy so that a class action suit will be withdrawn. Tnuva Food Industries Ltd. will pay NIS2.7 million to non-profit animal welfare organizations in Israel, and will contribute NIS1.5 million worth of food products to poor people through the Latet non-profit organization, so that the class action suit filed against it for conditions at the abattoir at its Adom Adom (Tnuva Bakar) meat subsidiary will be withdrawn. These are the conditions of the compromise settlement reached by Tnuva subsidiary Adom Adom with Ruth Kalian and Perach Amsaleg, who filed the class action suit charging abuse of lambs and calves at Tnuva's Adom Adom plant. A television broadcast of the conditions two and a half years ago shocked Israel. The compromise, which was reached following a mediation by former Supreme Court Chief Justice Meir Shamgar, also requires Tnuva to pay each of the claimants NIS60,000 and NIS420,000 in legal fees to their legal representatives: Advocates Hani Tannos, Aviad Amzaleg, Yohi Geva, and Tal Rechnitz. In the notifying the Jerusalem District Court of the settlement for the purpose of having it made a legal judgment, the parties announced that they preferred an agreed settlement to lengthy legal proceedings. "The compromise settlement does not completely satisfy the wishes of the parties requesting approval, but it promotes the main public goal they sought and the public welfare," the parties wrote. They also said that after the December 2012 "Adom Adom" television broadcast on the Kolbotek program, Tnuva had taken steps to avoid the occurrence of cases similar to those documented in the program, including firing the plant manager and additional employees, and investing money in improving conditions for the animals. The lawsuit was sparked by the clandestinely filmed record of events at the Adom Adom abattoir in Beit She'an shown on Kolbotek. Anonymous for Animal Rights activist and journalist Ronen Bar got a job at the plant, and used a hidden camera to documents the abuse of calves and lambs. The investigation documented the systematic and open abuse, which violated law, regulations, and standards for treatments of animals. Among other things, employees were filmed using electric cattle prods to give animals electric shocks, beating animals, standing on them, dragging them with a forklift, etc. UNITED STATES: Paid $3.3 Billion to Resolve Lawsuits in 2014 ------------------------------------------------------------ Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the federal government paid more than $3 billion last year to resolve lawsuits, almost twice as much as it did the year before, according to an analysis by The National Law Journal of hundreds of payment records. The departments of Energy, Interior and Health and Human Services accounted for the largest share of expenditures. Those agencies spent a combined $2.35 billion to settle a series of long-running disputes that included government contracts litigation over health care programs run by Indian tribes. And, while not a high dollar total, the government made payouts to former military employees let go under the since-reversed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The payments were logged in the Judgment Fund, a Treasury Department database of money the feds use to satisfy court judgments or settle lawsuits. Created in 1956, the fund is a permanent, indefinite appropriation, exempt from annual congressional approval. Its records are opaque. Payments are identified only by citation codes and agency file numbers that may or may not correspond to federal court case numbers. As in years past, the Energy Department spent the most on lawsuits in 2014, paying $929 million in taxpayer money. Most of the money went to nuclear power plants to settle breach-of-contract claims involving the storage of spent nuclear fuel. The agency has spent more than $4 billion on such claims during the past four years. The federal government was supposed to begin storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, in 1998. But the facility has not been completed -- it's unclear if it ever will be -- and the power plants have been stuck with the waste. "Plaintiffs have honored all of their contractual obligations under the standard contracts. The government breached the standard contracts by failing to accept [spent nuclear fuel] for disposal as required," Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partner Arnold Bradley Fagg wrote in a complaint on behalf of Progress Energy Inc. subsidiaries Carolina Power and Light Co. and Florida Power Corp. The company accepted a $90 million settlement last year. FIFTY SUITS COST $650 MILLION Another major outlay came from the Indian Health Service, which pulled more than $650 million from the Judgment Fund to settle about 50 suits. Indian tribes accused the agency of underpayment of government contracts for running health care clinics and hospitals on reservations. "It was a 20-year battle, but we finally started to see the results," said Lloyd Miller -- lloyd@sonosky.net -- a partner at Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller & Munson who represents about 70 tribes and intertribal organizations in pending and settled cases. Both sides agreed the government routinely shortchanged the tribes, underpaying contract support costs when Congress failed to appropriate enough money to pay everyone in full. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court in Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, a related case against the Bureau of Indian Affairs, nixed that practice. "Consistent with longstanding principles of government contracting law, we hold that the government must pay each tribe's contract support costs in full," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority. Many of his clients "thought we'd never be able to prevail against the United States. The Justice Department mounted such an aggressive defense," Mr. Miller said. "My clients are overjoyed they can finally secure compensation." Settlements have ranged from $4,500 to $153 million, he said. A related class action against the Bureau of Indian Affairs is pending. Indian tribes also netted awards stemming from mismanagement of tribal trust funds. The Navajo Nation, represented by BuckleySandler and the Nordhaus Law Firm, sued the government in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging the Interior Department breached its fiduciary duty to properly manage the tribe's mineral royalties since 1946. The case settled for $554 million. Another class action that settled last year was notable more for its policy implications than dollar amount. The government paid $1.7 million to 103 former members of the armed forces who were involuntarily discharged under the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. The soldiers had their separation pay cut in half because there were "deemed to be not fully qualified for retention and denied re-enlistment or continuation because of homosexuality," according to the complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Payments to the former soldiers ranged from $6,257 to $72,337. For every Judgment Fund payment that can be detailed, many more remain untraceable. The Commerce Department last year spent $45 million to settle an administrative "miscellany" tort claim. A Freedom of Information Act request by the NLJ about the payment is pending. Some members of Congress are trying to force the fund to divulge more information. In February, Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Nebraska, and Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, re-introduced legislation that would require the fund to list the claimants, counsel, agency, fact summary and payment amounts. The bill has earned the backing of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. "A little sunshine can go a long way to bringing greater accountability to the Judgment Fund," he said in a written statement then. "More transparency leads to greater accountability, which is something the federal government could use more of." UPM MARKETING: Expands Recall on Voltage Thermostats ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: May 6, 2015 Posting date: May 6, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53255 This recall expansion involves line voltage thermostats with various brand names. The following brand names and model numbers are included in this recall, as well as all serial numbers: Brand Name Model Number ---------- ------------ Garrison HTM611 HTM621 Maison HTM511 HTM611 NOMA HTM211 HTM311 HTM611 HTM621 RONA HTM611 UPM HTM211 HTM311 HTM511 HTM611 HTM621 Note that some thermostat model numbers may have a letter after them, for example HTM221A. This letter indicates a minor, non- electrical variation in the product such as the shape of the LCD window or buttons or the colour of the unit. The presence of these letters does not affect which model numbers are included in the recall. The recalled units were certified to Canadian Standards by CSA International. The units may overheat, emit smoke and damage the wall, posing a fire hazard to consumers. Since June 2011, Health Canada has received 26 reports of incidents from consumers and retailers regarding the use of these thermostats including overheating, melting, smoke and damage to the wall. No injuries have been reported. The number sold to consumers is unknown; however the thermostats were known to be sold at Canadian Tire, RONA and various other hardware and building stores. The time period sold is unknown. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: ESIC Technology Inc. CHINA Manufacturer: Mandolyn Electronic Technology CHINA Importer: UPM Marketing Inc. CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled thermostats and contact the retailer from whom they purchased the product as the importer is no longer in business. Otherwise, consumers should remove and discard the thermostats according to their local municipal disposal requirements. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/KBfVbC URBAN OUTFITTERS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge L. Felipe Restrepo issued an order on May 4, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Mp5PU6from Leagle.com, denying defendants' motion to dismiss an amended class action complaint in In re URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5978, (E.D. Penn.) The Court ordered counsel for the respective parties to appear on May 15, 2015 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 8B at the U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19106 for a scheduling hearing. DAVID SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID A. ROSENFELD -- Rosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, DEBORAH R. GROSS -- debbie@bernardmgross.com -- LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, PC, JACK REISE -- JReise@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP & STEPHEN R. ASTLEY -- SAstley@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., Defendant, represented by MARC J. SONNENFELD -- msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & KAREN PIESLAK POHLMANN -- kkane@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP. RICHARD A. HAYNE, Defendant, represented by MARC J. SONNENFELD, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & KAREN PIESLAK POHLMANN, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP. FRANK J. CONFORTI, Defendant, represented by MARC J. SONNENFELD, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & KAREN PIESLAK POHLMANN, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP. TEDFORD G. MARLOW, Defendant, represented by MARC J. SONNENFELD, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & KAREN PIESLAK POHLMANN, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP. DAVID W. MCCREIGHT, Defendant, represented by MARC J. SONNENFELD, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & KAREN PIESLAK POHLMANN, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP. DAVID HAYNES, Defendant, represented by MARC J. SONNENFELD, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & KAREN PIESLAK POHLMANN, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP. VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaiting Court's Ruling in Israel Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Verifone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the Company is awaiting the court's determination in the case Israel Class Action. The Company said, "On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against us in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on behalf of purchasers of our stock on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of erroneous financial reports. We filed a motion to stay the action, in light of the proceedings already filed in the United States, on March 31, 2008. A hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008. Further briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with regard to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on June 24, 2008. On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in our favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in determining our liability. On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal the Israeli District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court." "Our response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on January 18, 2009. The Israeli District Court has stayed its proceedings until the Israeli Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal. On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Israeli Supreme Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal and addressed the case back to the Israeli District Court. The Israeli Supreme Court instructed the Israeli District Court to rule whether the Israel class action should be stayed, under the assumption that the applicable law is U.S. law. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an application for reconsideration of the Israeli District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the applicable law. Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010, the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to appeal the Israeli District Court's decision regarding the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme Court. On May 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision regarding the applicable law with the Israeli Supreme Court. In August 2010, plaintiff filed an application to the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's d/ecision in Morrison et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the appeal currently pending before the Court and requesting that this authority be added to the Court's record. Plaintiff concurrently filed an application with the Israeli District Court asking that court to reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S. law to the Israel class action, as well as to cancel its decision to stay the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison. On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that the law applicable to the Israel class action is U.S. law. The Israeli District Court also ordered that further proceedings in the case be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S. class action. On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's ruling. The Company said, "We filed an amended response on December 28, 2011. On January 1, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered consideration of the application by three justices. On July 2, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered us to file an updated notice on the status of the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action then pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by October 1, 2012. On October 11, 2012, we filed an updated status notice in the Israeli Supreme Court on the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action pending at the time in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit." "On January 9, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court held a further hearing on the status of the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and recommended that the parties meet and confer regarding the inclusion of the Israeli plaintiffs in the federal class action pending in the U.S. On February 10, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court issued an order staying the case pursuant to the joint notice submitted to the court by the parties on February 4, 2013. The plaintiff and putative class members in this action are included in the stipulated settlement of the federal securities class action, In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., disclosed unless an individual plaintiff opts out. "Following the February 25, 2014 judgment and orders by the U.S. court, in April 2014, the parties in the Israel class action filed a joint motion requesting that the Israeli Supreme Court renew the proceedings on appeal concerning the determination of the applicable law. A hearing was held on June 23, 2014 concerning whether the Israel class action should proceed in light of the settlement in the U.S. class action. On June 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a supplemental pleading at the court's request. "We filed our reply pleading on August 19, 2014, and plaintiff filed a further response pleading on September 4, 2014. We are currently awaiting the court's determination." VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Securities Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Verifone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the court has set a hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss on April 3, 2015, in the VeriFone Securities Litigation. The Company said, "On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against us, certain of our former officers and one of our current officers and alleged claims in connection with our February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action, captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. C 13- 1038, and subsequently re-captioned In re VeriFone Securities Litigation, was initially brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and February 19, 2013 and asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control person liability. The claims were based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding our business, operations, and financial controls during the putative class period. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief." "Two additional class actions related to the same matter (Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-1853) were filed in April 2013. On May 6, 2013, several putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law firms filed motions to consolidate these three securities class actions and requesting appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively. The plaintiffs in Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed their respective actions, without prejudice, on July 10, 2013 and July 17, 2013, respectively, and filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in the action previously captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. "On October 7, 2013, the court entered an order appointing the Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs' first amended complaint was filed on December 16, 2013. The first amended complaint expanded the putative class period to December 14, 2011 and February 20, 2013, inclusive, and removed the current officer who was named in the original complaint from the action. "We filed our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 14, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 15, 2014 and we filed our reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court took the motion to dismiss under submission without oral argument. On August 8, 2014, the court dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to amend. Lead plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on October 7, 2014. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 8, 2014. Lead plaintiffs' opposition was filed on February 6, 2015, and our reply is due on March 10, 2015. The court has set a hearing on our motion to dismiss on April 3, 2015." VIACOM INC: Says $7.2MM Intern Class Action Settlement Reasonable ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck, Pete Brush, Ben James and Y. Peter Kang, writing for Law360, report that Viacom Inc. on April 3 sought to allay concerns from a New York federal judge over its proposed $7.2 million deal seeking to resolve ex-interns' class action assertions that they were unlawfully denied minimum-wage pay, insisting the deal is fair and reasonable. In a letter to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, the $28 billion media giant defended $505 payments that would go to 12,500 interns for each semester in which they participated in a Viacom internship program. The payments would be limited to two semesters, and fees and costs would be deducted, Viacom noted. In March, Judge Gorenstein said the $7.2 million figure alone didn't give him a strong notion of the value of the settlement in light of the $5,000 that each of two named plaintiffs would receive for services rendered on behalf of the class. Judge Gorenstein said he needed to "really get a handle on the numbers" in order to "get an understanding of why the settlement is fair." Viacom replied on April 3 that, even if the interns worked 16 hours per week over a 10-week period -- as the internship programs allegedly anticipated -- they would be getting a gross settlement payment amounting to about half of what they would have been paid in gross wages. Additionally, "[t]he interns were eligible to receive academic credit for participating in Viacom programs; many received multiple credits -- as many as three," the letter said. "Of course, they also received the educational and professional benefits of the programs, which helped thousands to launch their careers during an era of historically high unemployment rates." The company added that calculating the precise hourly rate for each ex-intern would be impossible since it didn't maintain time records for the interns. Ojeda lodged the lawsuit in 2013, targeting Viacom and MTV Networks Enterprises Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as New York law. Plaintiffs and others were misclassified as exempt from minimum-wage requirements, the complaint alleged. The sides struck the deal on March 11. Two days later, Judge Gorenstein wondered about potential impact on the settlement -- should it still be pending -- when the Second Circuit weighs in on closely watched appeals that could determine how the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime provisions apply to interns. Those cases present the Second Circuit with a chance to set the standard for ascertaining whether interns qualify as "employees" for the purposes of wage-and-hour law. In January, the appeals court expressed criticism of a six-factor U.S. Department of Labor test backed by both the agency and those interns. Viacom argued on April 3 that, even if the Second Circuit embraces the test, the company would likely prevail on a motion to decertify the FLSA collective and in opposition to any class certification motion in the instant case. The named plaintiffs and two opt-in plaintiffs had testified they engaged in vastly different activities during their internships, according to Viacom. Judge Gorenstein had also expressed concern over a nondisclosure and non-disparagement clause in which claimants would agree "not to make disparaging comments relating to defendants," or broadly discuss the settlement. Viacom replied on April 3 that the parties had agreed to delete that provision. The plaintiffs are represented by Lloyd Ambinder, LaDonna Lusher and Suzanne Klein of Virginia & Ambinder LLP and Jeffrey Brown, Michael Tompkins and Daniel Markowitz of Leeds Brown Law PC. Viacom is represented by Lyle Zuckerman -- lylezuckerman@dwt.com - -- and Michael Goettig -- michaelgoettig@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. The case is Ojeda et al. v. Viacom Inc. et al., case number 1:13- cv-05658, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. WE WASH: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mauricio Vazquez and Juan Pacheco-Fajardo, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. We Wash Car Care Center, Inc., and Maruisz Lekarczyk, Case No. 1:15- cv-03920 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a car wash and detail center located at 4660 West Lawrence, Chicago, IL 60630. 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 WORLD FUEL: Lac-Megantic Train Derailment Class Action Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Jenny Gold, writing for NPR, reports that currently, World Fuel is one of multiple defendants in a class-action lawsuit related to a deadly train derailment in the summer of 2013. The fiery accident in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killed 47 people and involved a train carrying crude oil that was owned by World Fuel. The class action in Quebec Superior Court claims negligence on the part of World Fuel. In addition, the Quebec Minister for Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks ordered World Fuel and the railway that operated the derailed train to fully remediate the environmental impact of the oil spill. Michael J. Kasbar, president, chief executive officer and board chairman of World Fuel, wouldn't comment, saying only that World Fuel had not retained outside legal counsel to defend against claims arising from the accident, leaving the task to the company's legal department. To analyst Atkins, no news in the train derailment case is good news, so far, for World Fuel: "If they thought their potential liability was going to be higher than their insurance coverage, they would have had to have taken a charge by now." In addition, "they have not taken any specific charges for the environmental cleanup." World Fuel remains "a solid counterparty with their customers and their suppliers, in a market where it's hard to find a solid counterparty," Atkins said. "The biggest issue with that wasn't the liability but the potential for companies to stop doing business with [World Fuel]. But that didn't happen at all. That was the biggest risk . . . But there has been no disruption of the business," Jonathan Chappell, a stock analyst with investment firm Evercore Partners who has covered World Fuel for a decade. * Landowners Balk at Pennsylvania's Handling of Royalty Issue ------------------------------------------------------------- Marie Cusick, writing for NPR, reports that people who leased their land for Marcellus Shale drilling have been complaining for several years that some companies are cheating them out of gas royalty money. It turns out the commonwealth of Pennsylvania is having the same problem. But the issue is so complex and convoluted, the state doesn't even know how much money it's owed. "It's complicated" Gas drilling on state-owned land has sent hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties to Harrisburg. Private landowners have received millions more. But some companies have been accused of underpaying. Royalty disputes have led to several class action lawsuits and an ongoing investigation by the state attorney general's office. Towanda-based attorney Chris Jones says his clients don't understand why the state hasn't done more to protect them. "Many times we're being asked, 'How come the state isn't doing anything? How come there isn't anything to stop what the gas companies are doing with our royalties -- with our money?'" Pennsylvania has its own problems -- specifically two agencies managing drilling on public land: the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) and the Game Commission. "We've been conducting investigations for some time now," DCNR chief counsel Richard Morrison told StateImpact Pennsylvania in January. "It's an internal process. It's complicated and will take some time." He didn't want to say which companies are under scrutiny, and the department has declined to comment further, citing the ongoing investigation. However documents obtained by StateImpact Pennsylvania through an open records request show most of DCNR's problems are with Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake Energy. The company has been widely accused of charging landowners exorbitant fees known as post-production costs. Chesapeake declined to comment for this story. Post-production costs are sort of like the gas industry's "shipping and handling fees." They're the expenses of moving gas from the well to the market and include things like compression, dehydration, and pipeline transport. Chesapeake has leased thousands of acres of public land from DCNR and the Game Commission -- but no one really knows how much money could be missing from state coffers. DCNR officials say none of its leases permit oil and gas drillers to charge post-production costs, but Chesapeake disagrees. Emails between the two parties show disputes going back several years and continuing to the present day. DCNR complains