/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150520.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 20, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 100 Headlines ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH: Seeks Cut in Bag Check Time Penalties ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: May 26 Last Day to Respond to Complaint AIG INC: Judge Tosses Workers' Compensation Fraud Class Action ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $9.75MM ANZ BANK: IMF Bentham May Appeal Class Action Ruling ANZ BANK: Fee Suit Win Builds on Maturing Class Actions Market APPLE INC: Court Tosses TRO Motion, Dismisses "Paulson" Action ARC DOCUMENT: $900,000 Liability Related to Class Action Claim ARIA RESORT: Obtains Final OK of "Berry" Class Action Settlement AT&T INC: Cricket Communications Purchase Results in Class Suit BALTIC TRADING: Merger a Slam Dunk for Board Members, Suit Claims BANK OF AMERICA: Parents of Showbiz Kids Must Cover Bank Fees BANK OF KENTUCKY: Agreed to Settle Kentucky Class Action BE-THIN INC: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in "Geismann" Suit BG RETAIL: Mag. Judge Recommends Sept 11 Hearing in Davis Case BP PLC: 5th Cir. Upholds Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Glenn" Case BUCKLEY'S GREAT STEAK: "Foley" Class Certification Denied CADIZ INC: Accused of Lying About Southern Calif. Water Pipeline CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Party to 60 Pending Bodily Injury Claims CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Faces Class Action in Israel CAMPBELL-EWALD: High Court Asked to Decide on TCPA Suit Mootness CANADA: High Court Won't Hear Farmers Appeal in Wheat Board Case CAPITOL RECORDS: Davis, Tavares Suits Administratively Closed CATALINA RESTAURANT: Girard Gibbs File Class Action Over Layoff CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Held CEPHALON INC: Court Declines to Certify Unlawful Marketing Class CHICAGO: Godfrey Seeks Entry of Final Approval and Judgment Order CHINA COMMERCIAL: To Seek Dismissal of Class Action Lawsuit CONWAY, AR: Firefighter Seeks Class Action Status for Pay Suit COVENTUS INTER-INSURANCE: CFA Doesn't Apply to Med-Mal Insurance CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Kahn Swick Files Securities Suit DAIRY FARMERS: Judge Rejects $50MM Class Action Settlement DEUTSCHE BANK: Nears $1.5-Bil. Libor Class Action Settlement DOLLAR GENERAL: Request for EEOC Background Policy Details Denied DYNEX CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Suit Dismissal ELECTROLUX: 11th Cir. to Hear Moldy Washer Class Cert. Challenge ENDOCYTE INC: Discovery Stayed in Class Action ENERNOC INC: $500,000 Cash Payment Received in Class Action ENERNOC INC: MOU Filed in Delaware Court of Chancery FACEBOOK INC: Vienna Court Set to Rule on Privacy Class Action FACEBOOK INC: Pushes for End to Austrian Privacy Class Action FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Judge Dismisses Concussion Class Suit FIRST NATIONAL: Steven Antonik Class Action in Discovery Stage FIRST NATIONAL: Charles Saxe Class Action in Discovery Stage FLOWER FOODS: Appeals Employee Classification Class Action Ruling FORD MOTOR: Court Hears Arguments in Mesothelioma Case FTD COMPANIES: Appeal of Class Action Settlement Remains Pending GALENA BIOPHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Sues Milla Bjorn, Lidingo GERON CORP: Shareholder Action Over Cancer Drug Trimmed GFI GROUP: Pretrial Conference in Szarek Case Adjourned to May 21 GFI GROUP: Pretrial Conference in Gross Action Rescheduled GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Limits Set on Nature of Class Member Notice HAIN CELESTIAL: 9th Cir. Revives "All Natural" Cosmetics Suit HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Stein Class Action HOPFED BANCORP: Negotiates Settlement in Class Action HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Data Breach Class Suit Dismissed HORIZON LINES: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Action HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Class Action Now Concluded IBM CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Sale of Hardware Biz IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Firm Files Securities Suit IGNITE RESTAURANT: Expects Final Court Approval of Settlement IGNITE RESTAURANT: Conditional Cert. Granted in Employees' Suit INSTALLED BUILDING: Paid $1.2MM Related to Class Action INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Summary Judgment Briefing Due Nov. 23 J.G. WENTWORTH: Defendants Intend to Appeal Court Order JIMMY JOHN'S: 'Oppressive' Non-compete Clause Survives Challenge JOHNS HOPKINS: Attorneys in Levy Suit Set to Get $32MM in Fees LIFE TIME: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Suit LISA STEED: Judge Denies Class Action Status to Fraud Suit LOUISIANA: PSC Commissioner Wants Name Off Class Action Motion LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Freeland Couple Files Flooring Class Action LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Has Expected to Face DOJ Criminal Charges MASSACHUSETTS: Former Inmates Settle Strip Search Class Action MCCLATCHY COMPANY: 1st Phase of Fresno Case Was to End March 2015 MERCER CANYONS: Judge Allows Farm Workers' Class Suit to Proceed MERCER CANYONS: Owner Disappointed With Certification Ruling MILES INDUSTRIES: Class Suit Filed Over Gas Fireplaces MILLER ENERGY: Final Settlement in Class Action Approved MIMEDX GROUP: Law Firm Filed Class Action Lawsuit MINNESOTA: Commerce Dept. Sued Over Unclaimed Property Program MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Court Indicated It Would Approve Settlement NEW JERSEY: Kelly, Wildstein in Default in Bridgegate Class Suit OCEAN SPRAY: Judge Denies Plaintiff's Class Certification Bid OMEGA FLEX: Judges Granted Motion to Dismiss 2 Class Actions OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Discovery Stayed Under 2nd Scheduling Order PACIFIC COAST: Faces Class Actions Filed by Welch and Berliner PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Plaintiffs Have Yet to Amend Class Action PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: To Seek Dismissal of Amended Complaint PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: HIPA Offers "No Shelter" to Class Suit PLY GEM: Approval of Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement Under Appeal PLY GEM: Class Certification in "Memari" Case Not Yet Scheduled PLY GEM: No Class Certification Ruling Yet in "Pagliaroni" Case PLY GEM: Faces Class Action by Aaron Kraemer PLY GEM: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Filed PROVECTUS BIOPHARMA: Lead Plaintiff Has Yet to File Amended Suit QUIKSILVER INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit REACHLOCAL INC: Lawsuit Filed by Former Clients in Early Stage RESTAURANT BRANDS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held ROCK CREEK: Court Scheduled Final Approval Hearing for June 22 ROCK CREEK: Baldwin Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint RUST-OLEUM: Faces Class Action Over Deck Protector Product SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Appeals Court Reinstates Shareholder Suit SEAWORLD PARKS: Faces "Kuhl" Class Suit Over Orca Mistreatment SEAWORLD PARKS: Author of 'Beneath the Surface' Warned SMITH & NEPHEW: Medical Device Class Certification Denied SYNGENTA AG: Objections to Proposed Benefit Work Order Overruled SYNGENTA AG: Two Cases in Corn Litigation Return to State Court SYSCO CORP: Merger Trial Begins in FTC Antitrust Case TARGET CORPORATION: Initial Injunction Bid in Breach Case Denied TRANSOCEAN LTD: Plaintiffs Filed Opening Brief in Appeal TRAVERS AUTOMOTIVE: Court Denies Motion to Modify Case Mgmt Order TWEEN BRANDS: Atty Objects to Proposed $6-Mil. Settlement UBS GROUP: Has Settlement to Resolve Foreign Currency Actions UBS GROUP: Added as Defendant to Silver Class Action UBS GROUP: Faces Class Action on FX Futures Contracts UBS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Swiss Franc LIBOR UBS GROUP: Discovery Stayed in Euroyen TIBOR Lawsuit UBS GROUP: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action Affirmed UBS AG: Class Action Over Funds Moved From Puerto Rico to NY WACHOVIA CORP: Court Orders Wells Fargo to Donate $10,500 WAL-MART STORES: Faces Wage Theft Class Action in Alameda County WALGREEN CO: Faces Securities Class Suit by Robbins Geller WORLD WRESTLING: Three Former Wrestlers File Class Suit XARELTO: New Class Suit Filed in Canada YOUKU TUDOU: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Shareholders Class Suit ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Implant Product Liability Suits Head to Trial * Accounting-Driven Class Actions Rising, Study Finds * CFPB Study May Pave Way for Class Suits vs. Companies ********* ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH: Seeks Cut in Bag Check Time Penalties ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Randles and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that Abercrombie and Fitch Stores Inc. moved on April 8 to trim a request for waiting time penalties in a proposed class action in California accusing the retailer of failing to pay employees for time spent waiting to have their bags searched after their shifts, saying the company had a policy that such checks be done on the clock. The company filed a motion for partial summary judgment over the waiting time penalties, one of three claims brought in the lawsuit against A&F. Former A&F employees, who say they were not compensated for the bag checks, have also leveled claims for failing to pay all wages and violations of California's business code. A&F said in its motion that it sent out a directive in June 2010 advising supervisors in California that all bag checks, which are done to ensure employees are not stealing merchandise from the store, be done on the clock. Despite the written policy, the two named plaintiffs in the case -- Emily Pelz who worked at Hollister and Jessica Valiente Chavarria who worked at a California Abercrombie kids before transferring -- "never reported to corporate headquarters that they allegedly clocked out before bag checks." "Accordingly, as of June 2010, managers were required to perform immediate and brief bag checks on associates after their shift ended, but before they clocked out, and the checks were to take place at the cashwraps (i.e., P.O.S. areas) located throughout the store," A&F said. The question over whether time spent in line waiting for a security screening is compensable was one of the biggest issues in employment law over the last year. In December, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that workers don't have to be paid for time they spent passing through security screenings in a high-profile lawsuit involving Amazon warehouse workers. The lawsuit against A&F was filed in August, months before the Supreme Court's decision came down. A&F cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the Amazon warehouse workers' case that time spent during security screenings is not compensable. Further, the company added that "No reported California state case has held that time spent passing through a retail bag check is compensable under California law." Both of these facts, A&F argued, are reasons why a claim for waiting time penalties in this case would not be appropriate. The plaintiffs and the class are represented by Thomas Kearney -- tak@kearneylittlefield.com -- and Prescott Littlefield -- pwl@kearneylittlefield.com -- of Kearney Littlefield LLP and Gene Stonebarger and Richard Lambert of Stonebarger Law. A&F is represented by Mark Knueve -- maknueve@vorys.com -- Daren Garcia -- dsgarcia@vorys.com -- and James Pauley III of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP and Daphne Bishop -- dbishop@cdflaborlaw.com -- of Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP The case is Emily Pelz et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc., case number 2:14-cv-06327, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: May 26 Last Day to Respond to Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Acelrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the last day for the Company to respond to the amended complaint in a class action complaint is May 26, 2015. "On October 1, 2014, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against AcelRx and certain of our current and former officers. The complaint alleges that between December 2, 2013 and September 25, 2014, AcelRx and certain of our officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with statements related to our lead drug candidate, Zalviso. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On December 1, 2014, three purported shareholders filed motions to appoint lead plaintiff and to appoint lead counsel," the Company said. On February 24, 2015, the court issued an order appointing the lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the matter. Lead Plaintiff has until April 10, 2015 to file an amended complaint. The last day for the Company to respond to the amended complaint is May 26, 2015. "We believe that we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously," the Company said. AIG INC: Judge Tosses Workers' Compensation Fraud Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Beck, writing for Law.com, reports that a statute of limitations doesn't start running when your lawyer tells you that you could file a lawsuit. That's the rationale behind a Chicago ruling dismissing the last in a series of cases targeting AIG and its former CEO Maurice Greenberg for a decades-old fraud involving workers' compensation premiums. In a 12-page ruling issued April 27, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman rejected a proposed class action brought by employers that claimed AIG's admitted misconduct had caused them them to pay higher premiums to their insurers. The judge held that the plaintiffs had waited too long before suing AIG and Greenberg in 2013 for racketeering and various state law violations. The employers should have known of their injuries no later than 2005, when the news media covered AIG's fraudulent workers' compensation policy scheme and Greenberg was removed from AIG's board, Judge Gettleman found. The statute of limitations for RICO is four years, and it's no more than six years for the state law claims. The ruling is a win for Michael Carlinsky -- michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, who represented AIG and related corporate co-defendants. Carlinsky declined to comment. R. Ryan Stoll -- ryan.stoll@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom represented Greenberg. In April 2005 The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal ran articles about practices dating back to the 1990s in which AIG miscatagorized workers' compensation premiums that it received as other types of premiums. By doing so, AIG didn't pay its share of state-levied taxes on the premiums, causing other insurers to make up the difference, the papers reported. A month later, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued AIG for this underreporting. AIG settled with New York in 2006 as part of a $1.64 billion deal that resolved wide-ranging federal and state charges of fraud, bid-rigging and improper accounting. AIG apologized and stated that the company's actions had been wrong. The company in 2011 paid $450 million to settle related litigation brought by other insurance companies. Quinn Emanuel's Carlinsky also defended AIG in that case. The employer plaintiffs sought to represent a class of all employers who paid workers' compensation surcharges in 12 states, including New York, California and New Jersey. To counter AIG's defense that they filed their case too late, the employers argued that they didn't learn that they were harmed by AIG's fraud until class action attorneys advised them of their claims. None of the publicity about AIG's fraud mentioned how employers like them were injured, they maintained. In rejecting the employers' arguments, Judge Gettleman concluded that they should have been aware of the impact of AIG's conduct as early as 2005. He pointed out that their workers' compensation invoices showed surcharges based on the total premiums reported to state insurance regulators. And the complaint failed to allege any new information that had emerged since 2005 that alerted plaintiffs to their injuries, the judge found. The plaintiffs are represented by co-lead counsel Elizabeth Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Derek Brandt -- dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com -- of Simmons Hanly Conroy. Fegan declined to comment. ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $9.75MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Caspi, writing for Healthcare Dive, reports that Allscripts Healthcare Solutions Inc. is set to pay nearly $9.75 million to settle claims of securities fraud, after the company allegedly overstated its ability to integrate its systems and products with those of Eclipsys following their $1.3 billion merger in 2010. Documents were filed on April 9 and the settlement is now awaiting preliminary approval. While the legal arguments swirl around exactly what was stated regarding progress after the merger, the real question from an IT perspective is where the attempts at integration went wrong. While the lawsuit itself provides only one side of the argument, it does reveal the technical and personnel issues that allegedly occurred behind the scenes. The plan The court documents outline how the merger was intended to fill the need for integrated EHR products that "would enable access to a single patient record across the continuum of the patient's care -- for example, data from hospitals, physician practices, rehabilitation centers, pharmacies, etc." They note that Allscripts was under time pressure to deliver due to federal stimulus funding for healthcare providers that would only remain available until 2016. At the time of the announcement, Allscripts stated in a press release that the merger would result in the most comprehensive set of products and create a "clear leader in healthcare information technology, with the most comprehensive solution offering for healthcare organizations of every size and setting." Former Allscripts CEO Glen Tullman told investors that the integration of the two companies' products would be quick and seamless because of their common Microsoft platform, and soon after the merger, he told industry media that the products were already working together. Former Eclipsys CEO Phil Pead told Healthcare IT News, "We're both Microsoft.NET and SQL Server. That makes the level of integration far less complex as a result of the platforms being the same . . . Allscripts has an architecture called UAI and we have Helios. The similarities are quite amazing . . . both of us have abilities to actually integrate levels of applications at a speed that would be very difficult if they were Oracle, Linux, MUMPS." Apparently it wasn't that simple. What went wrong In a nutshell, the lawsuit states, "product integration was far from easy and was never accomplished during the Class Period, leading to customer defections, disappointing financial results and the eventual abandonment of products." The court papers also highlight extreme discord between management teams, evidenced by a series of axings and departures among the senior staff that included the head of sales, the CTO, the COO, three directors, the CFO, Tullman, Pead and president Lee Shapiro. Here are some of the specific technical failings according to confidential witness accounts from former employees: Allscripts' goal was to use native integration to allow its Sunrise products to seamlessly integrate with its Enterprise, Professional and MyWay products, and to allow the products to update patient health records without the use of industry standardized codes. Allscripts branded its native software as ADX. During the Class Period, Allscripts had to completely rework ADX 1.0 and the company never achieved integration for its key products -- including MyWay -- which it abandoned in the fall of 2012. An upgrade known as ADX 1.5 changed the method and interface for data integration, with one specific goal being to allow users to approve changes before they were entered into the system. Before the merger, Eclipsys was utilizing Medicity as its third party vendor for the interface, but Allscripts switched to dbMotion, a move that caused internal dissent. A proposed integration solution named Helios was never released after being "touted as the 'magic' connection on data exchange for all products, including Sunrise Clinical Manager 5.5, dbMotion, other vendor products and all other Allscripts products." Impacts The lawsuit alleges that in late April 2012, after Allscripts revealed difficulties with integration and disappointing earnings, as well as the departure of several board members, the value of the company's stock plummeted 35% as a result. The papers add that several months after the disclosures, disgruntled clients filed a class action lawsuit against Allscripts for failing to follow through on integrating the MyWay EHR product and then abandoning it. In the end, the reason Allscripts faces its current deal of providing $9.75 million to the proposed class is its alleged misrepresentation of its technical abilities, according to the suit. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants "repeatedly touted that they had demonstrated and achieved product integration . . . when in truth the products were not integrated and they would not achieve product integration until July 2012 and even by December 2012 only one client site was live on a beta version of the product." The case, Bristol County Retirement System et al. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions Inc. et al., was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. ANZ BANK: IMF Bentham May Appeal Class Action Ruling ---------------------------------------------------- Clancy Yeates and Timna Jacks, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, report that a landmark ruling that credit card late payment fees charged by ANZ were illegal has been overturned on appeal in the full Federal Court. The court said on April 8 that it would reverse last year's ruling that late payment fees were an illegal penalty. The original ruling had threatened to cost the big banks tens of millions of dollars, The decision could come as a blow to a multimillion-dollar class action running against several major banks over fees. But the class action's principal financial backer IMF Bentham Australia said it was likely to seek leave to appeal to the High Court. In a decision that also raised doubts about the validity of late fees charged by companies such as telecommunications providers and utilities, Justice Michelle Gordon last February ruled that ANZ's late payment fees of up to $35 were "extravagant, exorbitant and unconscionable". Four other types of fee were ruled legitimate. ANZ had been appealing against the judgment over credit cards. Legal firm Maurice Blackburn, which is leading the class action against the bank, had also been appealing against key parts of the ruling that favored ANZ, namely that honor fees, dishonor fees, and over-limit fees were acceptable. On April 8, the court ruled that the late fee was not extravagant nor unconscionable and ANZ's appeal should be allowed. It also dismissed Maurice Blackburn's appeal. Maurice Blackburn's national head of class actions, Andrew Watson, said he would appeal against the Federal Court's ruling in the High Court: "Obviously we are still digesting the details of what is a very large decision but based on what we've read we think there are grounds for appeal and we will be making an application for special leave of the High Court. "It is perhaps appropriate that Australia's largest consumer class action will ultimately be determined by Australia's highest court and as a result of the decision that's where we're headed," he said. "Unfortunately, the decision runs the risk of turning the doctrine of penalties and the statutory provisions on which in we rely into empty vessels devoid of any practical or meaningful content ,and significantly reducing the protection for all consumers in Australia." The chief executive of ANZ Bank's Australian operations, Mark Whelan, said the bank hoped the April 8 ruling put an end to the long-running litigation, which has been funded by IMF Bentham. "Our long standing position has been these fees were lawful and we're pleased this has been vindicated by the Full Federal Court," Mr. Whelan said. "We were particularly pleased the Court found there was no dishonesty on ANZ's part and these avoidable fees were fairly and fully disclosed and there was no lack of good faith by ANZ. The case against ANZ is viewed as a key test case for a broader class action against several of the country's biggest banks including Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and National Australia Bank. With about 180,000 customers having signed up, it is being billed as the biggest in Australian history. Last year NAB signalled it was open to settling with its customers over credit card late fees -- thought to number about 30,000. ANZ BANK: Fee Suit Win Builds on Maturing Class Actions Market -------------------------------------------------------------- Marianna Papadakis, writing for The Australian Financial Review, reports that ANZ's win in a multimillion-dollar case against it concerning late fees on card payments in the Federal Court builds on an already rapidly maturing class actions market which could numb outlandish claims. Courts are driving one of the key developments in the space, as they increasingly require group members to play a more active role instead of sitting in the background and awaiting the case outcome, said Herbert Smith Freehills partner Ken Adams -- ken.adams@hsf.com Mr. Adams, along with Clayton Utz partner Colin Loveday -- cloveday@claytonutz.com -- Jones Day class actions practice Australasia head John Emmerig -- jemmerig@jonesday.com -- and Maurice Blackburn principal Rebecca Gilsenan are among the Best Lawyers for this year. Explore the full list of Australia's Best Lawyers, including the 222 Lawyers of the Year, using our exclusive interactive tool. Mr. Adams said the way in which class actions were being managed by the courts and the parties was also changing. "The days when institutional investors can be assured of sitting back while a small investor runs the case might be coming to an end," he said. "One can expect a more critical assessment of the different types of group members' claims, particularly on the issue of whether they suffered any loss, and if so, the cause of that loss." Requirements could include having group members contribute to security for costs, give details of their claims and documents in support as well as give evidence at an initial trial. Mr. Adams said while institutional shareholders pursued the overwhelming value of the claims in a class action, none had yet taken a lead plaintiff role in a shareholder class action in Australia. Requiring institutional shareholders to give evidence could lead to a deeper understanding of what impact alleged misrepresentations, or non-disclosures by a listed company, really had on the day to day trading activities of these organizations, he said. SHARE PRICE MOVEMENTS One issue that has vexed the courts in shareholder actions is whether plaintiffs can claim for indirect losses arising from the inflation of a share price where a defendant company fails to disclose information. The question was raised in a recently failed class action against collapsed global investment house Babcock & Brown, but Mr. Adams said it might become less relevant in the context of mega- investors, with global management teams, proprietary investment models and huge research resources. Clayton Utz partner Colin Loveday said he did not expect an explosion of class actions in the next year, but a steady growth in class actions in the next year would be driven by entrepreneurial litigants who were "testing the boundaries" with different funding and return models. EXACERBATE SITUATION The introduction of contingency fees -- controversially backed by the Productivity Commission -- could exacerbate the situation and increase the number of speculative claims, he said. "It would be a most unwelcome development." Class actions were well suited to address some issues, but not all -- for example, where the interests of class action group members lacked uniformity, he said. It was difficult to accurately assess the parameters of the class members' interests when court documents commonly provided only a description of the class without identifying group members, details about their individual claims and the number of members, he said. "Managing conflicts of interest in this environment is extremely difficult," Mr. Loveday said. "Difficulties in identifying the nature and extent of these group member interests makes class actions notoriously difficult to run to trial," Mr. Loveday said. It was one reason why so few class actions were fully heard and determined and why court approved settlements could be difficult to get as was demonstrated by cases against Macquarie Bank, Great Southern and Vioxx, he said. MORE DIVERSITY THAN EVER Jones Day class actions practice Australasia head John Emmerig said that the diversity of cases was broader than ever, spanning shareholder actions, products liability claims, class actions against governments, structured investment product claims, as well as claims against directors and advisers, and consumer claim class actions. More defendants, however, were choosing to defend claims in court rather than settle pre-hearing in the past year. The class actions space has swollen in the past few years, with the growth of the litigation funding market dominated by IMF Bentham and the striking of the biggest ever settlement for a class action of $500 million in the Kilmore East-Kinglake bushfire case last December. This followed a $300 million settlement in the Murrindindi/Marysville class action, both run by Maurice Blackburn. DOMINATES MARKET IMF Bentham, which is funding the ANZ class action and dominates the litigation funding market in Australia, has contributed to a significant increase in class actions in the past few years and has a $1.94 billion investment portfolio available to absorb the $4 million write-down in intangible assets and $1.5 million in adverse costs from the ANZ decision. The federal government has signaled a review of the class action regime, but has left law firms in the dark over the details. Upcoming new cases to be brought by Maurice Blackburn this year include the QBE and Vocation shareholder actions. The Cash Converters payday lending case and the Rivercity investor cases could go to trial, and a trial against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson is currently running. On the plaintiff side, Maurice Blackburn -- spurring the ANZ action -- remains head of the pack, along with Slater and Gordon, though other law firms are nudging into the space and picking up smaller cases. Maurice Blackburn principal Rebecca Gilsenan said there were more early interlocutory challenges in matters being conducted by less- experienced practitioners. "At some stage soon there will be a dispute or contest in relation to the adequacy of representation," Ms. Gilsenan said. She urged regulators not to lurch to any sides in undertaking reform, saying Australia's class actions regime was mature and well-structured. The speedy resolution of the $69.45 million Leighton Holdings shareholder class action was an example of efficient resolution for all parties, Ms. Gilsenan said. "We hope that legislators and regulators will bring a cool head and fact-based approach to any consideration of reforms to further improve this important system," she said. Plaintiff lawyers have also been encouraged by recommendations from the Harper review of competition law that admissions by respondents in settling matters with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission could be available to be used in follow on cases for damages. The courts have made clear their opposition to "lawyer-driven" class actions, but class action lawyers are also keenly awaiting a judgment in a shareholder class action against Allco Finance which could determine whether litigation funders can adopt a "common fund" approach to class actions. A common fund would enable funder to take a proportion of damages, to be set at the outset of a case, from all group members. APPLE INC: Court Tosses TRO Motion, Dismisses "Paulson" Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In Lauren Paulson, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:15-CV-00556, (D. D. C.), the plaintiff is a resident of Brookings, Oregon, who has submitted a "Motion for a Temporary Restraint Order," a "Class Action Complaint," and an application to proceed in forma pauperis, all dated August 6, 2014. Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts, in a memorandum opinion dated April 13, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1Jt5gU4from Leagle.com, ruled that the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted, the motion for a temporary restraining order will be denied and this case, brought pro se, will be dismissed. He said a TRO is warranted only if "it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party's attorney can be heard in opposition." Plaintiff seeks an order to compel "Defendant T-Mobile to immediately restore [his] telephone service" and to "refund any and all sums automatically deducted from Plaintiff's bank account from April 18, 2014 when T-Mobile terminated" the service. . . ." The fact that plaintiff did not prepare his TRO motion until August 6, 2014, nearly four months later, belies any claim of immediate harm, and plaintiff has made no showing of irreparable harm. Judge Roberts added that the "Class Action Complaint" cannot proceed because a pro se party, such as plaintiff, cannot represent a class or any other individual in federal court. Hence, the case will be dismissed. ARC DOCUMENT: $900,000 Liability Related to Class Action Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- Arc Document Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has a liability of $0.9 million as of December 31, 2014 related to a class action claim. On October 21, 2010, a former employee, individually and on behalf of a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees who work or worked for American Reprographics Company, L.L.C. and American Reprographics Company in the State of California at any time from October 21, 2006 through the present, filed an action against the Company in the Superior Court of California for Orange County. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to (i) provide meal and rest periods, or compensation in lieu thereof, (ii) timely pay wages due at termination, and (iii) that those practices also violate the California Business and Professions Code. The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court deems proper. On March 15, 2013, the Company participated in a private mediation session with claimants' counsel which did not result in resolution of the claim. Subsequent to the mediation session, the mediator issued a proposal that was accepted by both parties. The Company has received preliminary court approval of the settlement, and awaits final court approval. The Company has a liability of $0.9 million as of December 31, 2014 related to the claim, which represents management's best estimate based on information available. ARIA RESORT: Obtains Final OK of "Berry" Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Andrew P. Gordon issued an order on April 24, 2015, granting final approval of a collective and class action settlement in JAMYE BERRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARIA RESORT & CASINO, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-01321-APG-VCF, (D. Nev.). The Court concluded that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate and reasonable, and directed the Parties to effectuate the Settlement according to its terms. The Court confirmed Thierman Buck LLP as Class Counsel in the Action. The Court awarded Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $281,666.67, and attorney costs in the amount of $5,000, to be deducted and paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount, as final payment for and complete satisfaction of any and all attorneys' fees and costs incurred by and/or owed to Class Counsel and any other person or entity related to the Action. The Court further ordered that the award of attorneys' fees and costs will be administered pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, and transferred and/or made payable to Class Counsel in the Action. The Court approved and ordered Enhancement Awards to Class Representative Jamye Berry in the amount of $15,000 to be paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement. The Court also approved and ordered payment from the Class Settlement for actual claims administration expenses incurred by the Claims Administrator, CPT Group, to be paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount. A copy of the Final Order is available at http://bit.ly/1AaEf6d from Leagle.com. Mark R. Thierman -- mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Joshua D. Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Leah L. Jones -- leah@thiermanbuck.com -- THIERMAN BUCK LLP, Reno, Nevada, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Elayna J. Youchah, Esq. -- YouchahE@jacksonlewis.com -- Peter D. Navarro, Esq. -- Peter.Navarro@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Attorneys for Defendant. AT&T INC: Cricket Communications Purchase Results in Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reported that AT&T is the subject of a class-action lawsuit filed on March 31 over its agreement to purchase Cricket Communications. Tim Bond filed the suit against AT&T alleging the company planned to stop providing service to certain cell phones sold by Cricket and those customers would be required to purchase other phones covered by AT&T. Bond owned a phone using Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) technology, and AT&T announced after the Cricket deal that it planned to discontinue service to those devices this year, the suit says. Customers who are on the CDMA service would need to switch to Global Systems for Mobile communications technology, the complaint says. The lawsuit alleged Cricket knew that AT&T planned to stop servicing those devices, but continued to sell them during the class period and while it was actively attempting to sell the business. The lawsuit alleged the deal between AT&T and Cricket would result in a breach of an implied warranty and Cricket's failure to disclose that the CDMA phones wouldn't work with AT&T constitutes fraudulent concealment. The lawsuit seeks class status for those who purchased a CDMA phone between July 12, 2013, and the present. Bond is also seeking more than $5 million in damages plus court costs. He is represented by Cory L. Zajdel, of Z Law, LLC in Reisterstown, Md.; and Oren S. Giskan and Catherine E. Anderson, of Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart, LLP in New York City. BALTIC TRADING: Merger a Slam Dunk for Board Members, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a merger between Baltic Trading and Genco Shipping & Trading is a slam-dunk for directors serving on both companies' boards, stockholders say in a class action lawsuit. Baltic, founded by Genco in 2009, was organized under the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands but maintains its headquarters in New York. The company operates a fleet of drybulk ships that transport loads of iron ore, coal, grain and steel products. A merger agreement between Baltic and Genco was announced April 8, 2015. Under the agreement, Baltic stockholders would collectively own 15.5 percent of the surviving company and Genco stockholders 84.5 percent. Both companies' board of directors -- some directors serve interchangeably between the two companies -- voted unanimously in favor of the merger, which benefits corporate directors at Baltic stockholder expense, according to the 23-page complaint filed in New York County court. Lead plaintiff Edward Braunstein says Genco is pressing to acquire the remaining publicly held Baltic shares on "unfair terms" and without "regard to the best interests" of stockholders. He sued Baltic and its chairman, Peter Georgiopoulos, and Baltic directors Basil Mavroleon, Harry Perrin and Edward Terino. Georgiopoulos is also Genco's founder and chairman. Mavroleon and Perrin also serve as Genco directors. "Indeed, the consideration to be paid to the class members is unconscionable, unfair and grossly inadequate consideration because, among other things, the intrinsic value of the stock of Baltic is materially in excess of the consideration offered, and the consideration offered is not the result of arm's-length negotiations but was fixed arbitrarily by Genco to 'cap' the market price of Baltic stock, as part of a plan for defendants to obtain complete ownership of Baltic assets and business at the lowest possible price," the complaint states. The merger agreement is girded by protection devices that include non-solicitation and matching rights provisions and a $3.2 million termination fee, all of which lock up the deal by blocking competing bids. Genco is also in a position to control Baltic's board of directors and matters submitted for vote to stockholders because it has control of some 65 percent of the combined voting power of Baltic's outstanding shares of stock, according to the complaint. Under those circumstances, Baltic can't be expected to make decisions that benefit anyone but Genco, Braunstein says. "The proposed transaction serves no legitimate business purpose of Baltic but rather is an attempt by defendants to enable Genco to benefit unfairly from the transaction at the expense of Baltic's public shareholders," the complaint states. Braunstein is suing for breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting. He seeks a temporary and permanent injunction preventing the deal from going forward, or rescission if it has already been consummated; disclosure of all transaction information; and an injunction preventing "material transactions or changes to Baltic's business and assets unless the individual defendants have complied with their duties of good faith and loyalty and do not constitute unfair dealing." The plaintiff also seeks attorneys' fees and costs, including costs for expert witnesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ & MILLER 821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 493-9780 Facsimile: (516) 280-7376 E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Parents of Showbiz Kids Must Cover Bank Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- The parents or guardians of showbiz kids must cover the fees banks charge to service the protected accounts of those minors, a California appeals court found, reports Karina Brown at Courthouse News Service. California's protections for the bank accounts of children in the entertainment industry date back to the passage of the Coogan Law in 1938, after "Addams Family" actor Jackie Coogan turned 18 and found himself flat broke. Though he had earned millions as a child actor, his mother and stepfather spent all of his money. Under the law, employers of child actors in California, New York, Louisiana and New Mexico must deposit 15 percent of the child's gross earnings into a "Coogan" trust account within seven days of their employment. A parent or guardian is named trustee, and account withdrawals are prohibited until the actor turns 18 or is emancipated. Noticing that Bank of America was charging service fees on two such Coogan accounts, the trustees for two child actors, Alex Gonzales and Jadon Monroe, filed a class action last year in Los Angeles Superior Court. Bank of America claimed that its fees are not the same as withdrawals and that federal law guaranteeing the ability of national banks to charge fees pre-empts any state laws barring fees. Judge John Shepard Wiley Jr. dismissed the case against Bank of America, but a three-justice panel for the Second Appellate District reversed April 27. "When a bank debits an account, it necessarily withdraws money from that account," Justice Richard Mosk wrote for the panel. Side-stepping the bank's federal preemption claim, Mosk noted that the "plaintiffs' claims are premised on the theory that withdrawing account service fees from the Coogan Trust Accounts without court approval is inconsistent with the accounts being Coogan Trust Accounts." "Plaintiffs do not challenge defendant's right to 'charge' the fee," he added. Banks should apply the charges to the accounts held by the parents or guardians of child actors, and can come from the other 85 percent of the children's wages, according to the ruling. And if the parents, guardians or banks want the fees to be applied to a specific Coogan account, they can petition the court for approval. BANK OF KENTUCKY: Agreed to Settle Kentucky Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that BKFC, BB&T, and the other defendants have agreed to settle the Kentucky class action in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and distraction of further litigation. BKFC, certain members of BKFC's board of directors and BB&T entered into an agreement in principle with plaintiff regarding the settlement of a putative class action captioned Sector Grid Trading Company v. Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation, et al., No. 14-C1-2302 (the "Kentucky Action"), pending before the Kenton Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and relating to the merger of BB&T and BKFC. The class action was filed by a shareholder of BKFC on December 9, 2014, naming as defendants BKFC, members of BKFC's board of directors and BB&T. The plaintiff alleged that BKFC's board of directors had breached its fiduciary duties to shareholders by entering into the merger agreement with BB&T and further by failing to adequately disclose certain aspects of the transaction. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the transaction or compensatory and punitive damages to be paid to the putative plaintiff class. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, BKFC, with BB&T's concurrence, agreed to make available additional information to BKFC shareholders. Such additional information has been provided in a supplement filed as an exhibit to the 8-K (the "Supplement") to, and incorporated by reference in, the Proxy Statement/Prospectus of BB&T and BKFC relating to the merger of BKFC and BB&T, dated December 4, 2014 (the "Proxy Statement"). BKFC, BB&T, and the other defendants deny all of the allegations made by plaintiff in the Kentucky Action and believe the disclosures in the Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless, BKFC, BB&T, and the other defendants have agreed to settle the Kentucky Action in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and distraction of further litigation. BKFC's 2014 financial statements include a $500,000 accrual for the settlement of this litigation, some of which may be covered by insurance. BE-THIN INC: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in "Geismann" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Senior District Judge E. Richard Webber denied, without prejudice, a motion for class certification in the case captioned RADHA GEISMANN, M.D., P.C., Plaintiff, v. BE-THIN, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:15CV00615 ERW, (E.D. Mo.). "This Court is persuaded by the reasoning of the majority of the circuit courts and the majority of the district courts on this issue. If a defendant makes an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 satisfying all of Plaintiff's demands, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to file a motion for class certification which relates back to the date of filing of the original complaint, avoiding it being deemed moot. While this Court appreciates Plaintiff's efforts to protect her interests and prevent her claim from being deemed moot, the Court finds her motion to be premature. There is no suggestion in any of the filings that any defendant has made an offer of judgment and the facts have not developed enough as to allow for a ruling on class certification. The Court sees no benefit in allowing a motion to languish on the dockets while waiting for discovery to proceed which may take several months. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification will be dismissed with leave to refile once an offer of judgment has been made necessitating such a filing or when the facts have developed enough to allow for a ruling on class certification," wrote Judge Webber in his memorandum and order dated May 11, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/9EkVKofrom Leagle.com. Plaintiff's motion to stay briefing on plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied, as moot. Radha Geismann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, represented by Max G. Margulis -- MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com -- MARGULIS LAW GROUP. Be-Thin, Inc., Defendant, represented by Martin L. Daesch -- mdaesch@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C. & Jesse B. Rochman -- jrochman@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C.. BG RETAIL: Mag. Judge Recommends Sept 11 Hearing in Davis Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued on May 7, 2015, findings and recommendations regarding preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the case captioned JEROME DAVIS and PRISCILLA HUMPHREY, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BROWN SHOE COMPANY, INC., a New York corporation doing business as Famous Footwear, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01211-LJO-BAM, (E.D. Cal.). For clarity, the term "Defendant" means BG Retail, LLC d/b/a/ Famous Footwear, erroneously sued as Brown Shoe Company, Inc. Magistrate Judge McAuliffe recommended that the Settlement Class be conditionally certified for settlement purposes only and will consist of all persons who are or were employed by Defendant in a non-exempt, hourly-paid position in any of Defendant's California Famous Footwear retail locations from June 4, 2009, until the date of Preliminary Approval. By stipulation of the Parties, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file their proposed Second Amended Complaint, which adds Jennifer Carrow and Sabrina Rowell as additional named plaintiffs. The Defendant will not be required to file a responsive pleading to the Second Amended Complaint, rather, Defendant's Answer to the First Amended Complaint will be deemed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. The Court appointed Jerome Davis, Priscilla Humphrey, Jennifer Carrow, and Sabrina Rowell as the Class Representatives for the Settlement Class conditionally certified by the Order. The Court appointed Capstone Law APC as Class Counsel. The Court approved and appointed Simpluris, Inc. as the Claims Administrator, whose fees and expenses will not exceed $60,000. These dates will govern for purposes of this Settlement: Date Event ----- ------ May 18, 2015 Last day for Defendant to produce the class (or not later than list to the Claims Administrator 10 calendar days after the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, if later) May 28, 2015 Last day for the Claims Administrator to (or not later than mail Notice Packets to all Class Members. 10 calendar days after the Defendant produces the class list, if later) June 26, 2015 Last day for the Claims Administrator to (or not later than mail postcard reminders to non-responsive 30 calendar days Class Members. after the Claims Administrator mails the Notice Packets, if later) July 16, 2015 Last day for Class Counsel to file the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Incentive Awards. July 27, 2015 Last day for Class Members to mail (or not later than Objections to the Settlement. 60 calendar Claim days after the Claims Administrator mails Forms, Requests for Exclusion, or the Notice Packets, if later) August 14, 2015 Last day for Plaintiffs to file the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. September 11, 2015 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Class at 9:00 a.m. Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement Payments. The Findings and Recommendations, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/vWm0eDfrom Leagle.com, were submitted to the district judge assigned to the action. Jerome Davis, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Arnab Banerjee -- Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Melissa Grant -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC. Priscilla Humphrey, Plaintiff, represented by Arnab Banerjee, Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC & Melissa Grant, Capstone Law APC. Brown Group Retail, Inc., a New York Corporation Doing business as Famous Footwear also known as Brown Shoe Compay, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Hart Doyle -- CDoyle@jmbm.com -- Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP & Michael John Hassen -- MHassen@jmbm.com -- Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. BP PLC: 5th Cir. Upholds Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Glenn" Case --------------------------------------------------------- On April 27, shortly after its Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, BP p.l.c. ("BP") announced that its Board of Directors had declared a quarterly dividend of $0.84 per American Depositary Share ("ADS") for the first quarter of 2010, to be payable on June 21 to its ADS shareholders as of May 7. On June 16, BP announced that its Board of Directors had canceled the dividend. Robert R. Glenn, a citizen of Oregon, brought a putative class action against BP, a British company headquartered in London, on behalf of himself and all other BP ADS shareholders as of May 7, 2010, arguing that BP's Board of Directors had no legal authority to cancel the dividend under applicable law and BP's own Articles of Association. BP filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing in part that dismissal was warranted under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which "is simply that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute." Under the Supreme Court's framework, a plaintiff's choice of forum will only be disturbed if the court determines, in its "sound discretion," that dismissal is fully warranted after considering "a list of 'private interest factors' affecting the convenience of the litigants, and a list of 'public interest factors' affecting the convenience of the forum." The district court granted the motion pursuant to the doctrine. The court found that Mr. Glenn's choice of forum was entitled to deference and that the private interest factors weighed only weakly in favor of dismissal, which alone would be insufficient to warrant dismissal. It concluded, however, that the public interest factors -- especially the court's need to apply uncertain English law -- weighed so heavily in favor of an English forum that dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens was warranted. "The forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court" and "may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion." The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit on May 11, 2015, found no such abuse of discretion. To the contrary, it said, the district court's opinion is well-reasoned and provides ample support for its conclusion. Accordingly, it affirmed essentially for the reasons given by the district court. A copy of the Fifth Circuit's Opinion is available at http://is.gd/e0i3q3from Leagle.com. The case is ROBERT R. GLENN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BP, P.L.C., Defendant- Appellee, NO. 14-20466, CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 14-20499. BUCKLEY'S GREAT STEAK: "Foley" Class Certification Denied --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Landya McCafferty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, in an opinion dated April 9, 2015, denied motion for class certification in the purported class action lawsuit styled Margaret Foley on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Buckley's Great Steaks, Inc.; and Michael Timothy's Dining Group, Inc., Civil No. 14-cv-063-LM (D.N.H.). A full-text copy of Judge McCafferty's Decision is available at http://is.gd/K8sQz4 CADIZ INC: Accused of Lying About Southern Calif. Water Pipeline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Mike Heuer reports that a Southern California water-resources company lied to shareholders regarding the potential of proceeding with a proposed water pipeline, a federal class action claims. Lead plaintiff Nickolas Van Wingerden says in a complaint filed April 24 in California's Central District says officials for Los Angeles-based Cadiz knowingly disseminated false information regarding its proposed 43-mile water pipeline. The planned pipeline would run along a railroad right-of-way leased from the Arizona & California Railroad, Van Wingerden says. The problem, according to the complaint, is the U.S. Department of the Interior in 2011 said the railroad could "authorize other activities within" its right-of-way access only for "activities that derive from or further a 'railroad purpose.'" "If the use of a right-of-way was not a 'railroad purpose,' then the use would require federal approval," Van Wingerden says. In December 2011, Van Wingerden says Cadiz and the railroad claimed the lease would provide water to suppress railroad fires. The problem with that scenario is the Bureau of Land Management "did not believe that fire suppression was an actual need, because there had not been any trestle fires in the specific stretch," Van Wingerden's complaint states. Another problem is the "Federal Railroad Administration was unaware of any railroads with hydrants along the tracks" and the San Bernardino Fire Department said there are ample access roads that enable rapid response to any potential railroad fires, Van Wingerden says. The 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act