to the company about inaccurate or murky reporting on everything from how much gas is produced at wells, to its selling price. "It's going on with every company" The Game Commission is still trying to sort out exactly what is and isn't allowed under its leases. Mike DiMatteo oversees the commission's oil and gas program. "It's definitely on our radar," he says of the royalty issues. "We are aware they're taking deductions, and we're trying to assess the impact. Chesapeake seems to be targeted by a lot of investigations because they're a big producer. It's going on with every company." Chris Jones and several other attorneys recently filed a federal racketeering lawsuit against Chesapeake, alleging it's part of a criminal conspiracy -- along with partner companies Anadarko, Mitsui, Statoil, and Williams -- to defraud private landowners. None of the companies would comment for this story. "I'm surprised the state is shocked this is happening to them as well," says Mr. Jones. "They don't seem to be doing certain things I'd think they'd be doing -- like having something that could verify the production from the wells." DCNR does perform audits of royalty statements and recently ramped up its efforts. It has a contract with Penn State University to check well volume information and hired a new accountant to review royalty statements. The agency is also planning to contract with an outside accounting firm. The state Game Commission says it doesn't have the resources to do that. "We're not officially auditing the companies," says Mr. Matteo. "We review the statements and make sure we're getting paid, but we don't have an open investigation." The situation really bothers state Rep. John Maher (R-Allegheny.) "I want to make sure the royalty payments the state is due for gas production are being fairly paid," he says. As the new chair of the House Environmental Resources and Energy committee, Mr. Maher's vowing to take a fresh look at a bill aimed at limiting gas companies from withholding royalty money in the form of post-production costs. "There needs to be action" State Rep. Tina Pickett (R-Bradford) co-sponsors the measure. "I don't think initially as a state, we really looked at the financial angle of this," she says. Ms. Pickett represents one of the most drilled-on parts of Pennsylvania and supports the gas industry. But she's troubled the state has to carefully comb through every royalty statement and hire more accountants to double check everything. She says it's time to update royalty laws and crack down on problem companies. "We've talked about it. There's been lots of news about it. There's been lots of discussion about it, but there needs to be some action," she says. "This is not something that should be allowed." The gas industry has lobbied heavily against the royalty bill -- calling it a legislative overreach that violates contracts. The measure went nowhere during the last legislative session and it has not been reintroduced yet. Meanwhile, state officials are still trying to get a handle on how much money they may be owed. * Maryland Introduces Bill on Indigent Bail Hearing Representation ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Frederick News-Post's Danielle E Gaines and The Associated Press report that a Frederick County senator has introduced a bill in the waning days of the General Assembly session that could roll back a state appeals court ruling that provides poor defendants with representation at initial bail hearings. Maryland's Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee met on April 3 to consider a proposed constitutional amendment introduced on April 2 by Sen. Michael Hough, R-District 4. In its current form, Mr. Hough's bill would propose a constitutional amendment to state that Maryland is not required to provide government-funded legal representation of an indigent defendant at an initial appearance. However, the lawmaker said on April 3 that replacement language is already being considered and it was unclear what form a bill passed this session could ultimately take. The goal is to roll back rules created after Court of Appeals opinions in Richmond v. DeWolfe, a class-action lawsuit filed by Baltimore city arrestees who requested representation by attorneys and were denied. Mr. Hough introduced the bill after Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller pressed members of the committee to take action this year. Because of the impending close of session on April 13, it was important to introduce a bill and start the conversation, said Sen. Bobby Zirkin, chairman of the committee. "We've been given a charge in these last couple of weeks to try to come up with a solution to the Richmond decision. In that light, Senator Hough introduced a late-filed bill." Among the issues lawmakers hope to address is the $10 million cost for the courts to provide hearings in front of commissioners, a right Mr. Hough said was not written in state law but created by an "out-of-control activist" court. "This is something we have been wrestling with basically since 2012. And we have yet to come up with a good solution," Mr. Hough said. "I think this bill would take care of this issue once and for all. What effect are we having for $10 million?" Mr. Hough said two-thirds of defendants eligible for representation at commissioners' hearings waive that right. The state could continue bail hearings before judges and reinvest the $10 million earmarked for the commissioners' hearings into the criminal justice system, he said. Mr. Hough's bill was met with disapproval during a limited committee hearing on April 3. Maryland Public Defender Paul DeWolfe said the current program, in place since July 1, is helping poor defendants. "The fact is, it's working," Mr. DeWolfe said. "The world has not come to an end. The bank of Maryland has not been broken." He said the state has seen at least a 4 percent increase in the number of people released after commissioners' hearings, which leads to savings. Assuming commissioners hear 164,000 cases a year, more than 6,500 people are no longer being housed before trial by county jails, he said. Mr. DeWolfe encouraged the committee to consider the recommendations of a 23-member governor's commission which is examining comprehensive pre-trial reforms in the state. The committee also heard testimony on April 3 from three other opponents. They will continue to receive written testimony, Mr. Zirkin said. The ruling by the state's highest court has irked many lawmakers since 2012, as they've tried to avoid the financial liability in lean budget years. Maryland is unusual because initial bail review hearings are often held before a court commissioner, whose decision is later reviewed by a judge. In 2012, the Court of Appeals ruled that poor defendants were entitled to legal representation at the very first bail hearing before court commissioners. That same year, lawmakers changed state law to specify that the public defender's office had to represent defendants at a bail hearing before a judge, but not before a court commissioner. However, the state's highest court decided in 2013 in a 4-3 ruling that poor defendants had a constitutional right to legal representation before a court commissioner. Lawmakers were unable to reach a consensus on how to address the second court ruling last year and put $10 million in the budget to pay lawyers in order to comply with the ruling. Since the court's opinions, new court rules and laws have presented challenges for the state court system. Providing representation at commissioners' hearings was developed county by county. In Frederick, an attorney is available to defendants from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for commissioners' hearings. If someone is arrested overnight and wants access to an attorney, they are held at the jail until 8:00 a.m. and then heard by a commissioner. If a person is not released by a commissioner, the hearing is recessed and resumed later by a District Court judge. Among concerns raised by guaranteed representation at bail hearings is whether it could create conflicts of interest for the public defenders who handle those cases and how far their representation of clients at bail hearings extends. In a hearing in Frederick County Circuit Court on April 2, a defendant claimed he was still represented by the Office of the Public Defender when he was questioned by police immediately after his bail review hearing, but a judge found that the attorney's entry into a case for the purpose of bail review is terminated at the end of that hearing. The decision could become an issue if the case is appealed, lawyers in the case said. * Milwaukee Gas Companies Defend Suits in Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------- Molly Dill, writing for BizTimes.com, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court only takes a very small percentage of the cases that pass through the U.S. court system each year. "I think (the U.S. Supreme Court gets) about 5,000 to 6,000 of what's called writ of certs a year, basically asking the court to take a case, and grants 80 to 100 per year," said Chris Donovan, an attorney at Pruhs & Donovan S.C. in Milwaukee who brought a Milwaukee federal criminal case before the Supreme Court last year. "It's relatively rare." One of the cases the Court took up this session involved several Milwaukee-area companies represented by a local firm. At issue is whether the federal Natural Gas Act preempted state antitrust claims based on a conspiracy to inflate prices in retail natural gas sales from 2000 to 2002. The Wisconsin plaintiffs in the case are: Wauwatosa-based engine manufacturer Briggs & Stratton Corp.; Menomonee Falls-based commercial printer Arandell Corp.; Cudahy-based forging company ATI Ladish LLC (which has since been acquired); Kenosha-based Carthage College; Middleton-based animal nutrition provider Merrick's Inc.; Wisconsin Rapids-based NewPage Wisconsin System Inc.; and Plymouth-based Sargento Foods Inc. Robert Gegios -- rgegios@kmksc.com -- of Glendale law firm Kohner, Mann & Kailas S.C. is representing the companies in the case. According to KMK, Wisconsin businesses and residents consume up to $3.5 billion in natural gas per year, which is almost 2 percent of state GDP. It is the primary energy source for a variety of Wisconsin businesses, including electricity generation, metal working, food processing, brewing and dairy processing. "Between 2000 and 2002, the retail price of natural gas in Wisconsin rose dramatically," according to the brief for the Wisconsin respondents. "For instance, the city-gate price for natural gas in Wisconsin increased from $2.94 per thousand cubic feet in January 2000, to a price of $9.92 per thousand cubic feet in January 2001. On average, prices during this period more than doubled. That dramatic spike was the result of a conspiracy among petitioners. The victims of the conspiracy include industrial and commercial users of natural gas who consumed it. These Wisconsin businesses were injured by the exorbitantly high prices paid for natural gas as a result of petitioners' wrongful acts." The Wisconsin plaintiffs represent a proposed class action that could include hundreds of Wisconsin businesses impacted by the alleged price manipulation. The case before the Supreme Court, Oneok Inc. v. Learjet Inc., also includes claims from several other states where state antitrust laws came into conflict with the federal regulation related to natural gas pricing. KMK submitted the brief representing the Wisconsin respondents in the case in November, and the Supreme Court justices held oral arguments in the case in January. A decision is expected to come down any day now, and will definitely be released before the justices end this session in June or July. It's been a long and complicated road to the U.S. Supreme Court since the initial Wisconsin case was filed in 2006, but most recently Kohner, Mann & Kailas helped overturn a district court's ruling that the Natural Gas Act preempted state antitrust laws, which would have prevented the plaintiffs from using Wisconsin's antitrust laws to secure damages for the alleged manipulation of their natural gas costs. KMK appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of its Wisconsin business clients, and that court reversed the district court's decision. The natural gas company defendants then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping for a reversal of the Ninth Circuit decision. "All we're asking for is a fair recovery," Mr. Gegios said. "They did significant, substantial harm to Wisconsin businesses, the Wisconsin economy." The group of natural gas companies that appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which include major energy providers ONEOK Inc. and Shell Energy North America L.P., argue that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has sole authority to regulate their alleged price manipulation practices. The claims being brought by states in the case could add up to billions of dollars in payouts for the natural gas providers, and allowing individual states to bring antitrust claims throws the energy companies into "regulatory chaos." "FERC's orders regulating index-reporting practices sought to give jurisdictional sellers clear rules to guide their conduct," the petitioners' brief reads. "Respondents' use of state law to impose liability for those same practices threatens to undermine that uniform regulatory scheme and replace it with a morass under which individual states can impose their own conflicting standards." After nine years of trying to recover for the Wisconsin businesses, Mr. Gegios is hoping for a quick decision from the Supreme Court affirming the Ninth Circuit decision that the Wisconsin firms can pursue the antitrust issue. If that happens, the case could come back to federal court in Madison to be tried on its merits. "We just want to get to the merits as soon as we can and get these matters to a courtroom to be tried," he said. If the Supreme Court decision is in the Wisconsin plaintiffs' favor, it would allow the state to more easily argue it should not be superseded by federal agencies going forward, Mr. Gegios said. While KMK is up against some of the country's top law firms, Mr. Gegios said he isn't intimidated and feels the Wisconsin companies' case is strong. "It's not unusual for our firm in particular to do battle against very large firms and companies," he said. "We don't shy away from big controversies against firms bigger than we are. That's how you handle a case like this. You outdo everybody by just working better and more than they will." * NY Officials Push for Right to Counsel Bill for Poor People ------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Davis O'Brien, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that New York officials are seeking to increase funding to provide poor people with free legal services in civil proceedings such as eviction and immigration matters, part of a broader national movement to establish a legal right to counsel in civil cases. The newly approved state budget, allocated $85 million for indigent civil legal services at the request of the state judiciary, an increase of $15 million from the previous fiscal year. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio recommended in his preliminary budget proposal spending $36 million on free legal services in housing court, which would bring the city's total spending on civil legal services up to about $50 million. A majority of City Council members have signed onto a bill requiring free counsel for indigent defendants in eviction cases. If passed, it would be the first such mandate in the country. A separate bill introduced last week would establish the Mayor's Office of Civil Justice to oversee the city's civil legal services. "We are talking about the necessities, or essentials, of life," said Jonathan Lippman, New York's chief judge, who has been pushing for indigent legal services in civil cases since taking office in 2009. "We mean the roof over someone's head, we mean their physical safety, their livelihoods, the well-being of their families, entitlement issues." At least 90% of people in civil cases in New York, or 2.3 million, don't have lawyers, and many are unable to advocate for themselves on complicated legal matters, experts and officials say, jeopardizing people's immigration status and leading to a loss of benefits, housing and child custody. Ana Jimenez and her husband, Jose, who works at a grocery store, were nearly evicted from their Washington Heights apartment last summer. They hadn't missed a month's rent, but unbeknown to them, city housing inspectors had declared their wood floors out of compliance, so Section 8 had stopped sending rent subsidies. The landlord, who was supposed to fix the floors, sued in housing court. "I felt helpless," said Ana Jimenez, 59, speaking through a translator, her eldest daughter Annie. "I would barely sleep." Annie said her parents had no idea they were in violation until they got an eviction notice; after a traumatic first day in court, she called the Legal Aid Society. A lawyer got the landlord to fix the floor and had Section 8 support renewed, but it still took months to resolve. The concept of subsidized defense services in high-stakes civil cases appears to have broad political support, though some warn of overstretched government budgets, a shortage of resources and space, diminished leverage for landlords and fears that a blanket right to civil counsel would encourage frivolous lawsuits. Tenant advocates said providing civil counsel to people who can't afford it is not only fair but could ultimately save taxpayers money by keeping court dockets lean and alleviating pressure on homeless shelters and other social services. Some say the stakes are high enough in civil cases that an absolute right to counsel should exist, a movement known as "Civil Gideon," a reference to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1963 decision in Gideon v. Wainwright that established a universal right to counsel in criminal cases. No such guarantee exists for civil matters. But in 2006, the American Bar Association urged states to provide counsel in civil cases where "basic human needs" are at stake, calling it a logical extension of Gideon's push for equal justice under the law. The rules governing free counsel in civil proceedings vary by state. New York requires counsel for parents facing loss of custody over a child, and judges have authority to appoint counsel in other cases. "If you are going to lose your house, or if the state is going to take away your children, I think there is probably a good defense for a subsidy," said Jim Copland, director of the conservative Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy. "The concerns here arise when effectively the state is subsidizing class-action lawsuits." Judge Lippman said his effort to expand civil legal services in New York wouldn't extend to "trip-and-fall" lawsuits or class- action claims. In 2009, California passed the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, which created several pilot programs, supported by court fees, free legal counsel in civil cases. In its third year, the program has succeeded despite a modest $8 million annual budget, its coordinators say. More than 15,000 people have been served so far, most in eviction cases. "One of the big takeaways is that attorneys help settle cases," said Bonnie Hough, managing attorney for California's Judicial Council, the policy-making body for state courts. "They are able to help the client understand what's likely to happen in court" and often push for mediation, which provides clients and landlords with stability, Ms. Hough said. Mitchell Posilkin, general counsel for the Rent Stabilization Association, a property owners' organization in New York City, said landlords have no fundamental objection to the right to counsel. But providing it, he said, would prolong cases. Officials must consider "whether there are an adequate number of judges, attorneys, clerks and courtrooms to handle what would unquestionably be a slower litigation process," he said. Others say the effort may be unrealistic financially. In most states, including New York, services that provide mandated counsel in criminal cases are underfunded and overwhelmed. Officials in the New York City Council estimate the cost of providing free legal services to needy people in eviction cases at $117 million a year. That would be offset, officials say, by $171 million in annual savings by keeping families out of homeless shelters. Councilman Mark Levine, the bill's sponsor, said cost considerations and the logistics of finding lawyers and courtroom space will be constraints. Still, he said, "These are life-changing judgments that nobody should have to face without legal defense." * TRC Wants Mandatory Education on Canadian Residential Schools --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Malone, writing for CJME, reports that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) commissioner wants mandatory education on residential schools for students across Canada. Commissioner Marie Wilson was in Saskatoon to speak about the legacy the commission will leave behind. "Here is our courageous moment as a country to say let's learn from that and lets figure out how we go forward together . .. I think we have to tackle what we teach our children, all of our children," Wilson said. As part of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the largest class-action settlement in Canadian history, the TRC was created. Through seven national events across the country, the TRC collected testimony from residential school survivors to create official documentation as well as establish a national research centre. Ms. Wilson, who was designated a commissioner in 2009, said she hopes the legacy will inspire jurisdictions across Canada to include the residential school history as a required course to graduate high school. "Education was the tool that was used to assimilate and Christianize and otherwise diminish and damage all of these generations. It was also the tool that was used . . . mindlessly, to keep the whole rest of the community ill informed and ignorant," Mr. Wilson said. "We need to teach an honest history that includes the history of the indigenous peoples of Canada, whose homeland it is and that the history of this American continent didn't begin with the arrival of the Europeans." In March 2014, Alberta joined two other jurisdictions and made the education of residential schools and First Nation treaties mandatory content for all kindergarten to Grade 12 students. Wilson said it's a positive step for indigenous and non-indigenous children who will pave the path of the country's future. "So that indigenous children can start to feel that they have heroes too, they have history too, they have languages too, they have place names too, they have historic moments too, they have tragedies too . . . And so that non-indigenous children can learn the truth about the whole country," Mr. Wilson said. "If we had that in 13 jurisdictions, not just three, imagine the difference we could make. Saskatchewan is not there yet." The federal government estimates more than 150,000 students were forced to attend the schools over the years. A Saskatchewan facility, outside Regina, was the last residential school to close in 1996. "We are inching forward (to reconciliation). I think that there is no room for slippage," Mr. Wilson said. "Whether or not we were aware of it at the time, we created this situation by Canadian laws and policies. Now we are waking up to the fact that we are going to have to work together to build our way out of it by reshaping and redesigning our notion of society and our notion of what is fair and just in this country." The TRC will hold its closing events in Ottawa from May 31 to June 3. * Victims of Financial Wrongdoing Need More Help from SEC --------------------------------------------------------- The New York Times reports that given the many billions of dollars financial companies have paid in regulatory and legal settlements related to the mortgage crisis, how much money has actually found its way into the pockets of investors harmed by their actions? Less than you may think. To start with, little of the cash generated in most of the Justice Department settlements went to investors. Much of this money went into Treasury coffers or to various states while troubled borrowers were promised loan modifications and other relief as part of the deals. Wronged investors are entitled to receive money, however, from lawsuits filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. While the S.E.C. cannot, by law, seek compensatory damages for losses incurred by investors, the agency does collect penalties and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from both institutions and individuals. Sometimes the S.E.C. puts the dollars it collects into a fund to be distributed to a class of victims the agency has identified; other times it forces defendants to repay those investors directly. The S.E.C. says it tries, whenever possible, to extract money from wrongdoers on behalf of investors. And an analysis of financial crisis lawsuits cited most recently on the S.E.C.'s website shows that 23 of them generated nearly $2.6 billion for investors. Among the larger S.E.C. recoveries was $285 million from a 2011 case against Citigroup over a $1 billion collateralized debt obligation and $250 million returned to investors after Goldman Sachs's settlement of the Abacus C.D.O. case in 2010. Investors also received $275 million from a mortgage securities deal struck last year with Morgan Stanley. Returning almost $2.6 billion to investors is not nothing. But the S.E.C.'s recoveries pale in comparison to the amounts generated by law firms that brought class actions on behalf of stockholders and debtholders. In the 17 largest securities law class actions arising out of the financial crisis, investors have recovered almost $8.3 billion, net of legal fees and expenses, court records show. These recoveries included $1.1 billion in two class actions against Citigroup, $850 million received from the American International Group and $523 million from Lehman Brothers. Among the 17 private lawsuits and the 23 S.E.C. cases, six overlap -- meaning the same financial institutions were sued on the same facts by both the agency and private plaintiffs. On a direct comparison, the recoveries generated by class-action lawsuits far exceeded those collected by the S.E.C. In those six cases, the S.E.C. recovered $400 million for investors while the private plaintiffs received almost $3.8 billion, net of legal fees and expenses. Consider, for example, the lawsuits against Bank of America. Both the S.E.C. and investors claimed that Merrill Lynch executives had not disclosed losses and bonus payments at the firm before it was purchased by the bank. Private plaintiffs received almost $2.3 billion in their case; from the S.E.C.'s suit, investors received $150 million. Then there is the case against Angelo R. Mozilo and other top executives of Countrywide Financial. The private lawsuit generated $516.4 million for investors; the S.E.C.'s recovery for investors was just over $48 million. Finally, private litigation against New Century Financial, a defunct mortgage lender, recovered $107.6 million, while the S.E.C.'s lawsuit recovered $1.5 million for investors. "Private litigation prosecuted by sophisticated plaintiffs and their counsel -- who are not restrained by the limited resources and bureaucracy of government agencies -- has delivered far larger recoveries for victims than companion government actions," said Gerald H. Silk, a partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, a securities class-action law firm. To some degree, of course, this is because the S.E.C. cannot recover losses for investors. By law, the agency cannot seek a penalty that exceeds the financial gain a wrongdoer made, even if losses incurred by investors as a result of the improprieties are far greater. For instance, if investors lost $100 million in a Ponzi scheme in which the overseer pocketed $10 million, the S.E.C. can seek to recover only the $10 million in ill-gotten gains and another $10 million in penalties. And the S.E.C. has secured significant sums for investors in some matters where there was no class action. For example, in three big C.D.O. cases, the agency returned a combined $661 million to investors from Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase. When asked about the size of the recoveries the S.E.C. has generated for investors, Andrew J. Ceresney, the agency's director of enforcement, said: "We have been vigorous in our efforts to hold individuals and companies accountable for abuses related to the financial crisis. One of our highest priorities in these cases is to return money to harmed investors, in addition to punishing and deterring misconduct." The S.E.C. can pursue powerful remedies that private plaintiffs cannot. For instance, the S.E.C. can bar people from serving as directors or officers of companies and suspend lawyers and accountants from practicing before the agency. In the financial crisis cases identified by the S.E.C., the agency said it had barred or suspended 40 people. The agency can also force the people it sues to pay penalties out of their own pockets; this is much harder for private plaintiffs to do. Still, the disparity in recoveries is telling. It shows, among other things, how crucial it is for investors to be able to bring private actions under the securities laws. "The S.E.C. can't do everything," said Norman Poser, a professor emeritus at Brooklyn Law School and a former S.E.C. official. "The Supreme Court has said there is an implied private right of action under the securities laws for exactly that reason." While both plaintiffs and the agency have different roles to play, Congress should still consider expanding how much the S.E.C. can extract in penalties, perhaps making them commensurate with the losses investors incurred. The S.E.C. has asked Congress for this authority, Mr. Ceresney said. But it has not been granted. "Allowing us to recover penalties equal to investor losses would assist us in fulfilling our investor protection mission," he said. As the financial crisis shows, the S.E.C.'s penalties often proved to be nominal costs of doing business for reckless institutions or their employees. The agency is clearly hamstrung in its efforts to generate recoveries on behalf of harmed investors. Isn't it time to ensure that when the S.E.C. comes knocking, the fine fits the crime? Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Telephonic Appearance ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joseph C. Spero of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California allowed the heir of an asbestos plaintiff to telephonically attend a settlement conference as he is unable to physically attend the conference. The case is JOHN WARD and PIERCE WARD, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV- 03140-SI (N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of Judge Spero's Decision dated April 3, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/qhzF9A from Leagle.com. Ronald J. Shingler, Esq., Richard A. Brody, Esq., Shingler Law, Antioch, CA. Ted W. Pelletier, Esq., Kazan, Mcclain, Satterley & Greenwood, A Professional Law Corporation, Oakland, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals in "Brown" Suit Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a decision dated April 30, 2015, consolidated the appeals filed in the lawsuit styled IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to BROWN, v. BELL & GOSSETT COMPANY, MOTION NO. M-1350 (N.Y. App. Div.), and enlarged the time to perfect the appeal to the October 2015 Term. A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/GEqce6from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay Granted in "McCloskey" Suit ------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a decision dated April 28, 2015, granted stay on condition appeals heard in the June 2015 Term in the lawsuit styled IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. McCLOSKEY, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. -- ESTATE OF McCLOSKEY, MOTION NO. M-1402 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/wV77Ixfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MD Fails to Win Summary Judgment in NY Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ John Storey was diagnosed with mesothelioma on August 5, 2013. His disease, he claims, is connected to his work as a tile setter at various job-sites in New York City from the 1960s to 1980, including at Penn Plaza, the Pfizer Building, and the Avon Building where the moving defendant Morse Diesel was the general contractor and/or construction manager. The Plaintiffs' John Storey and Candace Storey causes of action against MD are asserted under Labor Law Section 200 and common law negligence. MD moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and all claims and cross claims against it. MD's moving affirmation states that the basis is "because there is no triable issue of material fact and because the plaintiffs' have failed to identify or establish Morse Diesel as the source of any asbestos exposure nor have plaintiffs demonstrated that Morse Diesel had any direction or control over others who may have caused John Storey's injuries." Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision dated April 27, 2015, denied the defendant's motion, holding that "[e]ven if MD had met its burden, issues of fact exist for trial. Plaintiffs point to the United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration ("OSHA") regulations in 1971 regulating the amount of asbestos exposure considered safe for employees. Plaintiffs also point to testimony in a case before Judge Madden where their expert testified that in 1974 OSHA published an alert to the construction industry warning of the dangers of asbestos. The OSHA website also reflects the development of regulations aimed at the construction industry in particular starting in 1983. Thus, on this record, an issue of fact exists as to whether MD violated Labor Law Sec. 200 and was negligent because as a general contractor, it should have known of the dangers from MD laborers (or other laborers) sweeping up asbestos debris." The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. JOHN F. STOREY and CANDACE STOREY Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, INC. et al, Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190283/2013 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision is available at http://is.gd/iP8VBEfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9 NY Fibro Suits Consolidated for Trial -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cynthia S. Kern of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated April 29, 2014, granted a motion to consolidate nine asbestos actions for trial, comprising the Williams Law Firm In Extremis trial group. In support of her decision, Judge Kern stated: "As to the three groups being consolidated, this court finds that the trials in each of the groups involve common questions of law and fact and that consolidation of these cases into the three groups will not prejudice a substantial right of defendants. As to the three groups, all of the plaintiffs are represented by the same law firm and are in the same phase of discovery as they have all been assigned to this part for trial. Moreover, in all of the groups, the plaintiffs allege the same type of cancer." The case is N RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. GEORGE R. BIRRELL AND RAMONA J. BIRRELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AERCO INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190105/2013 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Kern's decision is available at http://is.gd/u4yaQnfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont, ArvinMeritor Dropped in "Bell" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued two orders dated April 5, 2015, dismissing the lawsuit bearing Civil Action No. NDC C 12- 00131 CRB with prejudice as to defendants Maremont Corporation and ArvinMeritor, Inc. The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI). THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: DONALD BELL and SUMIKO BELL, Plaintiffs, v. ARVIN MERITOR, INC., et al. Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-00131 CRB (N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's Decision with respect to Maremont is available at http://is.gd/jWMCjefrom Leagle.com. A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's Decision with respect to ArvinMeritor is available at http://is.gd/Xe1emifrom Leagle.com. Farid Zakaria, Keller, Fishback & Jackson, LLP, Agoura Hills, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Ana T. Portillo, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Maremont Corporation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Abex Wins Dismissal of "Ricks" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, in an order dated May 1, 2015, granted defendant Pneumo Abex LLC's motion to dismiss an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit, after the plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion to dismiss and the time for doing so has expired. The case is BRENDA RICKS, Personal Representative of the Estate of John Sam Ricks, Jr., deceased, Plaintiff, v. ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, NO. 4:14-CV-37-BO (E.D.N.C.). A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/35Y8VVfrom Leagle.com. Brenda Ricks, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John Sam Ricks, Jr., deceased, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black Law. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff. Coen Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr., Pinto, Coates, Kyre & Bowers, PLLC. Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & William David Conner, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. Dana Companies, LLC, sued individually and as successor-in- interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. FMC Corporation, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Peerless Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Peter A. Santos, Esq. -- psantos@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Kiger, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, Kirk G. Warner, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan & Addie K.S. Ries, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff. Goulds Pumps, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., William David Conner, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Esq. -- Keith.Coltrain@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A.. Terex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Esq. -- tim.peck@smithmoorelaw.com -- Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. Wabco Holdings Inc., sued individually and as successor-in- interest to Westinghouse Air Brake Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assoc. Allowed to File Amicus Brief in NY Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of New York granted the motion filed by Retired Enlisted Association et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal in the lawsuit styled IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. DORIS KAY DUMMITT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD DUMMITT, DECEASED, Respondent, v. A.W. CHESTERTON, ET AL., Defendants, CRANE CO., Appellant, MOTION NO. 2015-420 (N.Y.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/zNS3Rp from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Allowing Equipment in "Kelly" Trial Issued ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Vince G. Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued an order dated May 4, 2015, allowing trial equipment in the asbestos- related lawsuit styled BARRY KELLY and MOLLY KELLY, Plaintiffs, v. CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC; CRANE CO; PUGET SOUND COMMERCE CENTER, INC. (FKA TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION)) Defendants, CASE NO. 3:11-CV- 03240-VC (N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of Judge Chhabria's order is available at http://is.gd/5FtI9Sfrom Leagle.com. GILBERT L. PURCELL, ESQ., KIMBERLY J. CHU, ESQ., BRAYTON PURCELL LLP, Attorneys at Law, Novato, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Denies Enforcement of "Bartel" Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to enforce a settlement between William Bartel and David Peebles, as co- administrators of the estate of Robert M. Young, with the University of Miami. According to Magistrate Hey, the defendant responded that no settlement was ever reached, saying the plaintiffs did not communicate acceptance of its August 8 offer. Magistrate Hey agreed with the defendant, which argued that it is a universal tenet of contract law that acceptance of an offer must be communicated to create a contract. The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI). Willard Bartel and David Peebles, as co-administrators of the Estate of ROBERT M. YOUNG v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, MDL DOCKET NO. 875 (MARDOC), CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-32162 (E.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Magistrate Hey's memorandum order dated May 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/f1zbhwfrom Leagle.com. WILLARD E. BARTEL, ADMINISTRATORS FOR ROBERT M. YOUNG, DECEASED (DOD 11/10/2008), PLAINTIFF, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC. DAVID C PEEBLES, ADMINISTRATORS FOR ROBERT M. YOUNG, DECEASED (DOD 11/10/2008), PLAINTIFF, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC. A. W. CHESTERTON CO., Defendant, represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON, Esq. -- john.patterson@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS WEST. GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN M. HERKE, SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by COLLEEN A. MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER SHARP & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP. GLOBE SEAWAYS INC., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. TIDEWATER MARINE SER. INC., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP & SUSAN K. DIRKS, THOMPSON HINE LLP. FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DONA L. ARNOLD, BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN ARONOFF & ERIC LARSON ZALUD, Esq. -- ezalud@beneschlaw.com -- BENESICH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $15.9MM Fibro Reserves ------------------------------------------------------------ Global Indemnity plc has $15.9 million of net loss reserves for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company's environmental exposure arises from the sale of general liability and commercial multi-peril insurance. Currently, the Company's policies continue to exclude classic environmental contamination claims. In some states the Company is required, however, depending on the circumstances, to provide coverage for certain bodily injury claims, such as an individual's exposure to a release of chemicals. The Company has also issued policies that were intended to provide limited pollution and environmental coverage. These policies were specific to certain types of products underwritten by the Company. The Company has also received a number of asbestos-related claims, the majority of which are declined based on well-established exclusions. In establishing the liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to A&E exposures, management considers facts currently known and the current state of the law and coverage litigations. Estimates of these liabilities are reviewed and updated continually. Uncertainty remains as to the Company's ultimate liability for asbestos-related claims due to such factors as the long latency period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation and the resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy periods for individual claims, the increase in the volume of claims made by plaintiffs who claim exposure but who have no symptoms of asbestos-related disease, and an increase in claims subject to coverage under general liability policies that do not contain aggregate limits of liability. The liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses, inclusive of A&E reserves, reflects the Company's best estimates for future amounts needed to pay losses and related adjustment expenses as of each of the balance sheet dates reflected in the financial statements herein in accordance with GAAP. As of December 31, 2014, the Company has $15.9 million of net loss reserves for asbestos-related claims and $15.3 million for environmental claims. The Company attempts to estimate the full impact of the A&E exposures by establishing specific case reserves on all known losses. Establishing reserves for A&E and other mass tort claims involves considerably more judgment than other types of claims due to, among other things, inconsistent court decisions, an increase in bankruptcy filings as a result of asbestos related liabilities, and judicial interpretations that often expand theories of recovery and broaden the scope of coverage. In 2009, one of the Company's insurance companies entered into a settlement agreement to resolve asbestos related coverage litigation related to approximately 3,900 existing asbestos- related bodily injury claims and future claims. The settlement was approved by the Court and a final order was issued in September 2014. Global Indemnity plc (Global Indemnity) is a holding company. The Company is a property and casualty insurer and provides its insurance products across a distribution network of binding authority, program, brokerage and reinsurance. The Company manages the distribution of products in two segments: Insurance Operations, which includes the operations of United National Insurance Company, Diamond State Insurance Company, United National Specialty Insurance Company, Penn-America Insurance Company, Penn-Star Insurance Company, Penn-Patriot Insurance Company, American Insurance Adjustment Agency, Inc., Collectibles Insurance Services, LLC, Global Indemnity Insurance Agency, LLC, J.H. Ferguson & Associates, LLC, and American Reliable Insurance Company, and Reinsurance Operations, which includes the operations of Wind River Reinsurance Company, Ltd. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Environmental Had 195 Fibro Cases ------------------------------------------------------- CECO Environmental Corp. had a total of 195 asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002 began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management's opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases where evidence has been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure levels are low and the Company's position has been that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through December 31, 2014 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $0.8 million which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel expenses, have been paid by the Company's insurers. The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately $25,000. "Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 195 cases pending against the Company as of December 31, 2014 (with Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases), as compared with 173 cases that were pending as of January 1, 2014. During 2014, 51 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 29 cases and settled zero cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial condition." CECO Environmental Corp.,(CECO) is an environmental technology company focused on critical solutions in the product recovery, air pollution control, fluid handling and filtration segments. The Company operates through four principal product groups: Engineered Equipment Technology and Parts Group, Met-Pro Group, Contracting/Services Group and Component Parts Group. Its Engineered Equipment Technology and Parts Group produces various types of air pollution control technology and equipment. The Met- Pro Group manufactures and sells product recovery and pollution control equipment for purification of air and liquids, fluid handling equipment for corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids, and filtration and purification products. Its Contracting/Services Group produces air pollution control and engineered industrial ventilation systems and its Component Parts Group manufactures products used by the Company and other air pollution control companies and air system contractors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Brands Has 9 Exposure Suits at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chiquita Brands International, Inc., has nine asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. For more than 20 years, a number of claims have been filed against the company on behalf of merchant seamen or their personal representatives alleging injury or illness from exposure to asbestos while employed as seamen on company-owned ships at various times from the mid-1940s until the mid-1970s. The claims are based on allegations of negligence and unseaworthiness. In these cases, the company is typically one of many defendants, including manufacturers and suppliers of products containing asbestos, as well as other ship owners. Nine of these cases are pending in state courts in various stages of activity. Over the past seventeen years, 27 state court cases have been settled and 49 state court cases have been resolved without any payment. In addition to the state court cases, there are federal court cases (known as the "MARDOC" cases), which are managed under the supervision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. A total of approximately 5,070 MARDOC cases have been brought against the company, approximately 5,000 have been dismissed; 46 of these cases had earlier been re-activated against the company, of which 35 cases were dismissed without any settlement payment. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania has remanded 1,200 MARDOC cases (89 of which are against the company) for trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The court's scheduling order deadlines have passed in connection with the company's remaining approximately 430 MARDOC cases, approximately 5% of which are expected to be dismissed without payment during 2015. While the complaints allege a cause for punitive damages, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that seamen may not seek punitive damages in personal injury or wrongful death action as a matter of law. Although the company is developing information with which to evaluate these maritime asbestos claims, management does not believe, based on information currently available to it and advice of counsel, that these claims will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements of the Company. Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (CBII) ,along with its subsidiaries, is an international marketer and distributor of bananas and pineapples sold under the Chiquita and other brand names in 70 countries, and packaged salads sold under the Fresh Express and other brand names primarily in the United States. The Company operates in three segments: Bananas; Salads and Healthy Snacks, and Other Produce. The Bananas segment includes the sourcing (purchase and production), transportation, marketing and distribution of bananas. The Salads and Healthy Snacks segment includes ready-to-eat, packaged salads, and other value-added products, such as healthy snacking products, fresh vegetable and fruit ingredients used in food service, processed fruit ingredients. The Other Produce segment includes the sourcing, marketing and distribution of whole fresh produce other than bananas. The primary product of the Other Produce segment is pineapples. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Has 254 PI Cases at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is co-defendant in 254 personal injury asbestos-related cases asserting claims on behalf of 612 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We were a co-defendant in approximately 254 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 612 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are only six asbestos cases, involving 26 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages. In each of the six cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the remaining case, the plaintiffs have alleged against each named defendant compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $50.0 million, for four separate causes of action. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos- containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos- related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. "Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position." Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., (Holdings) is a holding Company. The Company operates primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. The Company operates in three segments: Supply Technologies, Assembly Components and Engineered Products. Supply Technologies provides its customers with Total Supply Management services for a range of high-volume, specialty production components. Assembly Components manufactures cast and machined aluminum components, automotive and industrial rubber and thermoplastic products, fuel filler and hydraulic assemblies for automotive, agricultural equipment, construction equipment, heavy-duty truck and marine equipment industries. Engineered Products operates a diverse group of niche manufacturing businesses that design and manufacture a range of high quality products engineered for specific customer applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,457 PI Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation had a total of 8,457 pending asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products of predecessors of the Corporation's Air & Liquid subsidiary and of an inactive subsidiary in dissolution. During 2013, all pending claims against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution were settled, dismissed or barred and the dissolution court issued a final order thereby concluding the dissolution proceedings. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts. For the year-ended December 31, 2014, the Company had a total of 8,457 pending asbestos claims. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two segments: Forged and Cast Rolls, and Air and Liquid Processing. The Company's Forged and Cast Rolls Segment's Union Electric Steel Corporation produces forged hardened steel rolls used in cold rolling by producers of steel, aluminum and other metals throughout the world. Union Electric Steel United Kingdom Limited produces cast rolls for hot and cold strip mills, medium/heavy section mills and plate mills in a variety of iron and steel qualities. Its Air and Liquid Processing Segment's Aerofin Division of Air and Liquid Systems Corporation produces custom-engineered finned tube heat exchange coils and related heat transfer products for a variety of industries. Buffalo Air Handling Division of Air and Liquid Systems Corporation produces custom air handling systems used in commercial, institutional and industrial buildings. It manufactures a line of centrifugal pumps for the refrigeration, power generation and marine defense industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Had 1,326 Fibro Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s subsidiary, BNS Sub, has been named defendant in 1,326 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. BNS Sub has been named as a defendant in 1,326 and 1,234 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The claims were filed over a period beginning 1994 through December 31, 2014. In many cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the claims filed, 1,108 and 1,023 were dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and closed as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Of the claims settled, the average settlement was less than $3. There remained 218 and 211 pending asbestos claims as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims. BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate coverage limits of $183,000, with $2,102 and $2,082 at December 31, 2014 and 2013,respectively, in estimated remaining self insurance retention (deductible). There is secondary evidence of coverage from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that the insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related to asbestos. Under certain circumstances, some of the settled claims may be reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic- tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. In addition, there can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims, and that BNS Sub will not need to increase significantly its estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, BNS Sub has accrued $1,422 relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of the likely costs to defend against or settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond the amounts accrued by the insurance carriers and previously funded, through the retroactive billings by BNS Sub. However, there can be no assurance that BNS Sub will not need to take additional charges in connection with the defense, settlement or judgment of these existing claims or that the costs of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date relating to existing claims. These claims are now being managed by the BNS Liquidating Trust. Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (SPH) is a global diversified holding Company. The Company is engaged in multiple businesses, including diversified industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain management and logistics, banking, food products and services, oilfield services, sports, training, education and the entertainment, and lifestyle industries. The Company operates business through four segments, which include diversified industrial, energy, financial services, and corporate and other. SPLP's energy segment consists of its consolidated subsidiaries Steel Excel, which provides drilling and production services to the oil and gas industry. The Company's financial services segment consists of its consolidated and wholly-owned subsidiary, WebFinancial Holding Corporation. The diversified industrial segment consists of Handy & Harman Ltd. The corporate and other segment consists of several consolidated subsidiaries, as well as various investments, and cash and cash equivalents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has 3,300 Product Liability Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Joy Global Inc., is involved in 3,300 asbestos- and silica-related product liability cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 30, 2015. The Company states: "We and our subsidiaries are involved in various unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product liability (including approximately 3,300 asbestos and silica- related cases), employment and commercial matters." Joy Global Inc., is a manufacturer and servicer of high productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other minerals and ores. The Company manufactures and market original equipment and aftermarket parts and services for both underground and surface mining and certain industrial applications. The Company's equipment is used in major mining regions throughout the world to mine coal, copper, iron ore, oil sands, gold and other minerals. The Company operates in two business segments: Underground Mining Machinery and Surface Mining Equipment. The Company is a manufacturer of underground mining machinery for the extraction of coal and other bedded minerals and offer service locations near major mining regions worldwide. The Company is a major producer of surface mining equipment for the extraction of ores and minerals and provides extensive operational support for many types of equipment used in surface mining. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Has 3,251 Fibro Suits at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation is a defendant in 3,251 asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We have been a defendant in asbestos litigation for over 20 years. Our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by us. As of December 31, 2014, we were a defendant in approximately 3,251 cases brought in Federal District Courts throughout the United States. In calendar years 2014, 2013 and 2012, 104, 133, and 113 asbestos cases, respectively, were brought against us. In the last 22 years, we have had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product identification. As of December 31, 2014, 47,887 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In calendar years 2014, 2013 and 2012, 25,954 cases, 65 cases and 66 cases, respectively, were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 3,251 remaining pending cases, we are aggressively defending these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to whether we manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of our product. "As of December 31, 2014, 2,679 pending lawsuits had been brought on behalf of plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm ("MARDOC") and seek unspecified damages. Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases generally allege that they formerly worked in the maritime industry and sustained asbestos-related injuries from products that General Cable ceased manufacturing in the mid-1970s. The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("District Court") by reason of a transfer by the judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"). In September 2014, upon receipt from the MDL Court of a current statistical report listing numbers of outstanding cases as well as a list identifying outstanding Maritime/MARDOC cases by plaintiff name, we recorded a dismissal of 25,759 cases reducing its number of pending Maritime/MARDOC cases to 2,679. "In the MARDOC cases in the MDL, the District Court in May 1996 dismissed all pending cases filed without prejudice and placed them on an inactive administrative docket. To reinstate a MARDOC case from the inactive docket, plaintiffs' counsel must show that the plaintiff not only suffered from a recognized asbestos related injury, but also must produce specific product identification evidence to proceed against an individual defendant. During 2010, the MDL Court ordered plaintiffs to identify the defendants against whom they intended to proceed in the Maritime cases. General Cable was not named as a defendant against whom the plaintiffs intended to proceed. As such it is now anticipated that General Cable will be dismissed from all Maritime related lawsuits. "For cases outside the MDL as of December 31, 2014, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 278 cases. In 143 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $402 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In the 134 other cases pending in state and federal district courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek approximately $457 million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In one case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to us in the amount of $10 million. In addition, in relation to these 278 cases, there are claims of $324 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. At December 31, 2014 and 2013, we have accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $4.7 million and $5.2 million and had recorded approximately $0.5 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits, at each year end. The net amount of $4.2 million and $4.7 million as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 represents our best estimate in order to cover resolution of current and future asbestos-related claims. "The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are: (1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's historical experience with asbestos-related claims. The Company's current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims that may be filed in the future. "Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos reserve is relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from the plaintiff's counsel. As of December 31, 2014, aggregate settlement costs were $9.5 million. In calendar years 2014, 2013 and 2012, the settlement costs totaled $0.6 million, $0.3 million and $0.6 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2014, aggregate costs of administering and litigating the asbestos claims were $24.7 million. In calendar years 2014, 2013 and 2012, the costs of administering and litigating asbestos claims totaled $1.8 million, $1.7 million and $1.7 million, respectively. "In January 1994, we entered into a settlement agreement with certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for the costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of the asbestos litigation. Subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, the insurers were responsible for a substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the defense or resolution of this litigation. However, one of the insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible for a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings and another became insolvent. As a result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and we have had to bear substantially most of the costs relating to these lawsuits. "Based on our experience in this litigation, the amounts pleaded in the complaints are not typically meaningful as an indicator of the Company's potential liability because (1) the amounts claimed usually bear no relation to the level of plaintiff's injury, if any; (2) complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants (a typical complaint asserts claims against some 50 different defendants); (3) damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants; (4) the defendants' share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability; (5) the amount of fault to be allocated to each defendant is different depending on each case; (6) many cases are filed against General Cable, even though the plaintiff did not use any of General Cable's products, and ultimately are withdrawn or dismissed without any payment; (7) many cases are brought on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injuries, and ultimately are resolved without any payment to that plaintiff; and (8) with regard to claims for punitive damages, potential liability generally is related to the amount of potential exposure to asbestos from a defendant's products. General Cable's asbestos-containing products contained only a minimal amount of fully encapsulated asbestos." General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy, industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets. The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and Rest of World (ROW). The Company's product portfolio includes more than 100,000 products. The Company operated 56 manufacturing facilities, which included four facilities owned by companies in which the Company has an equity investment, in 25 countries with regional distribution centers across the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,314 PI Suits at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Harsco Corporation had 17,314 pending asbestos personal injury actions, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company is named as one of many defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions in the United States alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit. The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor of asbestos fibers. Any asbestos-containing part of a Company product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions. At December 31, 2014, there were 17,314 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. Of those actions, 16,979 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), 115 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and 220 were filed in courts located in other states. The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25 million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without identifying any specific Company product. At December 31, 2014, 16,816 of the actions filed in New York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. The remaining 163 cases in New York County are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical impairment. The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions. The Company believes that a substantial portion of the costs and expenses of the asbestos actions will be paid by the Company's insurers. In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the United States, the Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously defending these claims and cases. At December 31, 2014, the Company has obtained dismissal in 27,550 cases by stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial. It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos- related actions in the United States due to the unpredictable nature of this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements because a loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable. Despite this uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows for a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related actions, the Company does not expect that any costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company is subject to various other claims and legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters that arose in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, all such matters are adequately covered by insurance or by established reserves, and, if not so covered, are without merit or are of such kind, or involve such amounts, as would not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. Insurance liabilities are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred for a particular event and the amount of loss associated with the event can be reasonably estimated. Insurance reserves have been estimated based primarily upon actuarial calculations and reflect the undiscounted estimated liabilities for ultimate losses, including claims incurred but not reported. Inherent in these estimates are assumptions that are based on the Company's history of claims and losses, a detailed analysis of existing claims with respect to potential value, and current legal and legislative trends. If actual claims differ from those projected by management, changes (either increases or decreases) to insurance reserves may be required and would be recorded through income in the period the change was determined. When a recognized liability is covered by third-party insurance, the Company records an insurance claim receivable to reflect the covered liability. Insurance claim receivables are included in Other receivables on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets. See Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, for additional information on Accrued Insurance and Loss Reserves. Harsco Corporation is a diversified, multinational provider of industrial services and engineered products serving global industries. The Company operates in three segments: Harsco Metals & Minerals, Harsco Rail and Harsco Industrial. The Company's principal lines of business include outsourced, on-site services to steel mills and other metals producers; resource recovery technologies for the re-use of industrial waste stream by- products; industrial abrasives and roofing granules; engineered scaffolding, concrete forming and shoring, and other access- related services, rentals and sales; railway track maintenance services and equipment; industrial grating products; air-cooled heat exchangers, and heat transfer products. Harsco also holds an approximate 29 percent equity interest in Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services, a provider of specialized industrial services to the worldwide energy and infrastructure sectors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harsco Corporation continues to defend itself against numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. A negative outcome on personal injury claims against the Company may adversely impact results of operations and financial condition. The Company has been named as one of many defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos. The majority of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints contain a standard claim for damages of $20 million or $25 million against the approximately 90 defendants, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without specifically identifying any Company product as the source of plaintiff's asbestos exposure. If the Company is found to be liable in any of these actions and the liability exceeds the Company's insurance coverage, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition could be adversely affected. Harsco Corporation is a diversified, multinational provider of industrial services and engineered products serving global industries. The Company operates in three segments: Harsco Metals & Minerals, Harsco Rail and Harsco Industrial. The Company's principal lines of business include outsourced, on-site services to steel mills and other metals producers; resource recovery technologies for the re-use of industrial waste stream by- products; industrial abrasives and roofing granules; engineered scaffolding, concrete forming and shoring, and other access- related services, rentals and sales; railway track maintenance services and equipment; industrial grating products; air-cooled heat exchangers, and heat transfer products. Harsco also holds an approximate 29 percent equity interest in Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services, a provider of specialized industrial services to the worldwide energy and infrastructure sectors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend PI Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Ensco plc continues to defend itself against numerous asbestos- related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We and certain subsidiaries have been named as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as co- defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Illinois, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana and the UK by approximately 125 plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the 1960s through the 1980s. "During 2013, we reached an agreement in principle with 58 of the plaintiffs to settle lawsuits filed in Mississippi for a nominal amount. A special master reviewed all 58 cases and made an allocation of settlement funds among the parties. The District Court Judge reviewed the allocations and accepted the special master's recommendations and approved the settlements. The settlement documents and final documentation for the individual plaintiffs are being processed. "We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims and have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and challenges to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still ongoing and, therefore, available information regarding the nature of all pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure, if any. "In addition to the pending cases in Illinois, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana and the UK, we have other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in litigation in other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect final disposition of these asbestos or lung injury lawsuits to have a material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits." Ensco plc (Ensco) is the United Kingdom-based offshore contract drilling company. The Company offers offshore drilling rig fleet, ultra-deepwater fleet and jackup fleet. Ensco owns and operates an offshore drilling rig fleet of 74 rigs. The Company's target market includes oil companies, in addition to many independent operators. The Company's operations and drilling contracts span across 20 countries on six continents around the world. The markets in which the Company operates include the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, Mexico, Brazil, the Mediterranean, the North Sea, the Middle East, West Africa, Australia and Southeast Asia. The Company provides drilling services on a day-rate contract basis. It operates through three segments: Floaters, Jackups and Other. The Floaters segment includes the Company's drillships and semisubmersible rigs. The Jackups segment offers contract drilling services. The other segment comprises management services on rigs owned by third parties. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Continues to Defend PI Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- BNSF Railway Company continues to defend itself against numerous personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest exposure for certain BNSF Railway employees was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at BNSF Railway by 1985. BNSF Railway assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF Railway determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends. Key elements of the assessment include: * Because BNSF Railway did not have detailed employment records in order to compute the population of potentially exposed employees, it computed an estimate using Company employee data from 1970 forward and estimated the BNSF Railway employee base from 1938-1969 using railroad industry historical census data and estimating BNSF Railway's representation in the total railroad population. * The projected incidence of disease was estimated based on epidemiological studies using employees' age, duration and intensity of exposure while employed. * An estimate of the future anticipated claims filing rate by type of disease (non-malignant, cancer and mesothelioma) was computed using the Company's average historical claim filing rates observed in 2011-2014. * An estimate of the future anticipated dismissal rate by type of claim was computed using the Company's historical average dismissal rates observed in 2010-2014. * An estimate of the future anticipated settlement by type of disease was computed using the Company's historical average of dollars paid per claim for pending and future claims using the average settlement by type of incidence observed during 2010-2014. From these assumptions, BNSF Railway projected the incidence of each type of disease to the estimated population to arrive at an estimate of the total number of employees that could potentially assert a claim. Historical claim filing rates were applied for each type of disease to the total number of employees that could potentially assert a claim to determine the total number of anticipated claim filings by disease type. Historical dismissal rates, which represent claims that are closed without payment, were then applied to calculate the number of future claims by disease type that would likely require payment by the Company. Finally, the number of such claims was multiplied by the average settlement value to estimate BNSF Railway's future liability for unasserted asbestos claims. The most sensitive assumptions for this accrual are the estimated future filing rates and estimated average claim values. Asbestos claim filings are typically sporadic and may include large batches of claims solicited by law firms. To reflect these factors, BNSF Railway used a multi-year calibration period (i.e., average historical filing rates observed in 2011-2014) because it believed it would be most representative of its future claim experience. In addition, for non-malignant claims, the number of future claims to be filed against BNSF Railway declines at a rate consistent with both mortality and age as there is a decreasing propensity to file a claim as the population ages. BNSF Railway believes the average claim values by type of disease from the historical period 2010- 2014 are most representative of future claim values. Non-malignant claims, which represent approximately 90 percent of the total number and 60 percent of the cost of estimated future asbestos claims, were priced by age of the projected claimants. Historically, the ultimate settlement value of these types of claims is most sensitive to the age of the claimant. During the third quarters of 2014, 2013 and 2012, the Company analyzed recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used by BNSF Railway to estimate its future asbestos liability were reasonable. In 2014, management recorded a decrease in expense of $2 million. In 2013, management determined that the liability remained appropriate and no change was recorded. In 2012, management recorded a decrease in expense of $15 million due primarily to favorable settlements. The Company plans to update its study again in the third quarter of 2015. Throughout the year, BNSF Railway monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary. Based on BNSF Railway's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed population (former and current employees hired prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data (including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or BNSF Railway specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF Railway projects that approximately 60, 80 and 95 percent of the future unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15 and 25 years, respectively. BNSF Railway Company operates one of the largest railroad networks in North America. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, the company provides freight transportation over a network of about 32,500 route miles of track across two-thirds of the western US and two provinces in Canada. About 23,000 miles of that track are company owned, while the remainder is owned and permitted by other railroads. BNSF Railway owns or leases a fleet of about 6,900 locomotives. It also has some 30 intermodal facilities that help to transport agricultural, consumer, and industrial products, as well as coal. In addition to major cities and ports, BNSF Railway serves smaller markets in alliance with short-line partners. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 54,000 Fibro Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc., had 54,000 total outstanding asbestos- related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork. Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs. In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The legislation, which applies to future and, with the exception of Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming, pending claims at the time of enactment, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its claims defense strategy. The Company cautions, however, that the legislation may be challenged and there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate effect of the legislation on Crown Cork. In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor's assets. On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos- related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June of 2003. The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003. In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be upheld. The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos- related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have a material impact on the Company. For the year ended 2014, the Company had 54,000 total outstanding asbestos-related claims; and made $30 million asbestos-related payments. The outstanding claims in each period exclude approximately 19,000 inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual as the claims were filed in states, where the Company's liability is limited by statute. With respect to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964, the Company does not include in its accrual any amounts for settlements in states where the Company's liability is limited by statute except for certain pending claims in Texas as described earlier. With respect to post-1964 claims, regardless of the existence of asbestos legislation, the Company does not include in its accrual any amounts for settlement of these claims because of increased difficulty of establishing identification of relevant insulation products as the cause of injury. Given its settlement experience with post-1964 claims, the Company does not believe that an adverse ruling in the Texas or Pennsylvania asbestos litigation cases, or in any other state that has enacted asbestos legislation, would have a material impact on the Company with respect to such claims. As of December 31, 2014, the percentage of outstanding claims related to claimants alleging serious diseases was 22%. Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is included in the Company's estimated liability as of December 31, 2014. As of December 31, 2014, the Company's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $275 million, including $231 million for unasserted claims. The Company's accrual includes estimated probable costs for claims through the year 2024. The Company's accrual excludes potential costs for claims beyond 2024 because the Company believes that the key assumptions underlying its accrual are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. Approximately 88% of the claims outstanding at the end of 2014 were filed by plaintiffs who do not claim a specific amount of damages or claim a minimum amount as established by court rules relating to jurisdiction; approximately 11% were filed by plaintiffs who claim damages of less than $5 million; approximately 1% were filed by plaintiffs who claim damages from $5 million to less than $100 million (86% of whom claim damages less than $25 million) and 3 were filed by plaintiffs who claim damages in excess of $100 million. It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess of the Company's accrual. However, the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant, the Company and claimant's willingness to negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of the Pennsylvania legislation to non- Pennsylvania jurisdictions, where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are filed). Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer goods. The Company's products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage, household and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures and caps. The Company's products are sold to the soft drink, food, citrus, brewing, household products, personal care and various other industries. The Company operates 147 plants with service facilities throughout 40 countries. The Company's business is organized geographically within three divisions, Americas, Europe and Asia Pacific. The Company's segments within the Americas Division are Americas Beverage and North America Food. The Company's segments within the European Division are European Beverage and European Food. The Company's Asia Pacific Division is a segment which consists of beverage can operations and non-beverage can operations, primarily food cans and specialty packaging. ********* 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 * * *