says the Secretary of the Interior must approve of the proposed pipeline use within the railroad's right-of-way and denies any federal funding for the project, the complaint states. Despite the federal laws and departmental rulings, Van Wingerden says Cadiz "filed a materially false and misleading Form 10-K" for the end of 2013 that claims federal law and the Department of Interior affirms the railroad can approve access for the pipeline due its alleged fire suppression purpose for the railroad. The complaint cites the SEC filing as stating, "'As a result, we do not believe federal right-of-way approval is required to implement the project; however, this may be subject to challenge.'" While the SEC filing indicates a positive outcome for the project, Van Wingerden says an April 21 report was published by SeekingAlpha.com that is titled "Cadiz: Strong Sell On Project Failure, Insider Enrichment, And Bankruptcy, Price Target $0." That report claimed BLM documents indicate the project "already effectively failed" its federal review and "the project is impossible." The report also claimed the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California "definitively said" they "'already made the determination'" and "'don't see how'" the pipeline can be built. "If lawsuits ensue, instant bankruptcy is a real possibility" for Cadiz, the report stated. In response to the report, Cadiz on April 22 issued a release regarding the project that said federal approval is needed before proceeding. "The BLM must determine whether or not a railroad purpose is served by the pipeline project and has requested information from Cadiz, the [railroad] and Santa Margarita Water District over several years in order to make this determination," Cadiz said in its statement. Cadiz also noted five railroad purposes served by the proposed project. They include an automated fire suppression system, access road, fiber optic cable and related information systems, a tourist-based steam engine, and power generation for lighting of siding, crossing and trans-loading operations. Cadiz said the project "will arrange for the construction of a 43 mile-pipeline and appurtenant facilities that convey water and further, in part, railroad purposes." Regarding federal approval, Cadiz said, "No determination has yet been made or issued and the matter is presently under submission with the BLM. They are expected to present a determination later this year." Cadiz admitted to only having "informal conversations" with the Metropolitan Water District regarding the proposed pipeline and that no formal application has been submitted for review. On its Web site, Cadiz describes itself as a "renewable resources company" that was founded in 1983 after acquiring 11,000 acres of land in the Cadiz Valley in San Bernardino County. The company now owns more than 45,000 acres, including 35,000 in the Cadiz Valley, according to its Web site. The water pipeline project would capture and store water in the Cadiz Valley that otherwise would run to local dry lakes and evaporate, carrying the water to the Colorado River Aqueduct that provides water for Southern California, according to the Cadiz Web site. The class action accuses Cadiz and three executives of violations of the Exchange Act and seeks class certification, compensatory damages and legal costs. The proposed class is comprised of shareholders who bought Cadiz common shares from March 10, 2014, through April 21, 2015. Named as defendants are Cadiz, company president and CEO Scott S. Slater, chief financial officer Timothy J. Shaheen, and co-founder and chairman Keith Brackpool. Cadiz shares are traded publicly on NASDAQ under the "CDZI" symbol and had a closing price of $8.86 a share on April 29. Officials for Cadiz did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY, 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Party to 60 Pending Bodily Injury Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a party to 60 pending claims of bodily injury related to silicosis. The Company said, "We are subject to a number of claims in Israel by fabricators or their employees alleging that they contracted illnesses, including silicosis, through exposure to silica particles during cutting, polishing, sawing, grinding, breaking, crushing, drilling, sanding or sculpting our products. Silicosis is an occupational lung disease that is progressive and sometimes fatal, and is characterized by scarring of the lungs and damage to the breathing function. Inhalation of dust containing fine silica particles as a result of poorly protected and controlled, or unprotected and uncontrolled, exposure while working in different occupations, including among other things, processing quartz, granite, marble and other materials and working with quartz can cause silicosis. Silica comprises approximately 90% of engineered stones, including our products, and smaller concentrations of silica are present in natural stones and, therefore, fabrication of engineered stones may create higher exposure to silica dust and, accordingly, may cause a higher risk of silicosis." "As of today, we are party to 60 pending claims of bodily injury that have been filed against us directly since 2008 in Israel or that have named us as third-party defendants by fabricators or their employees in Israel, by the injured successors, by the State of Israel, or by others. Such lawsuits include one lawsuit filed by the Israeli NII which was filed with respect to three individuals who filed personal claims against us and one lawsuit where the claimants applied for its class certification. Of 63 claims that had been filed against us, including the 60 pending claims, 62 were filed in Israel and one in the United States, two claims were settled and one claim which was filed in the United States was dismissed, as further detailed below. Out of the 63 claims mentioned above, one claim was filed in 2008, two in 2009, four in 2010, seven in 2011, eight in 2012, eight in 2013, 28 in 2014 and five in 2015 through the filing of this annual report. As of today, we have also received ten letters threatening to file claims against us on behalf of certain fabricators in Israel or their employees in Israel alleging that they contracted illnesses as a result of fabricating our products. Each of the claims named other defendants, such as fabricators that employed the plaintiffs, the Israeli Ministry of Industry, Trade and Employment, distributors of our products and insurance companies. The pending claims include one lawsuit filed with a petition to be certified as class action, one lawsuit filed by three stone fabricators together and one appeal which was filed in connection with a judgment granted in one of the lawsuits. In addition, one claim was filed by the NII for subrogation of compensation paid by the NII to certain fabricators who allegedly contracted silicosis. Various arguments are raised in the claims, including, among others, product liability arguments and failure to provide warnings regarding the risks associated with silica dust generated by the fabrication of our products. "Most of the claims do not specify a total amount of damages sought, as the plaintiff's future damages will be determined at trial; however, damages totaling approximately $22.3 million are specified in 55 of the claims currently pending against us in Israel (excluding the claim that is seeking class action recognition). A claim filed with the magistrates court in Israel is limited to a maximum of NIS 2.5 million (approximately $642 thousands) plus any fees, and among the 60 pending claims filed against us in Israel, 35 claims were filed in the magistrates court. A claim filed in the district court is not subject to such limitation. As a result, there is uncertainty regarding the total amount of damages that may ultimately be claimed "We intend to vigorously contest pending claims against us, although there can be no assurance that we will succeed in these claims and there is a reasonable possibility that we will be liable for damages in such lawsuits. We currently estimate our total reasonably possible exposure with respect to 47 pending lawsuits (other than the lawsuits filed with a motion to be recognized as a class action) to be approximately $12.1 million, although the actual result of such lawsuits may significantly vary from such estimate. As of today, only one claim was resolved by an Israeli District court, imposing liability of 40% on the self- employed plaintiff and dividing the remaining 60% liability between the State of Israel and us, with 55% imposed on us and 45% on the State of Israel. That judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court by the plaintiff, the State of Israel and us. "Israeli law, as well as the law of other jurisdictions, recognizes joint and several liability among co-defendants in civil suits. In cases where co-defendants are found liable, the plaintiff is entitled to collect all damages from only one of the liable defendants. Thus, even if we are found only partially liable to a plaintiff's damages, the plaintiff may seek to collect all his damages from us, requiring us to collect separately from our co-defendants their allocated portion of the damages. If defendants are insolvent or we are unsuccessful in collecting their portion of the damages for any other reason, we may incur damages beyond the damages we are liable for. "We currently estimate that contingent losses related to the pending claims mentioned above are no more than reasonably possible. In addition, we believe that an adverse outcome to the claims filed against us to date (other than the class action) would not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, in part, due to the current availability of insurance coverage; however, there can be no assurance that our insurance coverage will be adequate or that we will prevail in these cases." CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Faces Class Action in Israel -------------------------------------------------- Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a lawsuit by a single plaintiff and a motion for its class certification were filed against the Company in Israel. The Company said, "A lawsuit by a single plaintiff and a motion for its class certification were filed against us in April 2014 in the Central District Court in Israel. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of a fabrication plant and to have contracted silicosis as a result of fabricating our products. In connection therewith, the plaintiff claims that we did not provide adequate warnings with respect to the risks and protection measures required with respect to fabrication of our products, and that we intentionally hid and did not warn about the high risk and irreversible damages that may occur to the persons processing our products and misled the fabricators in Israel by comparing the hazards related to the fabrication of our products to those associated with the fabrication of natural stones. In acting so, the plaintiff claims that we did not act as a reasonable manufacturer; we violated the law and Israeli standards, committed an assault, acted negligently and are liable under the Israeli Law for Liability for Defective Products, 1980. The plaintiff also claims that our products are a "dangerous item" under the Israeli Tort Ordinance, 5728-1968 and, therefore, the plaintiff claims that the burden of proof falls on us to prove that there was no carelessness for which we are liable in connection with our products. The plaintiff claims that by our wrongful conduct we violated the plaintiff's freedom to choose whether to be exposed to the risks associated with the fabrication of our products." "The plaintiff alleges that, if the lawsuit is recognized as a class action, the claim against us is estimated to be NIS 216 million (approximately $56 million), calculated by claiming damages of NIS 18,000 ($4,628) for each individual who worked in fabrication workshops in Israel in fabrication or administrative roles and who have been exposed to dust generated by the fabrication of our products. The plaintiff claims that there are 12,000 such individuals who worked at 400 fabrication workshops in Israel, each of which employed 10 fabricators and five administrative persons, with one rotation during the relevant period. In addition, such claim includes an unstated sum in compensation for special and general damages, such as medical disability, functional disability, pain and suffering, medical expenses, medical and nursing assistance, which will require proof and quantification for each injured person in the purported class action. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to compel us to notify the alleged group (and potential members of the group) and each individual about the risks, recommending that they undertake a medical examination and assert their rights. "We intend to vigorously contest recognition of the lawsuit as a class action and to defend the lawsuit on its merits, although, considering the preliminary stage of this lawsuit, there can be no assurance as to the probability of success or the range of potential exposure, if any." CAMPBELL-EWALD: High Court Asked to Decide on TCPA Suit Mootness ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Fischler, writing for Law360, reported that the U.S. Navy's advertising partner has renewed its request that the U.S. Supreme Court hear its case challenging the Ninth Circuit's remand of a potential class action over allegedly unsolicited text messages, saying the court needs to relieve confusion among the circuits. In a reply brief asking the court to take the case, Campbell-Ewald Co. said the circuit courts are split on a key issue in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act case: whether an adequate offer of settlement moots the complaint. CANADA: High Court Won't Hear Farmers Appeal in Wheat Board Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Janyce McGregor, writing for CBC News, reported that the Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear an appeal from a farmer-led group seeking $17 billion in damages from the federal government for dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing monopoly. The decision comes after the Federal Court of Appeal agreed in October with a lower court ruling from 2013 that the grain producers' class-action lawsuit claiming expropriation and breach of trust should not proceed. However, one smaller part of the case the Federal Court had allowed, valued at around $100 million, will proceed for certification as a class-action lawsuit in the coming months. Four named farmers launched the lawsuit in 2012 on behalf of former wheat board members and other stakeholders who fought the Conservative government's 2011 legislation to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board's exclusive right to sell Prairie wheat and barley. They argued that the government's decision to end the monopoly and commercialize the CWB as just one among many private sector grain companies effectively seized collective assets farmers had paid for over decades. They also argued billions of dollars of goodwill was lost when the CWB's main competitive advantage, its marketing monopoly, ended. The farmers believe that the "highly dysfunctional" marketing system now in place for Canadian wheat and barley cost producers as much as $5 billion in 2013-14. They say that the price spread between what farmers received and what the grain was ultimately sold at in 2014-15 incurred some $3 billion in producer losses. "Those price spreads have not returned to competitive levels, so farmer losses continue to mount," a press release issued by the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board said. "We have to recognize that Canada's position in the international grain trade has now been severely damaged by Ottawa's ideologically based exercise in grain marketing and quality control," spokesman Stewart Wells said in the release. 'Marketing freedom' upheld The government is currently proceeding with plans to commercialize the CWB, which was run by a mixed board of farmer-elected and government-appointed directors until 2011. Late last year, it appeared the government was getting ready to hand over the remaining assets of the CWB to a private sector investor in a sort of reverse-nationalization of the former Crown corporation. In a statement, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the farmers' appeal "once again upholds Western Canadian farmers' right to marketing freedom." "The overwhelming majority of farmers have embraced the new economic opportunities created by marketing freedom and are taking Canadian agriculture to record heights," the release said. "Marketing freedom is and will remain the law of the land." Many of the same farmers involved in the lawsuit fought and lost an earlier court battle to stop the 2011 legislation that dismantled the monopoly, based on arguments that the actions of Stephen Harper's government broke the law. Wells said his group's attention now turns to the remaining part of the lawsuit that will proceed: an effort to recoup for farmers allegedly misallocated pool account funds from 2011-12, the final year of the monopoly's operations. The final amount of this smaller class action, should it be certified, could be in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, as opposed to the billions the original application sought. Justice Marc Nadon from the Federal Court of Appeal, whose appointment to the Supreme Court was declared unconstitutional a year ago, delivered the October ruling which now stands. A separate class-action suit organized by the Merchant Law Group, launched in 2012 and seeking $15.4 billion on behalf of producers remains. CAPITOL RECORDS: Davis, Tavares Suits Administratively Closed ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an order on May 1, 2015, administratively closing the cases captioned MARTHA DAVIS, as an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, et al., Defendants. RALPH VIERRA TAVARES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NOS. 12-CV-1602-YGR, 12-CV-3059-YGR, (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Martha Davis, Ralph Vierra Tavares, Arthur Tavares, Feliciano Vierra Tavares, Antone Lawrence Tavares, and Perry Lee Tavares, and Defendant Capitol Records LLC submitted a Joint Supplemental Case Management Statement and proposed order to administratively close these actions pending final approval of a proposed class settlement. As the parties previously advised this Court at a telephonic conference, the Davis Action and Tavares Action are the subject of a proposed class settlement pending before the Honorable Susan Illston in Rick James et al. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., CV 11-01613 SI (MEJ) (the "James Action"). In connection with and solely for purposes of effectuating that proposed class settlement, the parties have stipulated to the filing of a consolidated complaint that joins the Davis Action and Tavares Action with the James Action before Judge Illston. To conserve private and judicial resources, and in light of the pendency of the proposed class settlement, which Judge Illston preliminarily approved on April 28, 2015, the parties stipulated and requested that the Davis Action and Tavares Action be administratively closed, without prejudice, pending final approval of the proposed class settlement. The parties will advise the Court regarding any ruling relating to final approval of the settlement. Assuming final approval is granted, the parties have stipulated that such approval will function as dismissal of the Davis Action and the Tavares Action with prejudice. Accordingly, the Davis Action 12-CV-1602 and Tavares 12-CV-3059 are administratively closed without prejudice pending final approval of a pending proposed class action settlement in the James Action, wrote Judge Rogers in a ruling, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/xibkEqfrom Leagle.com. CATALINA RESTAURANT: Girard Gibbs File Class Action Over Layoff --------------------------------------------------------------- On April 8, 2014, the law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a federal class action lawsuit against Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc. and Food Management Partners, Inc. on behalf of restaurant workers terminated from employment at Coco's Bakery and Carrows locations within 30 days of April 3, 2015. The lawsuit alleges that Food Management Partners acquired Catalina on March 31, 2015, and closed approximately 75 Coco's and Carrows restaurants the next day. The complaint alleges that these closures violated federal and state employment laws protecting workers' right to have advance notice of certain mass layoffs. Many employees showed up ready for work only to find a sign on the door announcing that their restaurant had closed. Federal and state laws require companies who perform certain work site closures or mass layoffs to give employees up to sixty days advance written notice. The complaint seeks compensation for the employees who suffered sudden job losses as a result of Coco's and Carrows closures. "The WARN Act was enacted to protect employees, families, and communities in the event of a mass layoff," said Eric Gibbs, a founding partner at Girard Gibbs. "If a company does not give the required notice, the employer may be liable to each employee for up to sixty days' back pay and benefits." The lawsuit is entitled Ross v. Food Management Partners, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-2626, and is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Girard Gibbs is a national litigation firm with an employment group that has represented millions of individuals in class action lawsuits and delivered significant recoveries and benefits for them. The firm successfully represented hundreds of employees who were terminated without receiving advance notice required by the WARN Act in Cabreros and Refuerzo, et al. v. Spansion, LLC and Spansion, Inc., No. 09-50409-KJC, filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware; and Sandra Justice, et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., et al., Adversary Case No. 6:09-ap- 01114-MJ (Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Cal.). Girard Gibbs also represents employees seeking payment for hours worked off the clock and unpaid overtime in Smith v. Family Video Movie Club, Inc., No. 11-cv-1773, where Judge John Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois largely denied Defendants' challenges, allowing the case to proceed. Girard Gibbs LLP encourages former Coco's Bakery or Carrows employees who were terminated without notice to contact the firm's employment attorneys at (866) 981-4800 to learn more about the lawsuit. CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Held --------------------------------------------------------------- Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a final hearing to determine the fairness of the settlement in a class action lawsuit was scheduled for March 16, 2015. The Company said, "In October 2013 and November 2013, three securities class action lawsuits were filed against us and certain of our executive officers and directors seeking unspecified damages in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the Court). These complaints, which were substantially identical, purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased our common stock between October 31, 2012 and October 18, 2013. Two of the cases were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs and the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss on the third case on January 3, 2014. However, the Court granted leave to the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 20 days." "On January 23, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against us and one of our executive officers seeking unspecified damages. The amended complaint purports to state a claim for alleged misrepresentations regarding the development of Firdapse(TM) on behalf of a class of those who purchased shares of our common stock between August 27, 2013 and October 18, 2013. In February 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part by the Court. Subsequently, on September 29, 2014, the Court certified a class consisting of all persons or entities that purchased shares of our common stock during the period from August 27, 2013, through October 18, 2013 (the Class Period), and who did not sell such securities prior to October 18, 2013 (excluding: defendants; any entities affiliated with us, our present and former officers and directors or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof; members of such excluded persons' immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and any entity in which any excluded person has or had a controlling interest). "Following a mediation in mid-October 2014 conducted by an independent mediator, we entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the lead plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit to settle the lawsuit. The settlement was then reduced to a formal stipulation of settlement between the parties to the lawsuit, which was filed with the Court on November 21, 2014. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on December 3, 2014, and a final hearing to determine the fairness of the settlement was scheduled for March 16, 2015. In connection with the settlement, we will pay $3.5 million in return for a dismissal and release of all claims against the defendants. The settlement amount has been placed in escrow by our insurance carrier, subject to final Court approval of the settlement. Under the proposed settlement, the defendants, and various of their related persons and entities, will receive a full release of all claims that were or could have been brought in the action, as well as all claims that arise out of, are based upon, or relate to the allegations, transactions, facts, representations, omissions or other matters involved in the action related in any way to the purchase or acquisition of our securities by class members during the class period. "The proposed settlement contains no admission of any liability or wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom continues to deny all of the allegations against each of them and believes that the claims are without merit. Because the full amount of the proposed settlement payment is to be paid by our insurance carrier, the settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. There can be no assurance that the proposed settlement will be approved by the Court." CEPHALON INC: Court Declines to Certify Unlawful Marketing Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gary M. Pappas and Alina Alonso Rodriguez, writing for JD SUPRA Business Advisor, reported that third party payors responsible for paying the costs of prescriptions for their beneficiaries sued Cephalon, Inc., alleging that it engaged in unlawful off-label marketing of Actiq, a drug approved to manage breakthrough cancer pain in certain patients. Plaintiffs argued that Cephalon's conduct caused plaintiffs to make excessive off-label prescription payments for Actiq to treat conditions not approved by the FDA and for whom less expensive pain management drugs were appropriate and less dangerous. The Pennsylvania district court declined to certify the class. The court's choice of law analysis and plaintiffs' attempt to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) by grouping the 50 states and Washington D.C. based on their respective treatment of unjust enrichment are of particular interest. Choice of Law The court presumed that putative class members will reside in every state, so it sought to determine the laws of each state on unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs argued that no material difference distinguishes the states' common law on unjust enrichment. Cephalon, however, identified bases upon which states' laws purportedly conflict, including differences in statutes of limitations and accrual rules. Cephalon's guilty plea established that it engaged in off-label promotion of Actiq as early as 2001. Therefore, the filing of this suit in October 2007 may or may not have been within a state's statute of limitations and the court could not say that application of different statutes of limitations would yield the same result. It therefore concluded that a true conflict exists. The court then analyzed the relevant contacts: First, the crux of the parties' relationship is in the TPPs' home states because that is where Cephalon directed its sales efforts, where the drug was prescribed, and where TPPs conferred payments to Cephalon. Second, the state where Cephalon received the alleged benefit was Pennsylvania and, therefore, this factor favored application of Pennsylvania law. Third, the place where the acts resulting in enrichment occurred was the TPPs' home states because payments for Actiq prescriptions originated there. Fourth, in considering the parties' residence, the court found that this factor weighed slightly in favor of applying Pennsylvania law because it is likely that class members will reside in all U.S. jurisdictions and, therefore, no single state has a greater relationship to the case. Finally, the jurisdiction where a physical thing, substantially related to the enrichment, was situated at the time of the enrichment favors the TPPs' home states because the Actiq lozenges purchased by beneficiaries were located in those states. In sum, three of the five factors weighed in favor of applying the laws of the TPPs' various home states. Policy considerations also lead to the same conclusion. Plaintiffs' home states have a regulatory interest in providing redress to its citizens for acts of wrongdoing and in ensuring that corporations conducting business within their borders are doing so fairly. The court concluded that these interests outweighed Pennsylvania's interest in regulating a resident corporation. Predominance The court pointed out that variations in the law do not conclusively foreclose class certification if grouping is possible. To this end, plaintiffs provided a chart demonstrating how the 50 states and Washington, D.C. are grouped based on their treatment of unjust enrichment claims. The court commented that plaintiffs' notable grouping efforts still did not account for individual fact issues such that common issues would predominate. Because the polestar of the unjust enrichment inquiry is whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched, resolution of this question is, by nature, fact-sensitive. Plaintiffs had some common proof regarding equitable circumstances. For example, Cephalon's marketing and distribution of Actiq was coordinated across the country and thus common to all class members. Nevertheless, plaintiff's class-wide showing of whether Cephalon's enrichment was unjust was more complicated. Plaintiffs were unable to show how proving Cephalon's non-compliance with its risk management program, designed to ensure proper use of the drug, also proves that all payments for off-label prescriptions are unjust. Moreover, if doctors would have written Actiq prescriptions even if Cephalon complied with the risk management plan, then payment for prescriptions beyond the set limit would not be unjust. Patients also played a role, making their own decisions regarding coverage for Actiq prescriptions. The court similarly found that the TPPs had a variety of methods by which they could manage prescription costs of Actiq and records and employee testimony showed that TPPs treated claims for Actiq reimbursement differently throughout the proposed class period. Ultimately, the court concluded that an inquiry into equitable circumstances cannot be undertaken by common proof since TPPs had varying degrees of control over prescription benefits and various cost-saving measures available to them. Superiority The court commented that the largest impediment to a finding of superiority is the difficulty of managing a class action in which the laws of TPPs' various home states apply and individual questions of fact predominate. The court also noted that TPPs had already brought and lost individual suits against Cephalon alleging violations of RICO and state claims including consumer fraud, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. It acknowledged that failure to certify a class could result in numerous individual suits, but found that an interest in fairness in adjudicating individual issues outweighed the judicial burden of such suits. It therefore concluded that plaintiffs did not establish that class action treatment was superior. CHICAGO: Godfrey Seeks Entry of Final Approval and Judgment Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- In KATHERINE GODFREY, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez Defendant, CASE NO. 12 CV 08601, (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs, by and through their Settlement Class Counsel, moved for entry of the Final Approval and Judgment Order attached as Exhibit A. Exhibit A includes a Track Changes version of the proposed Order showing the revisions from the proposed order included as an exhibit to the Settlement. The facts and law supporting Plaintiffs' Motion are set forth in their accompanying Memorandum of Law. In addition, an electronic version of the proposed Final Approval and Judgment Order will be sent to Proposed_Order_Valdez@ilnd.uscourts.gov in a format compatible with Word Perfect and Microsoft Word. Plaintiffs and the City dispute whether the Court, in the Final Approval and Judgment Order, should retain jurisdiction to "administer, implement, interpret or enforce the Final Judgment" -- as Article XIII of the Settlement expressly states. Contrary to the Settlement, the City insists that the Court must terminate this case and, thus, its own jurisdiction by entering a final dismissal with prejudice before the City will release the negotiated and approved settlement funds. The City's position is contrary to the Settlement, which provides for the payment of Settlement funds to the Claims Administrator within 30 days of final approval -- a date that has already passed. In addition, entry of an order dismissing the case with prejudice contrary to Article XIII of the Settlement would void affirmative relief that the Court already has approved, protecting Settlement Class Members in the hiring process. Specifically, if the Court were to relinquish jurisdiction now, which it must do if the case is dismissed with prejudice, the parties cannot implement Article V(B) of the Settlement, which provides for judicial review of adverse decisions of the Chicago Fire Department Applicant Review Committee ("ARC"). Thus, Settlement Class Members seeking hire but disqualified by the ARC would be denied the protection of judicial oversight of adverse ARC decisions -- negotiated and approved relief that was expected to be implemented after a final judgment. In addition to the jurisdictional issue, the initial proposed order appended to the Settlement failed to incorporate several provisions of the Settlement that afford relief to the Settlement Class. These provisions include, among others, discontinuance of the City's use of the physical performance test that was the subject of this lawsuit, restrictions on the physical performance testing that the City is permitted to conduct in the Fire Academy, and other injunctive-relief-type terms. For Plaintiffs to secure enforcement of these provisions through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, all of this negotiated and approved relief must be expressly incorporated into the Final Approval and Judgment Order. The proposed order attached as Exhibit A incorporates the missing terms. "Accordingly, as set forth in Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law and in the attached Exhibit A, the final dismissal in this action should without prejudice, to convert to prejudice after the terms of Article V(B) are completed," wrote Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez in a court document, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/idua7Hfrom Leagle.com. Marni Willenson -- marni@willensonlaw.com -- WILLENSON LAW, LLC, Chicago, IL, David Borgen -- DBORGEN@GBDHLEGAL.COM -- GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO, Oakland, CA, Susan P. Malone, Chicago, IL, Settlement Class Counsel and Attorneys for Plaintiffs. CHINA COMMERCIAL: To Seek Dismissal of Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company and John F. Levy anticipate that they will file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action. On August 6, 2014, a purported shareholder Andrew Dennison filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court District of New Jersey (the "N.J. district court") relating to a July 25, 2014 press release about the Company's progress in recovering a significant portion of the $5.4 million the Company paid in the first quarter of 2014 on behalf of loan guarantee customers. The action is captioned Andrew Dennison v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2014-cv-04956. The action alleges that the Company and its current and former officers and directors Huichun Qin, Long Yi, Jianming Yin, Jinggen Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, and John F. Levy violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting in prior public filings certain material facts about the risks associated with its loan guarantee business. On October 2, 2014, two purported shareholders Zhang Yun and Sanjiv Mehrotra (the "Yun Group") asserted substantially similar claims against the same defendants in a putative class action captioned Zhang Yun v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06136 (D. N.J.). Neither complaint states the amount of damages sought. On or about October 6, 2014, Dennison, the Yun Group and another purported shareholder, Jason Stark, filed motions to consolidate the cases, be appointed as lead plaintiff and to have their respective counsel appointed as lead counsel. On October 31, 2014, the N.J. district court entered an order consolidating the cases under the caption "In re China Commercial Credit Inc. Securities Litigation" and appointing the Yun Group as lead plaintiff and the Yun Group's counsel as lead counsel. On November 18, 2014, the Yun Group and the Company, which at that point was the only defendant served, entered into a stipulation to transfer of the case to the Southern District of New York. On December 18, 2014, Mr. Levy, who had by then been served, joined in the stipulation. On December 29, 2014, the N.J. district court entered an order transferring the action. The transfer was effected on January 22, 2015, and assigned docket number 1:15-cv- 00557-ALC (S.D.N.Y.). Under the schedule stipulated by the parties, the Yun Group is to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date that the transfer was effected, and the defendants' date to answer or move is within 60 days of that filing. The Company and Mr. Levy anticipate that they will file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to estimate the probability of success or loss. CONWAY, AR: Firefighter Seeks Class Action Status for Pay Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Hale-Shelton, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that attorneys for a Conway police officer and a firefighter asked a judge on April 9 to certify as a class action a lawsuit they filed against the city in 2012, contending that the city spent money intended for employee pay raises for parks instead. COVENTUS INTER-INSURANCE: CFA Doesn't Apply to Med-Mal Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that in a 2013 decision that only recently was approved for publication, a New Jersey trial judge ruled in a case of first impression that the state's consumer fraud statute doesn't apply to medical-malpractice insurance. "Medical malpractice insurance, because of its nonavailability to the general public, is not subject to the strictures of the" New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Barry Weisberg wrote in Khan v. Coventus Inter-Insurance Exchange. Judge Weisberg, in the process, wiped out CFA claims asserted against Conventus and NIP Management in the matter, which sought certification of a class of physician-policyholders. The suit's remaining claims were since thrown out. According to Judge Weisberg's decision, named plaintiff Dr. Dewan Khan obtained a policy in August 2010 from Conventus, which required insureds to make an initial contribution to the company's surplus fund equal to a one-year premium. Khan exercised the option to make that surplus payment over time, in 10 annual installments. Khan sought to terminate her policy as of March 2012, and wanted to purchase tail coverage, which Coventus refused to provide until she had fully paid the surplus payment, the opinion said. Khan filed a suit in 2013 against Coventus and underwriter NIP, asserting violation of the CFA and seeking certification of a class. She claimed in the suit that Coventus' requirement that the surplus payment be satisfied on an accelerated basis was contrary to the policy contract. She also claimed Coventus and NIP improperly withdrew automatic premium and surplus payments from her business account. The defendants moved for dismissal of the CFA claims, and Judge Weisberg, in a decision issued on Aug. 23, 2013, obliged. The CFA defines "merchandise" as "objects, wares, goods, commodities, services or anything offered, directly or indirectly to the public for sale," Judge Weisberg noted, and said it is "not the nature of the parties to the transaction," but the "underlying nature of the transaction itself that determines the applicability of the CFA." "Insurance products that are not offered to the general public are not covered by the CFA," Judge Weisberg said. Khan pointed out that other types of insurance, not just medical- malpractice insurance, are unnecessary for many members of the public. But Judge Weisberg said Khan "confuses the concept of availability to the general public with degree of use by the general public." "A product may be available to the general public but only utilized by a small segment of the public," he added. "That description clearly applies to the many types of insurance that the courts have held subject to the CFA. What differentiates medical malpractice insurance is that it is available for purchase by only a tiny fraction of the population, a population that requires one to meet strict licensure and ongoing regulatory requirements." Judge Weisberg noted that medical malpractice insurance, though not covered by the CFA, is regulated by the state Division of Banking and Insurance. Judge Weisberg's decision was approved for publication April 29. Khan also asserted common-law claims in the suit, though Judge Weisberg dismissed those on a defense motion for summary judgment late last year, according to Khan's lawyer, Jeffrey Pollock of Fox Rothschild in Princeton. Mr. Pollock didn't appeal the CFA ruling, but, "I thought then and I think now that that decision was not right," he said. The New Jersey Supreme Court, he said, "has never wavered from its position that insurance policies are squarely covered by the Consumer Fraud Act." Mark Tract of Katten Muchin Rosenman in New York, the defendants' counsel, didn't return a call for comment. CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Kahn Swick Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until April 28, 2015 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against CTPartners Executive Search Inc. (NYSE: CTP) if they purchased the Company's securities between February 26, 2014 and January 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased shares of CTPartners and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com). If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by April 28, 2015. About the Lawsuit CTPartners and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On December 8, 2014, the New York Post published a report that female employees of CTPartners filed discrimination charges against the company with the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee, claiming that the Company stripped female employees of profitable accounts, held them to higher standards than their male colleagues, and subjected them to lewd behavior, including a booze-fueled naked romp held by a top partner. That same day, CTPartners withdrew a stock offering that had been announced less than a day before. On this news, the price of CTPartners's shares plummeted by 24%. On January 21, 2015, CTPartners announced preliminary results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2014, including a net loss for the fourth quarter expected to be in the range of $0.3-$0.6 million, purportedly due to higher than anticipated operating expenses related to business development activity, increased marketing and upgrading the search process and corporate infrastructure. On this news, the price of CTPartners's stock fell by 30%. Then, on January 28, 2015, CTPartners withdrew its preliminary fourth quarter and year-end guidance provided only one week earlier and revised downward its earnings guidance. CTPartners stated that the downward revision was due to a $1.7 million increase in "compensation expense" for employee bonuses. CTPartners also withdrew a proposed stock offering that had been announced only two days prior. On this news, the price of CTPartners stock fell by over 33%. DAIRY FARMERS: Judge Rejects $50MM Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Dan D'Ambrosio, writing for Burlington Free Press, reports that a federal judge in Burlington has rejected a proposed $50 million settlement in a lawsuit by Northeast dairy farmers against the cooperative Dairy Farmers of America to settle antitrust allegations from a 2009 class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit charged the cooperative, its marketing arm Dairy Marketing Services and Dallas-based Dean Foods with working together to monopolize the market for raw milk in the Northeast. Dean Foods agreed to a separate $30 million settlement in 2011. The remaining defendants, Dairy Farmers of America and Dairy Marketing Services, agreed to pay $50 million, which would have worked out to an average of $4,000 each for more than 7,000 farmers, including in Vermont. In a March 31 opinion and order Chief Federal Judge Christina Reiss denied final approval of the proposed settlement, citing among other factors the reaction of dairy farmers to the settlement. Judge Reiss said the court received 23 letters objecting to the proposed settlement, as well as letters from two individuals who spoke against the settlement in a fairness hearing. Judge Reiss said the financial compensation of approximately $4,000 per dairy farm was characterized as "functionally irrelevant," as it reflects the cost of one "tractor tire." Ben Brown, a partner at a Washington, D.C., law firm representing dairy farmers said he would "continue to work in the class' best interest." "If that means at some point there's a settlement that meets standards for approval the case may settle," Mr. Brown said. "If the case does not settle then it will go to trial. We don't know. We can't predict the future." Mr. Brown also said some dairy farmers, disappointed with the outcome of the proposed settlement, want to replace his law firm as counsel. He said there would be a hearing on April 20 in Burlington to resolve that issue. Officials with the Dairy Farmers of America also said on April 9 they were disappointed with the judge's decision and would determine their next step going forward in the case. DEUTSCHE BANK: Nears $1.5-Bil. Libor Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin McCoy, writing for USA TODAY, reports that Deutsche Bank is nearing a record settlement topping $1.5 billion to resolve the German banking giant's alleged role in manipulating a global financial benchmark. Bank officials are in talks with federal prosecutors, British and U.S. regulators and New York's financial services regulator over evidence that Deutsche Bank traders tried to manipulate the London Interbank Offered Rate, a person familiar with the discussions said on April 9. The resolution could be reached as soon as this month and is expected to include a criminal guilty plea by a Deutsche Bank subsidiary in the United Kingdom, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because there has been no authorized public discussion of the continuing negotiations. In an April 9 news account, The New York Times reported that Deutsche Bank said it was continuing "to work with the authorities that are reviewing interbank offered rates matters." The pending agreement represents the last major unresolved bank investigation involving the global financial standard popularly known as Libor. Set by the London-based traders of major banks, Libor is used to set rates on trillions of dollars of loans, credit cards and some complex financial derivatives. Major U.S. and overseas banks collectively have been hit with billions of dollars in penalties over the Libor rate-rigging scandal. Several former banks traders have also been personally charged by authorities in the U.S and Great Britain. The financial penalty under negotiation with Deutsche Bank, Germany's largest financial institution, would top previous Libor- related resolutions, including the $1.5 billion settlement Swiss banking giant UBS reached with international regulators in Dec. 2012. Although Libor rate-setting may seem arcane outside of banking circles, the rate-rigging potentially affected millions of consumers who paid financial rates that were artificially high or low. Deutsche Bank is among several major banks targeted in a civil class-action lawsuit over their alleged roles in the Libor scandal. The multi-district federal case was filed by U.S. municipalities and financial funds who argue they suffered financial damages by receiving lower interest rates on transactions as a result of the suspected manipulation. The banks have are pursuing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds that they are legally subject to lawsuits in their home countries, not cases filed in U.S. courts. DOLLAR GENERAL: Request for EEOC Background Policy Details Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that facing allegations by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that they discriminated against black job applicants by using criminal background checks to vet potential hires, Dollar General Corp. and BMW Manufacturing Co. both tried to shine a light on the EEOC's own hiring policies. While BMW's discovery bid on the issue succeeded, Dollar General's has fallen short. On May 5, U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood in Chicago denied a request by Dollar General lawyer Joel Allen -- joel.allen@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, who had sought details on the EEOC's internal policies for running background checks on prospective employees. Dollar General argued that the information was necessary to back its defense that the record checks were justified, and also to make a case for estoppel. But Judge Wood found that the estoppel defense was "legally dubious" and improperly pleaded, and he rejected the company's remaining arguments as well. "Despite Dollar General's assertions to the contrary, the requested information is not relevant to its business necessity defense," the judge wrote. Morgan Lewis' Allen didn't immediately respond on May 6 to a request for comment. An EEOC spokeswoman declined to comment. Judge Wood granted another discovery request by Dollar General, however, ordering the EEOC to turn over information that explains, more generally, what kinds of background check policies it would consider to be reasonable or lawful. The ruling also granted several discovery requests by the EEOC, which asked for personal information -- such as names, Social Security numbers and addresses -- for people the retailer conditionally hired. The EEOC sought that information so it could link multiple Dollar General databases to help it analyze the retailer's hiring practices. In both the Dollar General case and the BMW case, which were filed on the same day in June 2013, the EEOC alleges that the employers' criminal record policies disproportionately screened out black job applicants. Like Dollar General, BMW, represented by Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, sought discovery on the EEOC's own background check policies. A federal magistrate judge in South Carolina initially denied the request, finding that it wasn't relevant to BMW's business necessity defense. But U.S. District Judge Henry Herlong Jr. was more receptive to BMW's plea, and in December he ordered the EEOC to hand over the information. The EEOC eventually produced an internal handbook that revealed how the agency evaluated various crimes in its hiring process, according to court documents. BMW and Dollar General aren't the first to try to use the EEOC's own hiring practices against it. Lawyers for Kaplan Inc., led by Seyfarth Shaw's Gerald Maatman Jr., deployed a similar strategy when the EEOC sued over the company's practice of running credit checks on potential employees. The effort made an impression on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal of the EEOC's claims. Though the Sixth Circuit didn't rule directly on Kaplan's estoppel defense, it cited the irony of the situation in the very first line of its decision: "In this case the EEOC sued the defendants for using the same type of background check that the EEOC itself uses," U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge wrote for the panel. DYNEX CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------- Dynex Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in a class action have appealed the Court's dismissal of the case. One of the Company's subsidiaries, GLS Capital, Inc. ("GLS"), the County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania ("Allegheny County"), and the Company are named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in June 2012 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Court"). Between 1995 and 1997, GLS purchased from Allegheny County delinquent property tax lien receivables for properties located in the county. The purported class in this action consists of owners of real estate in Allegheny County whose property is or has been subject to a tax lien filed by Allegheny County that Allegheny County either retained or sold to GLS and who were billed by Allegheny County or GLS for attorneys' fees, interest, and certain other fees and who sustained economic damages on and after August 14, 2003. The putative class allegations are that Allegheny County, GLS, and the Company violated the class's constitutional due process rights in connection with delinquent tax collection efforts. There are also allegations that amounts recovered from the class by GLS and /or Allegheny County are an unconstitutional taking of private property. The claims against the Company are solely based upon its ownership of GLS. The complaint requests that the Court order GLS to account for amounts alleged to have been collected in violation of the putative class members' rights and create a constructive trust for the return of such amounts to members of the purported class. On June 30, 2014, the Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. The plaintiffs have appealed. ELECTROLUX: 11th Cir. to Hear Moldy Washer Class Cert. Challenge ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that way back in October 2013, the home appliances company Electrolux first petitioned the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to permit its appeal of the certification of a class of washing machine purchasers. At the time, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Comcast v. Behrend was only seven months old. Electrolux's lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom cited the decision to argue that U.S. District Judge Lisa Wood of Augusta, Georgia, should not have granted certification to two statewide classes of consumers who claimed their front-loading Electrolux washers were defectively designed with a tendency to develop a moldy smell. According to Electrolux, Comcast barred certification of class actions in which damages are not based on classwide proof. Electrolux's petition argued that most of the plaintiffs in the Texas and California class actions Judge Wood certified hadn't been damaged at all so, under Comcast, class membership was way too broad. (The plaintiffs, represented by Wexler Wallace and two other firms, responded that class members were all injured because they all bought washing machines with a common defect.) Much has transpired in the surprisingly wide world of moldy washer litigation since Electrolux filed that petition for interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court, which had signaled early interest in the impact of Comcast on moldy washer cases, ended up refusing to grant review of decisions from the 6th and 7th Circuits that upheld the certification of moldy washer liability classes even in light of Comcast. (The court also denied cert to another washing machine maker rebuffed by the 9th Circuit.) Whirlpool went to trial in Ohio to defend its washing machines -- and won a jury verdict vindicating the design of 20 front-loading models. The Ohio class has appealed, and its lawyers at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein have vowed to move forward with other statewide class actions despite the outcome in Ohio. The Comcast decision, meanwhile, has been chewed over by several circuit courts in the 17 months since Electrolux's petition. Electrolux was hardly the only class action defendant to read the Supreme Court opinion to require plaintiffs to present a classwide damages model in order to be certified as a class. But most of the federal appeals courts that have interpreted Comcast have held that the decision doesn't preclude certification of classes in which class members' damages vary. According to the most recent of those circuit court decisions, a ruling from the 2nd Circuit in a case involving a wage-and-hour class action by former Applebee's employees, the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th Circuits have all said that class members don't have to put forth a unified damages model to be certified. The Electrolux plaintiffs kept the 11th Circuit apprised of some of these decisions, including the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in the 6th, 7th and 9th Circuit moldy washer cases. Electrolux continued to insist that the other cases were distinct, or that those other courts had interpreted Comcast too narrowly. Electrolux could point to only two federal appellate decisions that cited Comcast to overturn class certification. In a 2014 decision in In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals sent a class of freight shipping customers back to the trial court for reconsideration of certification because their damages model yielded false positives. And in Bussey v. Macon County Greyhound Park, another 2014 case, the 11th Circuit decertified a class of bingo machine customers because they hadn't tied their damages model to their theory of the case and hadn't offered a plan to allocate damages among the defendants. On April 8, the 11th Circuit finally decided whether to grant Electrolux leave to appeal -- and despite all of the post-petition developments in the washing machine litigation and appellate consideration of Comcast, the court wants to hear Electrolux's appeal. ENDOCYTE INC: Discovery Stayed in Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Endocyte, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is stayed in a class action pursuant to provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") pending resolution of a motion to dismiss. The Company said, "On June 24, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and one of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the following caption: Tony Nguyen, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Nguyen Litigation"). On July 13, 2014, a nearly identical complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and one of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the following caption: Vivian Oh Revocable Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Oh Litigation"). On September 22, 2014, the court named a lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and consolidated the Nguyen Litigation and the Oh Litigation under the following caption: Gopichand Vallabhaneni v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Vallabhaneni Litigation"). On November 17, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended securities class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against us, P. Ron Ellis, Beth Taylor, Michael A. Sherman, John C. Aplin, Philip S. Low, Keith A. Brauer, Ann F. Hanham, Marc Kozin, Peter D. Meldrum, Fred A. Middleton, Lesley Russell (the "Individual Defendants" and collectively with us, the "Endocyte Defendants"), and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the "Underwriter Defendants"). Lead Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the Endocyte Defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the efficacy of vintafolide and violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The putative class related to these allegations consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between March 21, 2014 and May 2, 2014. Lead Plaintiff also alleged in the Amended Complaint that the Endocyte Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), by, among other things, making or allowing us to make false and misleading statements regarding positive opinions about vintafolide issued by the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use in our Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on March 25, 2014, preliminary prospectus filed on March 26, 2014, and final prospectus filed on March 28, 2014. The putative class related to these allegations consists of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities pursuant to or traceable to our April 2, 2014 public offering." "Lead Plaintiff seeks the designation of the Vallabhaneni Litigation as a class action, an award of unspecified damages, interest, costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Pursuant to a December 9, 2014 order, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015. Discovery in this matter is stayed pursuant to provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") pending resolution of that motion to dismiss. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and have defended, and intend to continue to defend, ourselves vigorously against the allegations made in the Amended Complaint." ENERNOC INC: $500,000 Cash Payment Received in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- EnerNOC, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the cash payment of $0.5 million was received and recognized in January 2015 in a class action complaint. The Company said, "On May 3, 2013, a purported shareholder of ours, or the plaintiff, filed a derivative and class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, or the Court, against certain of our officers and directors as well as the Company as a nominal defendant, which we refer collectively to as the defendants. The complaint asserted derivative claims, purportedly brought on behalf of the Company, for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment in connection with certain equity grants (awarded in 2010, 2012, and 2013) that allegedly exceeded an annual limit on per-employee equity grants purported to be contained in the Company's Amended and Restated 2007 Employee, Director and Consultant Stock Plan. The complaint also asserted a direct claim, brought on behalf of the plaintiff and a proposed class of our shareholders, alleging our proxy statement filed on April 26, 2013 was false and misleading because it failed to disclose that the equity grants were improper. The plaintiff sought, among other relief, rescission of the equity grants, unspecified damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper." "On June 27, 2014, the parties engaged in mediation and reached agreement in principle on the terms of a potential settlement. On December 15, 2014, the Court held a fairness hearing and approved the settlement, together with an award of attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $0.4 million, a portion of which was covered by our insurance. Pursuant to the settlement, defendant members of our Board of Directors agreed to cause our insurer to make a cash payment of $0.5 million to the Company, and to cause the Company to undertake certain reforms in connection with equity granting practices. The cash payment of $0.5 million was received and recognized in January 2015." ENERNOC INC: MOU Filed in Delaware Court of Chancery ---------------------------------------------------- EnerNOC, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a memorandum of understanding has been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Company said, "On November 6, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against us, World Energy, Wolf Merger Sub Corporation, and members of the board of directors of World Energy arising out of the merger between us and World Energy. The lawsuit generally alleged that the members of the board of directors of World Energy breached their fiduciary duties to World Energy's stockholders by entering into the merger agreement because they, among other things, failed to maximize stockholder value and agreed to preclusive deal-protection terms. The lawsuit also alleged that we and World Energy aided and abetted the board of directors of World Energy in breaching their fiduciary duties. The plaintiff sought to stop or delay the acquisition of World Energy by us, or rescission of the merger in the event it was consummated, and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount to be determined at trial." "The parties engaged in settlement negotiations and on December 24, 2014, without admitting, but expressly denying any liability on behalf of the defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding, or the MOU, regarding a proposed settlement to resolve all allegations. The MOU was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on December 24, 2014. Among other things, the MOU provides that, in consideration for a release and the dismissal of the litigation, World Energy would include additional disclosures in a Form SC 14D9-A to be filed with the SEC no later than December 24, 2014. The MOU also provided that the litigation, including the preliminary injunction hearing, be stayed. The merger closed on January 5, 2015. "The settlement is subject to agreement of the parties upon a formal stipulation of settlement which must then be approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery. There can be no assurance that the stipulation of settlement will be finalized or that the Delaware Court of Chancery will approve the settlement." FACEBOOK INC: Vienna Court Set to Rule on Privacy Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reports that a court in Austria was slated to rule in the next few weeks whether it has the jurisdiction to hear a class action lawsuit brought against Facebook. Some 25,000 users -- led by Austrian law graduate Max Schrems -- accuse Facebook of violating European privacy laws in the way it collects and forwards data. The case has been brought against Facebook's European HQ in Dublin, which handles accounts outside US and Canada. Facebook's lawyers have argued for the case to be dismissed. They presented a list of procedural objections at a court hearing in Vienna on April 9. Mr. Schrems -- a campaigner for data protection -- said he brought the claim to stop what he calls mass surveillance by the social networking site. The legal action claims privacy laws are breached in the way Facebook monitors users when they activate the site's "like" buttons. It also alleges Facebook co-operated with Prism, a surveillance system launched in 2007 by the US National Security Agency. The case -- which involves more than 900 UK-based users of Facebook -- includes a compensation claim of about EUR500 ($539; GBP362) per person. The court will issue a written decision in the next few weeks on whether it can handle the case, the BBC's Bethany Bell reports from Vienna. FACEBOOK INC: Pushes for End to Austrian Privacy Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reported that Facebook Inc. urged an Austrian court to nix claims that the social media giant disregarded European users' privacy rights by promoting policies that enable government spying and capitalize on user data, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the assertions. In a hearing held in Vienna Regional Court, Facebook offered a number of procedural objections to the class action privacy suit filed by Austrian activist Max Schrems against the company's European division. * * * The Financial Express reported that an Austrian law graduate spearheading a class action case against Facebook for alleged privacy breaches officially filed the suit in a Vienna court. In a closely-watched case, Max Schrems and 25,000 other users are suing the social media giant for various rights violations, ranging from the "illegal" tracking of their data under EU law to Facebook's involvement in the PRISM surveillance programme of the US National Security Agency. Each of the plaintiffs is claiming a symbolic sum of 500 euros (USD 540) in damages. However, Facebook's legal team argues that the case is not admissible in an Austrian civil court because "there is no legal basis for a US-style class action". They also accuse Schrems of launching the lawsuit for financial reasons rather than for his rights as a consumer -- a claim denied by the activist's lawyer, Wolfram Proksch: "He lives for, but not off the case." The judge is expected to issue a written ruling at the earliest in three weeks. The case has been brought against Facebook's European headquarters in Dublin, which registers all accounts outside the United States and Canada -- making up some 80 percent of Facebook's 1.35 billion users. Schrems was able to file his action against the Irish subsidiary at a civil court in Vienna because under EU law, all member states have to enforce court rulings from any other member state. At the hearing, Facebook's lawyers alleged that Schrems was trying to organise a "pseudo-class action", and said he should try his luck in California where such proceedings were legal. In response, Wolfram Proksch accused Facebook of not wanting "to be sued anywhere". "The point is that under EU law, the consumer doesn't have to travel all the way to California to sue giant tech companies, but can do this in his or her home country," he said. After the hearing, Schrems told reporters he felt confident the case would go to trial. "From the very start, we have only focused on things which are unambiguous, verifiable, and don't require an expert," he said. "If I didn't think my chances were good, I wouldn't have invested so much effort into this." He added that Facebook's legal strategy so far had consisted of "completely avoiding the topic at stake, namely data protection". "But the key point is whether my data will be safe online," he said. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Judge Dismisses Concussion Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a lawsuit seeking to change the way U.S. children play soccer was all but kicked out of court on May 6 by a federal judge who called the claims "fairly incomprehensible." The sprawling, 138-page complaint failed to answer basic questions, such as who the potential class members are, what they are seeking and what power the court has to grant their demands, U.S. District Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern District of California complained. "It should be pretty clear to you all that I'm going to dismiss this complaint," she said at the tail end of a hearing in Oakland. "I still, after more than three hours of discussion, have grave concerns about inconsistencies and contradictions, and lack of clarity." Judge Hamilton was still considering whether to grant plaintiffs leave to amend. The suit claims six of the main entities that oversee U.S. youth soccer don't do enough to protect young players from concussions sustained while heading the ball. Though it deals with youth sports, two big league law firms -- Latham & Watkins and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison -- are fielding defensive players. Headers are a key part of most soccer games. Plaintiffs lawyer Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro contends that recent studies show players who repeatedly strike the ball with their heads can suffer attention and memory problems, and exhibit other signs of brain injury. The Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), and the U.S. organizations that operate under its umbrella, fall short in their efforts to prevent and monitor concussions sustained on the field, Berman says. His suit asks the court to force FIFA, the international soccer governing body, to limit heading for players ages 14 to 17, and to impose stricter limitations or ban heading altogether for players younger than 14. "The science is very clear," Mr. Berman said on May 6, "that the kids' necks aren't strong enough, and the coaches don't know enough at that level to teach proper heading." Mr. Berman also has asked the court to order medical testing for anyone who played youth soccer in the United States starting in 2002. The litigation faces significant hurdles. FIFA is a Swiss entity headquartered in Zurich, and the association's lawyers claim it cannot be sued in the Northern District of California. FIFA has no offices, employees or bank accounts in California, argued Paul Weiss partner H. Christopher Boehning -- cboehning@paulweiss.com Mr. Berman countered that FIFA conducts sufficient business in the state it sells FIFA-brand video games to tens of thousands of California residents, and the organization has agents in the state who arrange local soccer matches. Mr. Boehning also pointed out that FIFA can't change the international soccer rules on its own, and the organization with that authority, the International Football Association Board, isn't named as a defendant. FIFA holds four out of the eight seats on the board, but a three-quarters vote is required for rule changes. Judge Hamilton seemed concerned by that information, and pressed plaintiffs lawyers to explain how they expect to instigate a change in heading rules without targeting the board. "There's 100 ways it can be done," said Hagens Berman counsel Jon King -- jonk@hbsslaw.com But he faltered when asked for specifics. Mr. Berman argued FIFA is responsible for protecting its players from injury because it bills itself as the worldwide governing body of soccer. The organization even regulates Berman's own involvement in the sport as a referee for children ages 10 to 14. FIFA, he said, supplies his rule book. "The entire world looks to FIFA for guidance in soccer," Mr. Berman said. Judge Hamilton seemed taken aback by the scope of Berman's lawsuit. "What are the limitations, if any? Are you suing the world?" she asked. "Are we talking 209 countries? Are we talking millions and millions, perhaps billions, of players?" Mr. Berman brought the suit on behalf of seven current and former soccer players, five of whom are minors identified only by initials in the complaint. Only one plaintiff claims she suffered a concussion while playing soccer, and it wasn't from heading a ball, said Russell Sauer Jr. -- russell.sauer@lw.com -- a Latham & Watkins partner and counsel for the United States Soccer Federation. The other plaintiffs failed to show they face a real risk of injury, he argued, adding medical research has drawn no concrete link between heading soccer balls and long-term brain injury. "This is the classic case of a speculative chain of possibilities," Mr. Sauer said. Injuries that do occur on the field are part of the inherent risks of the game. FIFA and U.S. Soccer have no duty to reduce those risks, Mr. Sauer argued. Plaintiffs claim 30 percent of soccer concussions are caused by heading the ball, he said, meaning the majority are caused by other actions, such as colliding with players. And it's more common for soccer players to sustain injuries to their feet and ankles than to suffer concussions. "So what's next?" Mr. Sauer asked. "Are we going to have a class action that says we need to reduce the speed of running in soccer?" In response, Mr. Berman argued that protecting athletes from head injuries is becoming a national priority, noting President Barack Obama held a summit on concussions at the White House last year. Mr. Berman recently reached a settlement with the National Collegiate Athletic Association that would provide for $70 million to test athletes for brain trauma, and require the NCAA to impose stricter rules on players returning to games after concussion. Last month a federal judge in Pennsylvania approved a $765 million settlement over concussions suffered by players in the National Football League, and earlier this year the National Hockey League was hit with similar concussion litigation. "Concussions are a major issue in the United States," Mr. Berman said. "[Obama's] not having a summit on ankles and feet. There's no ankles and feet litigation." FIRST NATIONAL: Steven Antonik Class Action in Discovery Stage -------------------------------------------------------------- First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class action filed by Steven Antonik is in the discovery stage. On August 13, 2013, Steven Antonik, individually, as Administrator of the Estate of Linda Kluska, William R. Howells, and Louise A. Howells, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a consumer protection class action against the Company and Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, seeking equitable, injunction and monetary relief to address an alleged pattern and practice of wrong doing by the Bank relating to the repossession and sale of the Plaintiffs' and class members' financed motor vehicles. This matter is in the discovery stage. At this time the Company cannot reasonably determine the outcome or potential range of loss. FIRST NATIONAL: Charles Saxe Class Action in Discovery Stage ------------------------------------------------------------ First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case filed by Charles Saxe, III, is in the discovery stage. On September 17, 2013, Charles Saxe, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a consumer class action against the Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code in connection with the repossession and resale of financed vehicles. This matter is in the discovery stage. At this time the Company cannot reasonably determine the outcome or potential range of loss. FLOWER FOODS: Appeals Employee Classification Class Action Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- James McCarthy, writing for Mainebiz, reports that Flowers Foods Inc., the owner of Lepage Bakeries in Lewiston, filed an appeal seeking to overturn a federal court's ruling that its North Carolina distributors can file a class-action suit challenging the company's classification of them as "independent contractors." The appeal represents the next stage in a high-stakes court battle over whether its North Carolina drivers are independent contractors or employees -- a legal question that could have national implications. "We intend to vigorously defend our position," Paul Baltzer, managing director of media relations and HR communications for Flowers Foods, wrote in an email to Mainebiz. "As background, most of Flowers' fresh bakery foods are sold direct to retail and foodservice customers through a network of independent distributors who own their own businesses and have the rights to sell certain brands of our products within their respective territories. Our independent distributors are important business partners. We treat them fairly and do our best to address their concerns. We've had an independent distributor program since the 1980s." The March 24 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina has been characterized by a Minnesota attorney representing the North Carolina workers as a "significant ruling" that could be applied to Flowers Foods' independent contractors in other states since the company uses the same distribution model throughout its network of regional bakeries and distribution centers in 36 states across the eastern and southern United States. Mr. Baltzer disputed the opposing lawyer's assertion that the North Carolina ruling could pave the way for "hundreds of distributors" who deliver Flowers Foods products in other states to file similar claims under state and federal laws on a class- wide basis without having to bear all the costs and risks associated with individual litigation. "This ruling applies only to distributors contracted with one subsidiary in the state of North Carolina, and it is a procedural ruling only," he wrote. In the appeal filed April 7 at the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., Flowers Foods' attorneys criticized the North Carolina ruling, arguing that the judge "relied on scant record evidence, summarily dismissing and failing to rigorously analyze the legal significance of the extensive record evidence establishing significant differences in actual practice." "Even taking into account the District Court's considerable discretion, its order granting class certification contains substantial weaknesses, is manifestly erroneous and constitutes an abuse of discretion," the company's petition states. "Prompt appeal is appropriate given the nature and status of the underlying litigation . . . and would resolve fundamental, unsettled issues of law." In their closing arguments seeking approval of their appeal request, Flowers Foods' attorneys acknowledge the high stakes if the North Carolina case is allowed to proceed as a class-action lawsuit for a little more than 200 distributors the company now classifies as independent contractors instead of as employees. "Class action lawsuits challenging independent contractor status are on the rise," the lawyers wrote. "[T]he potential exposure to defendants if classes are certified is enormous, creating incentives to settle even non-meritorious cases, particularly given the uncertain legal standard. Resolving this unsettled legal question is thus of significant importance and would resolve an unsettled question of law." Shawn J. Wanta, an attorney and partner with Minneapolis-based Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, which successfully represented the North Carolina workers in their effort to gain legal standing as a class, reiterated his earlier remarks that the case could pave the way for similar claims by Flowers Foods' distributors being filed in other states under state and federal laws on a class-wide basis without having to bear all the costs and risks associated with individual litigation. "It is instructive as to what other courts may do if faced with the same legal questions," Mr. Wanta wrote in an email to Mainebiz on April 8. Flowers Foods, based in Thomasville, Ga., reported $3.75 billion in sales in 2014. In May 2012 it purchased Lepage Bakeries for $370 million in cash and stock, noting in a company press release that Lepage had 550 "experienced team members" and would help expand Flowers Foods' market from 64% to 70% of the U.S. population. FORD MOTOR: Court Hears Arguments in Mesothelioma Case ------------------------------------------------------ Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the crossroads of medical and legal causation of mesothelioma was on display before the state Supreme Court on May 6 in a case set to determine whether a plaintiff's expert testimony was based on an impermissible "any exposure" theory of causation. Attorney Clifford A. Rieders, who represented the plaintiff in Rost v. Ford Motor, told the justices that just because the plaintiff's expert testified that, medically speaking, there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos and a single fiber can potentially cause fatal mesothelioma by damaging a cell's structure, it does not mean that his testimony was substantively based on the "any exposure" theory, which is insufficient to show legal causation. "You can't conflate the fact that there's a scientific reality" and the expert gave "any exposure" testimony, said Mr. Rieders, of Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann. "That theoretical possibility was not the basis for his case." But Duane Morris attorney Robert L. Byer -- rlbyer@duanemorris.com -- who argued the case for Ford Motor Co., contended that merely showing exposure is insufficient to prove legal liability. Mr. Byer contended the plaintiff, Richard Rost, had been unable to link his exposure to brake linings manufactured by Ford during a four-month period when he worked at a car dealership to the mesothelioma he suffered, specifically in light of the fact that Rost had worked at other facilities where he allegedly had been exposed to greater levels of asbestos. Mr. Byer contended that Mr. Rost's causation expert relied on a "cumulative exposure" theory, which was substantially similar to the "any exposure" theory, because he could not causally link the asbestos-related disease to Ford products. "Medical causation and legal causation are totally different," Mr. Byer said. "Regularity, frequency and proximity is not enough for causation." According to court papers, Mr. Rost had testified that in 1950, he worked in a Ford dealership for several months where he cleaned the garage and removed brake linings, which generated dust in a poorly ventilated area. During trial, one of Mr. Rost's experts, Dr. Arthur Frank, testified there were case studies that showed individuals who were exposed to asbestos for only a day developed mesothelioma, court papers said. Dr. Frank also said certain animal studies showed that any exposure from one day to one month doubles the risk of developing mesothelioma. That trial resulted in a $994,800 jury award out of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Justice Correale F. Stevens noted to both sides that both the trial court and the state Superior Court had found that the plaintiffs had shown substantial causation evidence. Mr. Byer, however, said the causation testimony was insufficient to create a question of fact, and the trial court should have given the defendant a directed verdict. But assuming that there was exposure, the question becomes whether that exposure can create the basis for a finding of liability, which then brings into question issues about the more significant exposures, Mr. Byer said. "If all you need to show is exposure, then exposure equals liability," Mr. Byer said. After Justice Max Baer asked where the line should be drawn in terms of the significance of an exposure, Mr. Byer said the time and proximity are insufficient factors, and that dosage should be considered as well. Mr. Byer suggested that pathology and epidemiology could better support the scientific conclusions on causation. Regularity, frequency and proximity "shows exposure. It doesn't show causation and it doesn't show substantial causation," Mr. Byer said. If the exposure "results in a dosage that could be sufficient to cause this disease," then the exposure is sufficient for legal causation. Mr. Rieders countered that Ford's arguments were based on evidence that was not in the record. He contended that, while Mr. Rost had admitted that, after working at the car dealership, he had worked subsequently at other facilities that could have exposed him to asbestos, the record was not further developed regarding the levels of exposure at those facilities. Mr. Rost, Mr. Rieders told the justices, was exposed to millions of asbestos fibers during his time working with Ford products. He also noted that, although Mr. Rost only worked at the Ford dealership for a few months in 1950 and his subsequent alleged exposure occurred over a period of several decades after his time at the dealership, mesothelioma has a latency period of at least 10 years. Case law outlines "a legal standard requiring the evidence cannot be de minimis, and it certainly wasn't de minimis here," Mr. Rieders said. According to Mr. Rieders, Dr. Frank testified that Mr. Rost's exposure to Ford's products was a causative factor, and Ford's arguments were asking the court to reweigh evidence a jury already evaluated. However, Justice J. Michael Eakin, after noting that he had spent some summers when he was young working in garages, said he did not see how having minimal exposure to asbestos could be considered substantial if Mr. Rost spent "that much time knee-deep" in asbestos, referring to Mr. Rost's subsequent work history. Mr. Rieders told Justice Eakin the court should stick to the facts in the record, and added that he had also likely handled asbestos as a child, as his father had worked in construction. "You and I both have [the possibility of having] fibers in our bodies," Mr. Rieders said. "And unfortunately the latency period is very long." FTD COMPANIES: Appeal of Class Action Settlement Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- FTD Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal of a class action settlement remains pending. Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of consumer class action lawsuits was brought against Provide Commerce and co- defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing International ("EMI"). These cases were ultimately consolidated during the next three years into Case No. 09-CV-2094 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under the title In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation. Plaintiffs' claims arise from their online enrollment in subscription-based membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards, RedEnvelope Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively the "Membership Programs"). Plaintiffs claim that after they ordered items from certain of Provide Commerce's websites, they were presented with an offer to enroll in one of the Membership Programs, each of which is offered and administered by EMI. Plaintiffs purport to represent a putative nationwide class of consumers allegedly damaged by Provide Commerce's purported unauthorized or otherwise allegedly improper transferring of the putative class members' billing information to EMI, who then posted allegedly unauthorized charges to their credit or debit card accounts for membership fees for the Membership Programs. On February 22, 2010, Provide Commerce and EMI respectively filed motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2010, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motions. Between August 13, 2010 and December 2011, plaintiffs filed various amended complaints and added or dismissed certain named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed the fourth amended complaint on December 14, 2011. The fourth amended complaint is the operative complaint. Plaintiffs assert ten claims against Provide Commerce and EMI in the fourth amended complaint: (1) breach of contract (against Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against EMI only); (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of privacy; (9) negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs assert their claims individually and on behalf of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs sought damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Provide Commerce and EMI filed motions to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs Lawler, Walters, Cox, and Dickey on January 24, 2012. The motions to dismiss were fully briefed as of February 23, 2012, but the court had not yet conducted a hearing or ruled on the motions. The parties participated in numerous settlement conferences and mediations throughout the case in an effort to resolve this matter. On April 9, 2012, the parties reached an agreement on the high-level terms of a settlement, conditioned on the parties negotiating and executing a complete written agreement. In the weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a formal written settlement agreement ("Settlement" or "Agreement"). Upon reaching the Settlement, the hearing on the motions to dismiss was vacated, and Provide Commerce and EMI have not answered the fourth amended complaint in light of the Settlement. The court granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement on June 13, 2012. After notice to the class and briefing by the parties, the court conducted a final approval hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on January 28, 2013, and took the matter under submission at the conclusion of the hearing. On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final order approving class action settlement, granting plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, and overruling objections filed by a single objector to the Settlement. The court entered judgment on the settlement on February 21, 2013. The objector filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 4, 2013. After the completion of briefing, the Ninth Circuit set oral argument on the appeal for February 2, 2015. But on January 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order deferring argument and resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in a matter captioned Frank v. Netflix, No. 12-15705+. The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Frank v. Netflix, No. 12-15705+ on February 27, 2015, affirming the district court's approval of a settlement between Walmart and a class of Netflix DVD subscribers. It is unclear whether any of the parties to the Frank v. Netflix appeal will take further action before the Ninth Circuit or U.S. Supreme Court or when final resolution of the Frank v. Netflix appeal will occur. As such, the Ninth Circuit has not re-set oral argument or entered any other order since in this matter. The appeal of the Settlement remains pending. GALENA BIOPHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Sues Milla Bjorn, Lidingo -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., hereby announce that the United States District Court for the District of Oregon has approved the following announcement concerning defendants Milla Bjorn a/k/a Kamilla Bjorlin and Lidingo LLC in the shareholder class action against Galena Biopharma, Inc. (GALE). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON IN RE GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC SECURITIES LITIGATION CASE No.:3-14-cv-00367-SI TO: MILLA BJORN A/K/A KAMILLA BJORLIN AND LIDINGO LLC A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days of the date of first publication specified herein you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, whose name and address are: Patrick V. Dahlstrom Pomerantz LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-377-1181 If you have questions, you should see an attorney immediately. If you need help in finding an attorney, you may contact the Oregon State Bar's Lawyer Referral Service online at www.oregonstatebar.org or by calling (503) 684-3763 (in the Portland metropolitan area) or toll-free elsewhere in Oregon at (800) 452-7636. This is a securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Galena's common stock between August 6, 2013 and May 14, 2014, inclusive, seeking money damages in an amount to be determined at trial. GERON CORP: Shareholder Action Over Cancer Drug Trimmed ------------------------------------------------------- Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reported that a California federal judge trimmed a consolidated proposed shareholder class action accusing Geron Corp. of improperly touting the prospects of its cancer drug imetelstat before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration put a hold on the drug's clinical trial over concerns of liver toxicity. In a brief hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer partially granted Geron's motion to dismiss the case based on some of the drugmaker's statements that the plaintiffs claimed were misleading -- and tossed many of them with prejudice. GFI GROUP: Pretrial Conference in Szarek Case Adjourned to May 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------- GFI Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the New York Szarek action, the Court has adjourned the initial pretrial conference upon application of Plaintiff until May 21, 2015. Following the announcement of the CME Group Inc. ("CME"), nine putative class action complaints challenging the CME Merger were filed on behalf of purported stockholders of GFI (one of which also purported to be brought derivatively on behalf of GFI), two in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, six in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were captioned Coyne v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Index No. 652704/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed September 4, 2014), Suprina v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., Index No. 652668/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed August 29, 2014), Brown v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10082-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 3, 2014), Hughes v. CME Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10103- VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 8, 2014), Al Ammary v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10125-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 11, 2014), Giardalas v. GFI Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 10132-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 15, 2014), City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 16, 2014), Michocki v. Gooch., et al., Civil Action No. 10166-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 25, 2014) and Szarek v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-8228 (S.D.N.Y., filed October 14, 2014). On September 26, 2014, the Court of Chancery granted voluntary dismissal of the Giardalas action. On October 6, 2014, a consolidation order was entered by Vice Chancellor Laster, consolidating the Delaware cases into the Consolidated Delaware Action. The consolidation order designated the complaint filed in City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch.) as the operative complaint in the Consolidated Delaware Action. The Company said, "The complaints named as Defendants various combinations of the Company, GFI Holdco Ltd. ("IDB Buyer"), the members of our board of directors, GFI managing director Nick Brown, CME, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI and New JPI Inc. ("New JPI"). The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders during merger negotiations by entering into the CME Merger Agreement and approving the CME Merger, and that the Company, CME, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, IDB Buyer, Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI, and New JPI aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints further allege, among other things, (i) that the merger consideration provided for in the CME Merger Agreement undervalued the Company, (ii) that the sales process leading up to the CME Merger was flawed due to the members of our board of director's and Jefferies' conflicts of interest, and (iii) that certain provisions of the CME Merger Agreement inappropriately favored CME and precluded or impeded third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals." "In addition, the Hughes complaint asserts a derivative claim on behalf of the Company against the members of our board of directors for breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to the Company by negotiating and agreeing to the CME Merger and against Defendants Gooch and Heffron for usurping a corporate opportunity. The Michocki complaint alleges that the CME Merger is not a solitary transaction but a series of related transactions and further alleges that the IDB Transaction must be approved by an affirmative two-thirds vote of the Shares pursuant to the terms of the Charter. "The complaints seek, among other relief: (i) certification of the class, (ii) injunctive relief enjoining the CME Merger, (iii) a declaration that the members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties and that certain provisions of the CME Merger Agreement are unlawful, (iv) a directive to the members of our board of directors to execute their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction in the best interest of our stockholders, (v) rescission of the CME Merger to the extent already implemented, (vi) granting of rescissory damages and an accounting of all of the damages suffered as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, (vii) and reimbursement of fees and costs. The Coyne and Suprina Plaintiffs also demand a jury trial. "Certain Defendants have moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the Coyne and Suprina actions in favor of the Consolidated Delaware Action. A hearing was held on December 15, 2014 on (i) the Defendants' motions to dismiss or stay the Coyne and Suprina actions; (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion by order to show cause for consolidation and appointment of a leadership structure; and (iii) Plaintiff Suprina's motion by order to show cause to compel and expedite discovery. In an order filed on January 30, 2015, the Court ordered the Suprina and Coyne cases consolidated as In re GFI Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 652668/2014. In another order filed that same day, the Court denied Plaintiff Suprina's motion to compel and expedite discovery. The parties are awaiting a ruling on the Defendants' motions to dismiss or stay the consolidated action. "On November 18, 2014, the Delaware court entered a Revised Order Setting Expedited Discovery Schedule in the Consolidated Delaware Action. On December 19, 2014, the court entered a Further Revised Scheduling Order scheduling a preliminary injunction hearing for January 16, 2015. On December 29, 2014, Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and a brief in support thereof, seeking to enjoin enforcement of Article V of the Support Agreement and preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the CME Merger until (i) certain additional disclosures were made and (ii) our stockholders were provided the opportunity to vote on the CME Merger, the JPI Merger and the IDB Transaction. On January 8, 2015, the parties agreed to move the preliminary injunction hearing from January 16, 2015 to January 20, 2015. On January 15, 2015, the preliminary injunction hearing (scheduled for January 20) was taken off the court's calendar. "On January 15, 2015, Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action filed a Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint. On February 4, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings and a brief in support thereof. On February 6, 2015, the Court scheduled a merits hearing for February 17 and 18, 2015. On February 7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Third Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint, seeking certain additional injunctive and declaratory relief. On February 11, 2015, the Court, with the consent of the parties, moved the merits hearing (scheduled for February 17 and 18, 2015) to the first available dates on the Court's schedule after March 4, 2015. On February 20, 2015, Plaintiffs informed the Court that an expedited merits hearing was no longer necessary. "In the New York Szarek action, the Court scheduled an initial pretrial conference for December 16, 2014, which the Court adjourned upon application of the parties until March 12, 2015 and adjourned again upon application of Plaintiff until May 21, 2015. GFI GROUP: Pretrial Conference in Gross Action Rescheduled ---------------------------------------------------------- GFI Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court in Gross v. GFI Group, Inc. rescheduled the initial pre-trial conference to March 27, 2015. On November 26, 2014, a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws, captioned Gross v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint names the Company, Colin Heffron, Michael Gooch and Nick Brown as Defendants.. The complaint seeks, among other relief: (i) certification of the class, (ii) compensatory damages for Defendants purported wrongdoing and (iii) reimbursement of costs and expenses. On February 20, 2015, the Court in Gross v. GFI Group, Inc. granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved his selection of co-lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. The Court also extended Defendants' time to respond to the complaint from February 23, 2015 to March 25, 2015; granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by March 16, 2015; and rescheduled the initial pre-trial conference to March 27, 2015. GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Limits Set on Nature of Class Member Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jill Yates, writing for Mondaq.com, reported that once an action has been certified as a class action, notice of certification is required to be given to the class. There are statutory requirements that govern the matters to be addressed in such notices, but the courts have responsibility for approving their form, content and distribution scheme, as well as who pays for them. Bartram et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. et al In a recent B.C. case, the representative plaintiffs had obtained a certification order against two GlaxoSmithKline Inc. entities in respect of an action alleging that their antidepressant drug Paxil caused cardiovascular defects in children born to women who took the drug during pregnancy, of which the defendants failed to provide adequate and timely warning. In Bartram et al., v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. et al, 2015 BCSC 315, the court decided on the form and timing of the required notice to class members, including distribution of and payment for the notice. The representative plaintiffs had sought approval of both a short and long form notice. The short form notice, to which the defendants objected, "shows a picture of a crying baby under the word Paxil in large type. It refers to the fact that a class action has been certified, describes the class and class period and provides contact details for the reader to obtain further information. It does not include much of the other information required by s. 19(6), such as the manner and time for members to opt in or opt out of the proceedings" and other information (para. 5). The plaintiffs proposed that the short form notice be sent to doctors' offices with a request that it be posted in waiting rooms. The certification judge held "the proposed short form notice resembles an advertisement for class counsel's firm. It may be appropriate for use in that manner, but it lacks the balance and independence required of a court-mandated document. I conclude that notice will be only in the proposed long form" (para. 8). The court went on to find that plaintiffs' counsel and the defendants were to split the costs of notice evenly, and that there was "no basis for requiring the defendants to effectively advertise on their own website that their product, which is still properly on the market, is the subject of litigation" (para. 10). As such, even the long form was not required to be posted on the defendants' website. Conclusion Notice of certification must be given as required by the statute. Defendants should take some comfort that class counsel may well have to contribute half the costs of the notice plan, and at the court's confirmation that a "balanced and independent" notice: -- cannot resemble an advertisement for class counsel's firm; And -- need not be posted on the defendant's own website. HAIN CELESTIAL: 9th Cir. Revives "All Natural" Cosmetics Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reported that the Ninth Circuit revived a proposed class action accusing Hain Celestial Group Inc. of misleading consumers by labeling cosmetics with synthetic ingredients as "all natural," ruling the case should have been stayed while the trial court sought U.S. Food and Drug Administration advice. The unanimous panel of judges found that while the lower court had properly invoked the primary jurisdiction doctrine, concerning whether agencies should consider various issues before a court does, it should not have dismissed the suit outright. HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Stein Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Heritage Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an amended complaint was filed in the Stein class action. On December 31, 2014, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit, Stein v. Heritage Financial Group, Inc. et al., was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Civil Division, against Heritage, the members of its board of directors, HeritageBank, Renasant and Renasant Bank. The complaint, which was amended on February 18, 2015, asserts that the Heritage directors breached their fiduciary duties and/or violated Maryland law in connection with the negotiation and approval of the Merger Agreement and that Heritage, HeritageBank, Renasant and Renasant Bank aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Among other relief, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin Heritage and Renasant stockholders from voting on to approve the merger at their respective special meetings of stockholders and to otherwise enjoin the merger. HOPFED BANCORP: Negotiates Settlement in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Hopfed Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has negotiated a settlement in a class action lawsuit. The Company is the defendant in a class action lawsuit concerning the disclosure of ATM fees at Company owned ATMs that the defendant claims were not adequately disclosed. The Company asserts that fees were adequately disclosed and that portions of the ATM's were vandalized by an unknown third party immediately prior to the defendants using the Company's ATMs. At December 31, 2014, the Company has negotiated a settlement in this case and has established a $90,000 reserve potential losses. The Company has "not admitted to be a fault in the case but has determined that it is more cost effective to come to a settlement as opposed to continuing the defend ourselves in court." HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Data Breach Class Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Linn Freedman, writing for JDSupra, reported that a federal court judge in New Jersey dismissed a putative class action lawsuit against Horizon Blue Cross for a data breach involving two unencrypted laptops that were lost in 2013. The case alleged that close to 840,000 individuals' information was breached, including names, addresses, dates of birth, health information and Social Security numbers. The plaintiffs alleged that Horizon failed to put appropriate security measures in place following a data breach in 2008, and it said it would implement security measures following a government investigation of that breach, which involved 300,000 individuals' information. However, it failed to implement the measures, which contributed to the data breach in 2013 involving the unencrypted laptops. Nonetheless, the judge dismissed the case because the plaintiffs "have not alleged an 'economic injury' sufficient for standing. HORIZON LINES: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Lines, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 21, 2014, that the defendants and the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action reached an agreement in principle, subject to the court's approval, providing for the settlement and dismissal, with prejudice of the Consolidated Action. On November 25, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Joshua Loken v. Horizon Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. 10399-VCL (the "Loken Action"). The complaint names as defendants each member of the Company's Board (the "Individual Defendants"), the Company, and Matson Navigation Company, Inc., Matson, Inc., and Hogan Acquisition, Inc. (collectively, the "Matson Companies"). The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty and due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount. On December 1, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned J. Cola Inc. v. Horizon Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. 10412-VCL (the "J. Cola Action"). The complaint names as defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty and due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 9, 2015, Plaintiff in the J. Cola Action filed an amended complaint, adding a cause of action for breach of the directors' fiduciary duty of disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23, 2014 Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material information and/or included materially misleading information. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount. On December 2, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Finn Kristiansen v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., Case No. 10418-VCL (the "Kristiansen Action"). The complaint names as defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty and due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 9, 2015, Plaintiff in the Kristiansen Action filed an amended complaint, adding a cause of action for breach of the directors' fiduciary duty of disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23, 2014 Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material information and/or included materially misleading information. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount. On January 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Frederick Schwartz v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., Case No. 10594-VCL (the "Schwartz Action"). The complaint names as defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint also alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23, 2014 Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material information and/or included materially misleading information. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount. On February 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued an order consolidating the four complaints into "In re Horizon Lines, Inc. Stockholders Litigation," Consolidated C.A. 10399-VCL (the "Consolidated Action"). On February 13, 2015 the defendants and the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action reached an agreement in principle, subject to the court's approval (the "Memorandum of Understanding"), providing for the settlement and dismissal, with prejudice of the Consolidated Action. Pursuant to such Memorandum of Understanding, the Company agreed to make additional disclosures to the Company's stockholders through a supplement to the Company's Definitive Proxy Statement and the Company and Matson agreed to amend the Merger Agreement in order to reduce the amount of the termination fee payable by the Company to Matson under a Fiduciary Termination from $17.1 million to $9.5 million. On February 13, 2015 the Company, Matson and Merger Sub entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Merger Agreement. The Company and its Board of Directors believe that the claims in the Actions are entirely without merit and, in the event the settlement does not resolve them, intend to contest them vigorously. HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Class Action Now Concluded ------------------------------------------------- Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the settlement amount was paid in full and the class action matter is now concluded. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C. (collectively, the "Company Defendants") have been named as defendants in a class action suit. The action was filed by Mike D'Andrea and Tracy D'Andrea, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County. The action was initially filed on May 8, 2006 alleging that the HVAC systems installed in certain of the Company's homes are in violation of applicable New Jersey building codes and are a potential safety issue. On December 14, 2011, the Superior Court granted class certification; the potential class is 1,065 homes. The Company Defendants filed a request to take an interlocutory appeal regarding the class certification decision. The Appellate Division denied the request, and the Company Defendants filed a request for interlocutory review by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to the Appellate Division for a review on the merits of the appeal on May 8, 2012. The Appellate Division, on remand, heard oral arguments on December 4, 2012, reviewing the Superior Court's original finding of class certification. On June 18, 2013, the Appellate Division affirmed class certification. On July 3, 2013, the Company Defendants appealed the June 2013 Appellate Division's decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which elected not to hear the appeal on October 22, 2013. The plaintiff class was seeking unspecified damages as well as treble damages pursuant to the NJ Consumer Fraud Act. The Company Defendants' motion to consolidate an indemnity action they filed against various manufacturer and sub-contractor defendants to require these parties to participate directly in the class action was denied by the Superior Court; however, the Company Defendants' separate action seeking indemnification against the various manufacturers and subcontractors implicated by the class action is ongoing. The Company Defendants, the Company Defendants' insurance carriers and the plaintiff class agreed to the terms of a settlement on May 15, 2014 in which the plaintiff class was to receive a payment of $21 million in settlement of all claims, with the majority of the settlement being funded by the Company Defendants' insurance carriers. The Company had previously reserved for its share of the settlement. The Superior Court approved the settlement agreement on December 23, 2014, and the judgment became final on February 20, 2015, when no appeal was taken. The settlement amount was paid in full and the class action matter is now concluded. IBM CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Sale of Hardware Biz --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a workers union sued a major technology company on April 1 over allegations it violated the Securities Exchange Act while trying to sell part of its business. The International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers filed the lawsuit on April 1 against International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation alleging the company knew part of the business it was trying to sell was virtually worthless. The lawsuit said IBM was attempting to sell part of its hardware business that designs and produces microchips for approximately $2.4 billion. The business included property, a plant and equipment assets. Investors, including the union, allegedly didn't know that IBM struggled to find a buyer and that the business had lost approximately $700 million in 2013. The lawsuit alleged IBM knew that the microelectronics business was worthless, but misrepresented the value of the microelectronics business and artificially inflated the company's results to stockholders. Investors didn't find out about the $700 million loss until IBM announced in October that it planned to transfer the microelectronics business to GlobalFoundries Incorporated along with a $1.5 billion incentive payment, the suit says. The union is seeking class status for those who held IBM stock between Jan. 22, 2014, and Oct. 17. The plaintiffs are also seeking damages, interest and court costs in the lawsuit. The union is represented by Christopher J. Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Michael W. Stocker and Rachel A. Avan -- ravan@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow, LLP in New York City. United States District Court Southern District of New York case number 7:15-cv-02492 IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Firm Files Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces thata class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class") comprising investors who purchased or otherwise acquired iDreamSky Technology Ltd. ("iDreamSky"or the "Company") American Depositary Shares ("ADSs"): (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about August 7, 2014 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market between August 8, 2014 and March 13, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased iDreamSky shares during the Class Period are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights. The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company had overstated its ability to monetize its user base and effectively integrate its distribution channels; (2) that, as a result, the Company had to lower its earnings guidance; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On March 13, 2015, the Company sharply lowered its revenue guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014 due to the delay of a popular game, launched on one of the Company distribution platforms, and lower than expected revenues from another game being launched simultaneously as other hit games on the same distribution platform. On this news, ADS of iDreamSky declined $3.60 per share, over 33%, during to close on March 16, 2015 at $7.22 per share, on unusually heavy volume. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than June 1, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at 215-638-4847, toll-free at 888-638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. IGNITE RESTAURANT: Expects Final Court Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2014, that the Company expects final court approval of the settlement and termination of all proceedings in a class action complaint in the second quarter of 2015. The Company said, "On July 20, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us following our announced intention to restate our financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 28, 2009, January 3, 2011 and January 2, 2012 and the related interim periods. The complaint lodged against us, certain of our directors and officers and the underwriters in the initial public offering ("IPO") was based on allegations related to the Company's disclosures in its registration statement and prospectus for its IPO. On July 4, 2014, we reached a confidential agreement in principle to settle all pending claims, subject to submission and approval by the court. On January 30, 2015, the court issued preliminary approval of the settlement in the amount of $1.8 million of which $1.6 million is covered by insurance. We expect final court approval of the settlement and termination of all proceedings in this matter in the second quarter of 2015." IGNITE RESTAURANT: Conditional Cert. Granted in Employees' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2014, that the court has granted conditional certification to the class in the lawsuit filed by six former tipped employees. The Company said, "On August 28, 2013, in the United States District Court, Western District of New York, six former tipped employees of various Joe's Crab Shack locations filed a complaint against us and certain of our officers alleging that the employees were not paid the minimum wage required by federal law as well as the wage-hour laws of the respective states in which they worked. These former employees purport to represent a nationwide class of tipped employees on their federal claims and separate subclasses of tipped employees regarding their state law claims. By order dated January 27, 2015, the court granted conditional certification to the class." "We are vigorously contesting this matter and have answered and asserted affirmative defenses. Discovery as to all issues is now in the preliminary stages. At this early stage, it is impossible to predict with any certainty whether the former employees will prevail or the amount of damages they might recover were they to prevail." INSTALLED BUILDING: Paid $1.2MM Related to Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Installed Building Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company paid $1.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2014, related to a class action settlement. The Company said, "A class action lawsuit was filed in February 2013 and an amended complaint was filed in May 2013 in the Superior Court of King County, Washington, involving Installed Building Products II, LLC, one of our subsidiaries, alleging violations of Washington State wage and hour laws for failure to pay prevailing and minimum wage and overtime wages. The plaintiffs were former insulation installers for Installed Building Products II, LLC in Washington who sought to represent all similarly situated workers. They sought all unpaid wages, along with litigation costs and fees." "A lawsuit was filed in July 2013 in federal court in the Middle District of Tennessee against one of our subsidiaries, TCI d/b/a Installed Building Products of Nashville, alleging unpaid overtime and failure to pay lawful wages under federal law and Tennessee common law and in unjust enrichment and in breach of an alleged contract. The named plaintiffs were former insulation installers in Nashville. The plaintiffs sought to have this case certified as a collective action under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and as a class action under Tennessee law. They sought reimbursement of the overtime wages for all time worked over forty hours each week, as well as liquidated damages and litigation costs and fees. "Both lawsuits were settled in January 2014 for a total cost of $1.4 million, $0.2 million of which we paid during the year ended December 31, 2013 and $1.2 million of which we paid during the year ended December 31, 2014. We recorded the $1.4 million charge in Administrative and Other operating expenses in our Consolidated Statement of Operations during the year ended December 31, 2013 and therefore recorded no related expense for the year ended December 31, 2014." INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Summary Judgment Briefing Due Nov. 23 ---------------------------------------------------------- Intralinks Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that summary judgment briefing must be completed by November 23, 2015, in the Securities Class Action. The Company said, "On December 5, 2011, we became aware of a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the SDNY or the Court, against us and certain of our current and former executive officers. The complaint, or the Wallace Complaint, alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions about our business prospects, financial condition and performance in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the purported class of purchasers of our common stock during the period from February 17, 2011 through November 10, 2011, or the Allegation Period. On December 27, 2011, a second purported class action complaint, which makes substantially the same claims as, and is related to, the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the SDNY against us and certain of our current and former executive officers seeking similar unspecified compensatory damages for the Allegation Period." "On April 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and also appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action, or the Consolidated Class Action. On June 15, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that, in addition to the original allegations made in the Wallace Complaint, alleges that we, certain of our current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters in our April 6, 2011 stock offering issued a registration statement and prospectus in connection with the offering that contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material information required to be stated therein in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on July 31, 2012. "On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion dismissing claims based on certain allegations in the complaint, but otherwise denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On June 28, 2013, defendants filed their answers to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On October 15, 2013, the Court entered the parties' pretrial scheduling stipulation. In December 2013, the parties served each other with document requests and discovery is ongoing. "On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiff filed its motion for class certification. Pursuant to an amended scheduling order entered by the Court on April 18, 2014, the defendants filed their opposition to class certification on June 13, 2014 and plaintiff filed its reply on July 18, 2014. On September 30, 2014, the Court issued an opinion certifying a class of all persons who purchased our stock between February 17, 2011 and November 11, 2011 and a subclass of persons who purchased our stock pursuant or traceable to our April 6, 2011 offering. On October 6, 2014, the Court entered the parties' scheduling stipulation, which extended the deadline to complete fact discovery to February 27, 2015. "Under that same stipulation, summary judgment briefing must be completed by November 23, 2015. On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to appeal the September 30, 2014 opinion granting plaintiff's motion for class certification. On December 30, 2014, the Second Circuit denied defendants' petition. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously." J.G. WENTWORTH: Defendants Intend to Appeal Court Order ------------------------------------------------------- The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Defendants intend to appeal on a court order finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a case and remanded it to St. Clair County. In February 2014, a purported class action filing was made against the Company and various subsidiaries. The original class action complaint in this matter contained a single count alleging that the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by, among other things, marketing, soliciting, and engaging in transfers of structured settlement payment rights despite knowledge of anti-assignment clauses in the underlying structured settlement agreements. The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint reciting the same facts and the same claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, but adding causes of action for common law fraud, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and two counts for violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The first such claim alleges defendants violated law that proscribes conduct amounting to a pattern of racketeering activity conducted through an enterprise. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' use of mail in connection with the transfers constituted mail fraud. The second such claim alleged that the defendants conspired to commit other related violations. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. One defendant, Settlement Funding, LLC, filed a motion to defer responding to the plaintiff's complaint pending a ruling on the other defendants' motion to dismiss, and also filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay or dismiss the claims against it in federal court. The plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the motions to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration based on intent to file a second amended complaint. The plaintiff did file a second amended complaint asserting substantially similar allegations to those set forth in the initial amended complaint, and added four new named plaintiffs. Settlement Funding, LLC filed a petition to compel individual arbitrations in the Northern District of Illinois against those four new named plaintiffs in the second amended complaint who had previously entered into arbitration agreements with Settlement Funding, LLC. Defendants filed various motions challenging the second amended complaint in the Southern District of Illinois, seeking dismissal and/or transfer to the Northern District of Illinois. The Southern District of Illinois court granted transfer of the whole case to the Northern District of Illinois and deferred ruling on defendants' arguments for dismissal to the Northern District court. On March 5, 2015, the Northern District court entered an order finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and remanded it to St. Clair County. Defendants believe this ruling on jurisdiction is incorrect and intend to appeal. Defendants also believe that the plaintiffs' claims in the second amended complaint are time-barred and/or without merit and defendants intend to vigorously defend these claims on a number of factual and legal grounds in arbitration and/or litigation. JIMMY JOHN'S: 'Oppressive' Non-compete Clause Survives Challenge ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Jamieson, writing for Huffington Post, reported that the use of restrictive noncompete agreements with low-wage workers may have made a laughingstock of Jimmy John's last year, but so far the sandwich chain is doing just fine defending those agreements in court. A federal judge in Illinois declined to grant an injunction that would have prevented Jimmy John's franchisees from trying to enforce the noncompete agreements. As The Huffington Post first reported in October, the agreement is quite shocking in its scope. An employee who signs it agrees not to work for a competitor -- defined as any business that derives at least 10 percent of its sales from sandwiches and that is located within three miles of any Jimmy John's outlet -- for a period of two years following the employee's departure from Jimmy John's. If enforced, the restriction would severely limit the erstwhile employees' sandwich-making opportunities, effectively blacklisting them from whole cities for a period of time -- as this map demonstrates. It would also tend to depress the workers' earnings by preventing them from taking their labor to the highest bidder. Members of Congress have asked the Labor Department and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Jimmy John's over the practice. Last year, Emily Brunner, a Jimmy John's assistant store manager, and Caitlin Turowski, a former assistant store manager, filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Jimmy John's and a franchisee, claiming they were shorted on pay. As part of their complaint, Brunner and Turowski asked that the judge effectively bar Jimmy John's from maintaining the noncompete agreement with the class of workers covered by the lawsuit. They argued that the agreement is overly broad and "oppressive." U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras wasn't buying it. In an opinion, Judge Kocoras ruled that since the noncompete clause had never been enforced against Brunner and Turowski, the two had never been hurt by it and had no standing to seek an injunction against it. "The lack of any prior enforcement diminishes the Plaintiffs' argument that the wrongful conduct will occur again because no injury occurred to begin with," Judge Kocoras wrote. As part of the case, Jimmy John's franchisee JS Fort Group submitted affidavits pledging that it would not enforce the noncompete agreements against Brunner and Turowski going forward. Under Judge Kocoras' reasoning, that move "satisfied their burden of establishing that the challenged conduct will not 'reappear in the future.'" The judge essentially accepted the franchisee's argument that there was no controversy since the noncompete agreement was never enforced. "There has to be a real dispute," said Matthew Disbrow, a lawyer for JS Fort Group. "The franchisee defendants said they had no intention of enforcing these agreements as to these plaintiffs. It never crossed their mind." But Kathleen Chavez, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said she believes the ruling missed the mark. Even if it goes unenforced here, the Jimmy John's noncompete agreement still exists and can still have a "chilling effect" on workers wondering if it will be used against them if they jump to Quizno's, she said. Unlike Brunner and Turowski, Chavez added, most low-wage workers don't have the resources to hire a lawyer to fight back. "This is really a setback for low-wage earners' rights," Chavez said. "This is something very injurious to a demographic that doesn't have good access to the courts. When you're making eight bucks an hour, going in and hiring an attorney and paying filing fees to find out whether you can work at Subway is just not practical." Nowadays, many employers make prospective employees sign noncompete agreements, even in low-wage industries. As HuffPost reported in November, the doggy day care chain Camp Bow Wow requires pet sitters to agree they won't work at similar outfits after leaving the chain. The Verge reported that Amazon warehouse workers have been required to sign noncompete agreements dramatically limiting their future employment opportunities. The online retailer quickly said it would scrap the agreements. Unlike, say, a software engineer who knows a company's trade secrets, most of these workers don't have meaningful proprietary information that they could take to a competitor. Since most states say that noncompete agreements have to be reasonable in scope, companies like Jimmy John's and Camp Bow Wow would likely have a hard time trying to enforce such restrictions against a low-wage worker. HuffPost knows of no instances at either company in which a former worker was barred from employment with a competitor. Even if they're legally dubious, these agreements have probably proliferated because companies feel they have little to lose by asking workers to sign them. And under Kocoras' ruling, they have nothing to lose whatsoever. JOHNS HOPKINS: Attorneys in Levy Suit Set to Get $32MM in Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that attorneys representing more than 8,000 women who were secretly recorded during pelvic exams by a gynecologist at Johns Hopkins will receive $32 million in legal fees from a settlement with the hospital system. An order signed by a Baltimore judge on April 8 awarded attorneys from eight law firms 17.25 percent of the $190 million settlement. The settlement will be divided among patients of Dr. Nikita Levy, a gynecologist who surreptitiously videotaped and photographed thousands of women during gynecological exams at a Hopkins- affiliated clinic. The attorneys had initially asked Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Sylvester Cox to earmark 35 percent of the settlement for legal fees. Though the Judge dipped significantly below the attorneys' request in his judgment, Judge Cox wrote in his order that similar settlements over $100 million tend to show legal fee percentages between 4 and 18 percent. The order also says the attorneys will be reimbursed $829,690 for expenses. In his order the judge said the settlement "achieved extraordinary results," calling it "unprecedented." Jonathan Schochor, the lead attorney in the case, said he and the other attorneys will not challenge the judge's order. Mr. Schochor would not elaborate on how the $32 million will be divided among attorneys. "We are very, very gratified," Mr. Schochor said on April 8. "At the end of the day when you can sit back and say that we have achieved the highest settlement for a single sex-abuse perpetrator in our nation's history, that we can utter those words on behalf of our clients? We're elated as lawyers." Dr. Nikita Levy was fired after 25 years with the Johns Hopkins Health System in Baltimore in February 2013 after a female co- worker spotted the pen-like camera he wore around his neck and alerted authorities. At the time of his firing he was practicing at the Hopkins East Baltimore Medical Center. Levy committed suicide days later, as a federal investigation led to roughly 1,200 videos and 140 images stored on computers in his home. Hopkins agreed to the settlement last July. Mr. Schochor said the settlement has been fully funded as of March 2, and is in an interest-bearing account. Mr. Schochor said whatever interest before the funds are allocated to the women will go to them, and not the lawyers. In determining the legal fee percentage, Judge Cox took into account the time and labor required, the novelty of the case and the skills necessary to adequately represent the class, as well as the risks involved in taking on such an unwieldy case. "We saved 9,000 women from having to potentially relive this experience in the courtroom and through depositions, and that has tremendous value," said attorney Howard Janet, who represents some of the women in the class. "The irony about class action is, the quicker and more efficient the case and the better result you accomplish can sometimes result in a lesser percentage of fee. But it was always the clients first." LIFE TIME: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Block & Leviton LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Life Time Fitness Inc. (NYSE: LTM) and its Board of Directors. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and docketed under 0:15-cv-01911, is on behalf of a class consisting of all current holders of Life Time securities. Life Time is a chain of fitness centers operating in the United States and Canada based out of Chanhassen, Minnesota. On March 16, 2015, the Company announced its proposed acquisition (the "Proposed Acquisition") by a consortium of investors for $72.10 per share of Life Time common stock. The complaint alleges that, on April 3, 2015, Defendants filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a Proxy Statement recommending the Proposed Acquisition to Company investors which contained material omissions. Among other things, the Proxy Statement failed to sufficiently disclose the interest of the Company's CEO in the Proposed Acquisition and the fair market value of the Company's real estate holdings, which make up the bulk of Life Time's assets. As such, the Proxy Statement omits material information necessary to make the Proxy not misleading to investors attempting to evaluate the financial merits of the Proposed Acquisition. The class action seeks to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with the Proposed Acquisition until they have complied with the federal securities laws. In the event that the Proposed Acquisition is consummated, the class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of Life Time's investors. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 9, 2015. As a member of the class, you may seek to file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you have questions about your legal rights, would like a copy of the complaint or if you have information relevant to this lawsuit, please contact attorney Mark A. Delaney of Block & Leviton LLP, www.blockesq.com, at (617) 398-5600 or at Mark@blockesq.com. Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information relevant to the lawsuit is assured. LISA STEED: Judge Denies Class Action Status to Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Rick Aaron, writing for Good4Utah.com, reports that people who claim they were improperly arrested for DUI by former Utah Highway Patrol trooper Lisa Steed will not be able to file a class action lawsuit, according to a ruling issued by Second District Court Judge Michael Allphin. Salt Lake City attorney Robert Sykes filed a motion for class certification on behalf of three plaintiffs Thomas Romero, Julie Tapia and Robert C. Anderson. At a hearing February 9th, Sykes argued that it should be certified as a class action suit based on a "blanket of fraud" by Trooper Steed, who was fired in 2012. Utah Assistant Attorney General Meb Anderson represents Steed and claimed the cases did not meet the criteria for class certification. In a 20-page ruling issued on April 8, Judge Allphin denied the motion for class certification, meaning all lawsuits against Steed will have to be filed and tried individually. "We think the judge did a thorough analysis and a thorough job and got it right," Anderson told ABC4 News on April 9. "We think the judge made an error," Mr. Sykes stated in an interview at his Downtown Salt Lake City office. Mr. Sykes estimates that hundreds of plaintiffs could sue the State of Utah over Steed's actions. "You'd have about 1500 to maybe 2000 people filing individual claims that have a value of about $5,000 to $20,000 and that's not very efficient," Mr. Sykes said. "So our belief is that this should have been handled in a class action where it can all be handled at once." "The court said the circumstances vary greatly," Mr. Anderson said. "That's what Lisa Steed has maintained all along: that the court should look at each of these cases individually and determine whether she had reasonable suspicion to stop the person and probable cause to arrest and she believes when the court does that on an individual basis that the court will find she was justified in each of her stops." Mr. Sykes disagrees. "I think once we proved that there was fraud involved by Lisa Steed on a mass basis we don't have to prove each individual case," Mr. Sykes said. "She shouldn't be allowed to get away with it." With no class action certification, Mr. Sykes acknowledges that most potential plaintiffs won't pursue any action because of the expense and the hassle for a relatively small amount. Anderson sees the ruling as the start of a final resolution to the pending legal action against Steed. "Just happy that the judge saw through some of the shenanigans and is willing to give Lisa Steed her day in court in these individual cases," Mr. Anderson said. "She's happy about this. She's hoping that this is the beginning of the end to this case." Mr. Sykes still feels the case will eventually be a class action lawsuit against Steed, the Highway Patrol and the State. "We're going to appeal this and I think it will be reversed," Mr. Sykes said. Mr. Anderson says an appeal was fully expected. Ms. Steed was fired by the Utah Highway Patrol in 2012. LOUISIANA: PSC Commissioner Wants Name Off Class Action Motion -------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Leader, writing for The News Star, reports that Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell wants his name off a motion by the PSC to block a class action suit returning designated funds it believes the Louisiana Legislature took illegally from the PSC to the companies who paid the fees. An amendment to the motion creating a class action suit was set be heard in 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge on April 13. The Public Service Commission filed suit in 2010 against the Legislature over $8.5 million -- $4 million in 2009 and $4.5 million in 2010 they say were swept into the state's general fund. "Bobby Jindal has swept every account he can down there trying to balance the budget," Mr. Campbell said. "This is just more of his money grabbing -- trying to fill in holes." The PSC is not funded through the state's general fund but through fees collected from those it regulates. An amendment by former Chief Commissioner Jimmy Field seeks to make the suit a class action that would allow the funds to be returned to those who paid the fees if the fund sweep is ruled unconstitutional. According to the motion, the original suit did not seek relief or remedy if the legislative acts were ruled unconstitutional. The motion seeks recovery. "It merely provides a remedy for the thousands of affected ratepayers who paid into the three protected funds that were raided by the Legislature in those two consecutive years in order to attempt to balance the state's budget," the motion reads. "It is also noteworthy that the PSC is now attempting to roadblock any effort to return these funds to the rightful owners of the same, if those legislative acts are ruled unconstitutional." Mr. Campbell, along with mr. Field, Clyde Holloway, Lambert Boissiere and Eric Skrmetta were the five commissioners who originally filed the suit. Field is no longer a commissioner. The motion to expand the plaintiff class is filed on behalf of Mr. Field by attorney Glen Petersen. "Field is the plaintiff and he is a former commissioner, and I think he's right," Mr. Campbell said. "That money came from the people and Jindal damn sure can't take the people's money. He's not providing a service; he just took the money to put in his budget." Both the Legislature and the Public Service Commission filed objections to the motion. The PSC argues that the addition of a class would be too costly, would cause needless delays and the "court's actions would impinge on the authority of the commission." The Louisiana Legislature argues that a petition that includes having two legislative acts declared unconstitutional and a class action tax refund petition for damages are two completely separate causes of action and "amounts to an improper change in action." "We are merely seeking a remedy for the actions of the Legislature if indeed the two cited sweeps of funds are ultimately found to be illegal by the court," Mr. Petersen said on April 9. "If the court does that, and we believe that it would be correct if it does, then the money should be returned to its rightful owners. We're not sure why the commission would have a disagreement with that." Mr. Holloway said that he wouldn't have his name taken off the suit but would not object to whatever action is decided by the court. He said the PSC's desire to keep the money in its budget could be motivated by the small amount of money available to the commission to pay its staff and do its necessary work. "However the court rules, I'm OK with it," he said. "I'm not a person that's ever going to stop the money from going back to the people." Mr. Campbell said Mr. Jindal is too focused on his political aspirations and telling 'Louisiana's success story' to take care of the state. "He's going to rape and pillage everything down there to try to balance the budget," he said. "Bobby Jindal will go down as Louisiana's worst governor in modern day times." The News-Star has requested comment from the governor's office, but has received no response. * * * Kevin Boyd, writing for The Hayride, reported that Louisiana Public Service Commissioner "Bananas" Foster Campbell announced that he was taking his name off a PSC motion to block converting the PSC's lawsuit against the Louisiana Legislature into a class action lawsuit. The class action request was filed by former PSC Commissioner Jimmy Fields. The lawsuit is about whether or not the Jindal administration and the Legislature violated state law by scooping up surplus PSC funds and transferring them to the state general fund. The PSC is 100% funded by the fees it collects from the companies it regulates. Here's why the PSC and the Legislature both oppose the Fields motion: Both the Legislature and the Public Service Commission filed objections to the motion. The PSC argues that the addition of a class would be too costly, would cause needless delays and the "court's actions would impinge on the authority of the commission." The Louisiana Legislature argues that a petition that includes having two legislative acts declared unconstitutional and a class action tax refund petition for damages are two completely separate causes of action and "amounts to an improper change in action." Here's a question, does Bananas even attend his own PSC meetings? If so, does he pay attention to them or is he too busy trying to shakedown donations from utilities and trial lawyers for his campaign? A source at the PSC provided The Hayride some transcripts of a couple of meetings where this issue was discussed. Allegedly, Bananas was present at both. Here's an excerpt from the meeting on May 19, 2010: COMMISSIONER SKRMETTA: The second issue is I ask. . . direct Staff to open a docket on . . . to study and report on the feasibility of adopting -- that any amounts that the Public Service Commission takes in as a budget surplus above the cost of its budget, a mechanism for returning that surplus to the ratepayers. And if they could develop a mechanism and a scheme for such a activity and report back to the Commission when it's complete. Thank you. This issue came up again on February 23, 2011: COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY: Okay, I want to do a directive to Staff. I mean, we have the lawsuit pending and hopefully we win the suit at some point. I know we are going into executive session on it, but we oftentimes and I hear this on the radio now that we never return any money anyhow, so my directive is that "If we should win this suit and assuming that we will, or we shouldn't proceed if we don't assume that, I would like Staff to look at how we would go about once we accumulate the money, and I don't want to have to wait to pay utility -- my bill at the office, I have to pay, or their yard work, or whatever. But once we accumulate enough money that we need to operate on the cushion; that we start looking into how we refund or send the excess money back to the people we collect it from. My feeling is that we oftentimes only want to collect and we never look at where it should go and that is my whole problem of the issue of the state seizing these funds is "That is not our funds, that is not their funds, that is the people's funds." And if someone is going to have that money in another place it should go back to the people that paid it, so I realize that oftentimes and I have talked to Ms. Gonzalez and she told me we operate on a shoestring and didn't have money sometimes. Well, it has changed a little to where we did accumulate up to $8 million. I don't know what we need to keep as a cushion, but whatever 15 that is we keep it and then we are look into -- I don't care if it is three cents that goes back to a ratepayer, that is three cents that should go back to them, and not to the State to spend where they want to spend it, if they want to have money in the budget. And now undoubtedly won't have it in the budget right now. So my directive is that we look at how we go about refunding when we got that $8 million again, to give to someone, give back back to someone. So the PSC was already drawing up plans to return the money back to ratepayers. Converting the lawsuit into a class action would lengthen the process and it would ensure trial lawyers would get a handout from the state. Bananas must have forgotten that the PSC had already decided the issue. They were going to refund it back to ratepayers. But Bananas works for the trial lawyers and his campaign contributors, not the people of Louisiana. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Freeland Couple Files Flooring Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a Freeland couple is suing Lumber Liquidators over flooring allegedly laced with toxic levels of formaldehyde that exceed California Air Resources Board standards. Carinne D. and Andrew M. Karlick filed a lawsuit March 9 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. It is one of dozens of class action lawsuits that have been filed against Lumber Liquidators in the wake of a "60 Minutes" report. The plaintiffs seek restitution of the money they spent on the flooring products, as well as the cost of replacing the products, injunctive relief and damages. The plaintiffs are represented by Noah Axler of Donovan Axler LLC of Philadelphia. U.S. District for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, case No. 3:15-CV-00474 LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Has Expected to Face DOJ Criminal Charges ------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators has told investors it expects to have to face criminal charges from the U.S. Department of Justice related to an ongoing investigation over imported products, reports Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service. In a regulatory filing on April 29, Lumber Liquidators, which touts itself as the nation's largest specialty retailer of hardwood flooring, said the Justice Department has informed the company it is seeking criminal charges over its foreign sourcing. A report on the CBS television news magazine "60 Minutes" in March said that laminate flooring Lumber Liquidators sources from China contains high levels of formaldehyde, a colorless but strong- smelling chemical that has been classified as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In its most recent Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, covering the quarter that ended on March 31, 2015, Lumber Liquidators says sealed search warrants were executed at its Toano, Virginia corporate headquarters in September 2013 by the Department of Homeland Security's Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Division and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Since then, the Company has been cooperating with the federal authorities, including the Department of Justice, in their investigation. In recent communications, the DOJ indicated that it is seeking criminal charges under the Lacey Act," the filing says. In response, Lumber Liquidators said it has formed a special committee of its board of directors to make decisions surrounding the matter, and to "continue to communicate with the DOJ regarding its intentions and possible courses of action in this matter," the filing says. A spokesperson for the Department of Justice declined to comment on the situation, saying only "This matter remains under investigation." Lumber Liquidators' filing also disclosed that it faces at least 100 pending class-action lawsuits related to its Chinese-made laminate flooring. During a conference call with investors on April 29, company CEO Robert Lynch said, "We care deeply about our customers." Lynch also said the company has sent worried consumers about 13,000 free air testing kits, but declined to discuss any results he might be aware of and what Lumber Liquidators does or plans to do when a test comes back positive for the presence of formaldehyde. MASSACHUSETTS: Former Inmates Settle Strip Search Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Barry, writing for MassLive.com, reports that more than 170 former inmates of the Western Massachusetts Regional Women's Correctional Center have reached a preliminary settlement in a class action lawsuit against the Hampden County Sheriff's Department over strip search procedures at the Chicopee jail. The plaintiffs settled for $675,000 with $500,000 going to attorney's fees and expenses. Of the balance, $20,000 will go to lead plaintiff Debra Baggett, four additional plaintiffs who were deposed in the case will receive $2,000 each and the rest of the class members will receive around $850 apiece, according to the settlement. Lawyers and two of the plaintiffs, including Ms. Baggett, appeared in U.S. District Court on April 9 for a hearing during which attorneys from both sides asked Judge Michael A. Ponsor to approve the preliminary settlement. Class members objected to male corrections officers holding cameras to photograph strip searches, although they had been instructed to film the process without looking, according to lawyers for Hampden County Sheriff Michael J. Ashe Jr. The plaintiffs argued the strip search video process was nonetheless degrading and unnecessary and violated their constitutional rights. "This is a good day but I know there are better days on the horizon," Ms. Baggett said after the court hearing. "These ladies are coming out of prison traumatized and belittled . . . In the meantime pompous blowhards get to have clambakes and tell everyone what great fellows they are." Ms. Baggett was referring to Mr. Ashe's annual clambake, which historically has drawn politicians all the way up to sitting governors and every candidate and incumbent in between. However, Judge Ponsor recognized Mr. Ashe as a "progressive and compassionate sheriff" during the hearing. Afterward, Theresa Finnegan, an attorney for Mr. Ashe, said the case has never been about male staff leering at women during strip searches, in the jail's estimation. "There was never any credible evidence that any male broke policy and training and observed any portion of a strip search," Ms. Finnegan said. "This included thousands of pages of paperwork, several depositions, interviews with prior inmates and staff. There were no written grievances that it happened by any inmate." Ms. Finnegan also said that the jail began revamping its policies around strip searches by shuffling staff in 2010, and that no male staffed had manned cameras in that context since 2013. The plaintiffs were represented by Howard Friedman and David Milton of Boston. Ms. Baggett called them "Neiman Marcus attorneys that ended up accepting a WalMart price." The lawsuit was filed in 2011. MCCLATCHY COMPANY: 1st Phase of Fresno Case Was to End March 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the first phase of the Fresno class action case began in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014 and was expected to conclude in late March 2015. The Company said, "In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a purported class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement. In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the State of California in Sacramento County. Both courts have certified the class in these cases. The class consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified damages for mileage reimbursement. With respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code for mileage. In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code." The court in the Sacramento case has trifurcated the trial into three separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status, the second phase will address liability, if any, and the third phase will address damages, if any. On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as independent contractors. "We objected to the tentative decision but the court ultimately adopted it as final. The court has not yet established a date for the second and third phases of trial concerning whether The Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in the class for mileage reimbursement or owes any damages," the Company said. The court in the Fresno case has bifurcated the trial into two separate phases: the first phase will address independent contractor status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second phase will address damages, if any. The first phase of the Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014 and is expected to conclude in late March 2015. "We are defending these actions vigorously and expect that we will ultimately prevail. As a result, we have not established a reserve in connection with the cases. While we believe that a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows from these claims is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable developments could result in future charges that could have a material impact. We have and will continue to periodically reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any associated expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such estimates based on experience and developments in litigation," the Company said. MERCER CANYONS: Judge Allows Farm Workers' Class Suit to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIMATV.com reports that Judge Stanley A. Bastian ruled on April 8 that a case involving over 600 farm workers may move ahead as a class action writing: "This case is a good reminder that employers must take care to comply with all applicable employment laws and regulations." The case was filed last year alleging that, in 2013, Mercer Canyons misled local farm workers when it failed to tell them about available, higher paying jobs under the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program and underpaid those who did the work in violation of federal and state law. Bacilio Ruiz and Jose Amador, two farm workers who filed the lawsuit, were approved as class representatives. Both worked or tried to get work at Mercer Canyons in 2013 and contend that the corporation failed to inform them that vineyard jobs were available paying $12 an hour, as required by law. Mercer Canyons, one of the largest fruit and vegetable growers on the West Coast based in Alderdale, WA, grows vegetables and grapes. In early 2013, Mercer Canyons applied for foreign H-2A workers and promised the federal government that it would comply with all federal and state employment laws. However, the corporation failed to notify all vineyard workers that there were jobs available at $12 an hour as promised in their application. "This is a case about a sophisticated employer taking advantage of hard-working farm worker families who have contributed to the company and our community," said Columbia Legal Services Attorney Lori Isley. "If a grower wants to benefit from importing foreign labor through the H-2A program, they have to play by the rules." As detailed in the case, when Amador and two family members inquired about work at Mercer Canyons, they were told that none was available. Mr. Ruiz had worked at Mercer Canyons throughout 2012 and in 2013, but the company never told him that vineyard work was available paying $12 an hour -- instead he made primarily $9.88 an hour for his work. "Clearly, there were experienced, local workers -- including the Plaintiffs and others just like them -- who were ready, able, and interested to work for Mercer Canyons," said Adam Berger, an attorney with Schroeter Goldmark Bender which represents the plaintiff farm workers along with Columbia Legal Services. "When corporations like Mercer Canyons deceive local workers and violate federal and state employment laws, farm workers and their families suffer." The case is asking the court to award each of the Plaintiffs and other members of the class wages unlawfully paid to foreign H-2A workers and other damages. Trial is scheduled for August 2015. MERCER CANYONS: Owner Disappointed With Certification Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Stanley A. Bastian, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, delivered a disappointing and surprising ruling for Mercer Canyons, Inc., granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of workers and over 600 alleged job seekers who the plaintiffs claim were not informed about the availability of 19 H-2A jobs and granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of vineyard workers who were allegedly underpaid for certain work. Mercer Canyons is a family-owned farm located south of Prosser, Washington near the Columbia River. In 2013, out of a concern that it would not be able to maintain a sufficient seasonal workforce, Mercer Canyons elected to use the federal H-2A program to hire foreign workers for temporary seasonal work in its vineyards. Under this government-approved program, both the federal and state government authorized Mercer Canyons to hire up to 44 foreign workers to perform specific tasks in its vineyards. Through efforts to recruit local workers, Mercer Canyons hired 22 local workers to fill the 44 slots, and ended up hiring only 19 foreign workers, all of whom were paid the higher wage rate required by the H-2A regulations. In addition, Mercer Canyons paid the same higher wage rate to other domestic workers performing H-2A designated work. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging that Mercer Canyons was misled farm workers about the availability of jobs under the H-2A program and failed to pay them the correct wages for some work performed in 2013. No court or government agency has found that Mercer Canyons violated any provision of the H-2A regulations. Mercer Canyons' H- 2A program was reviewed and approved by both the federal and state government. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class that included vineyard workers who had worked at Mercer Canyons in 2012, workers who sought employment at Mercer Canyons in 2013, and vineyard workers who had worked at Mercer Canyons in 2013. In addition, plaintiffs sought to certify a subclass of 2013 vineyard workers who allegedly were not paid the correct wages. Judge Bastian certified a class of workers and job seekers alleging that they were misled about the availability of the 19 H- 2A jobs filled by foreign workers. In this ruling, the court appeared to rely upon plaintiffs' assertion that Mercer Canyons had to inform every farmworker it had contact with about the availability of H-2A work, without pointing to any legal requirement to do so. Judge Bastian also certified a class of 2013 Mercer Canyons vineyard workers who allegedly were underpaid for certain work, accepting plaintiffs' assertion that it is permissible to determine underpayment in the aggregate without determining whether any individual class member actually was injured, and disregarding one of the plaintiff's testimony that Mercer Canyon had paid him correctly. "We are extremely disappointed in the decision and shocked in its reasoning," said Rob Mercer, owner of Mercer Canyons. He added, "Mercer Canyons has a rich and long tradition in that Yakima Valley of treating its workers well, and we take the allegations in the lawsuit very seriously. We will continue to vigorously defend the farm against what we believe are misguided claims and any court decision that is fundamentally flawed." MILES INDUSTRIES: Class Suit Filed Over Gas Fireplaces ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit covering all of Canada was commenced in December 2012 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Miles Industries Ltd., Canadian Heating Products, Inc., Monessen Hearth Canada, Inc., and Monessen Hearth Systems Company, doing business as Vermont Castings Group, alleging that between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2014 these manufacturers installed gas burning glass fronted fireplaces, fireplace inserts and stoves that are a danger to anyone who touches the hot glass, particularly young children. A proposed settlement has been reached that must still be approved by the Supreme Court of British Columbia to be effective. The settlement provides that all class members who have a fireplace, fireplace insert or stove of one of those manufacturers may receive free of charge a protective screen or barrier. MILLER ENERGY: Final Settlement in Class Action Approved -------------------------------------------------------- Miller Energy Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the final settlement in a class action was approved by the court, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. The Company said, "In August 2011, several purported class action lawsuits were filed against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The lawsuits made similar claims and have been consolidated into one case, styled In re Miller Energy Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation. The suit names us, along with several of our current and former executive officers, Scott Boruff, Paul Boyd, Ford Graham, David Hall, David Voyticky, and Deloy Miller, as defendants. The Plaintiffs allege two causes of action against the defendants: (1) violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The case seeks money damages against us and the other defendants, and payment of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees. We have filed a Motion to Dismiss the case, which was denied on February 4, 2014 as to all defendants save Ford Graham. On July 3, 2014, we agreed upon a settlement with the Plaintiffs under which the Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice in exchange for a settlement payment of $2,950, which was within the remaining policy limits of our director and officer insurance policy. The final settlement was approved by the court, and the case was dismissed with prejudice, as of February 3, 2015, subsequent to the end of the Company's third fiscal quarter." MIMEDX GROUP: Law Firm Filed Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Mimedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 19, 2015, one of the law firms that filed one of the class action lawsuits filed a separate purported class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to various statements and alleged omissions related to the Company's receipt of a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or OIG. The Company has not yet been served in the lawsuit. If and when it is served, the Company intends to vigorously defend the suit. Currently, the Company believes that the outcome of this litigation will not have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or results of operations. MINNESOTA: Commerce Dept. Sued Over Unclaimed Property Program -------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Mohr, writing for Crime & Courts, reported that a class- action lawsuit says the Minnesota Department of Commerce designed a system to collect unclaimed property and money that benefits government coffers but leaves rightful property owners in the dark. The suit, filed in Ramsey County District Court, says "Minnesota's policy of taking possession of property it knows it does not own and then selling, keeping, or otherwise benefiting from" the property -- valued at more than $600 million -- "violates the due process clauses of the United States and Minnesota constitutions." The suit was filed by Timothy Hall Jr., who claims he didn't get a final paycheck after he left a retail job and never got notice it was available. He was alerted to his unclaimed property by his father, who found it on missingmoney.com, the website the state uses to help people track their property, the lawsuit said. Hall's attorney, Dan Hedlund of the firm Gustafson Gluek in Minneapolis, said his client pursued a class-action suit because "he wasn't pleased with the situation of people not getting their money back. And he was surprised to find out that he had money owed to him that he hadn't received notice about." The lawsuit's main points: -- The state has made great efforts to collect unclaimed property, which includes money and personal items, but has made little effort to notify property owners who can claim what belongs to them. -- The unclaimed money goes into the state's general fund, meaning the "state has profited enormously," the suit asserts. The class action asks the court to determine whether the state's seizure of unclaimed property without notifying owners constitutes a "taking" -- in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which requires "just compensation" if private property is taken for public use. It also asks for a ruling on whether the state's use of a website where people can search for their names is adequate notification. Unclaimed property in Minnesota is overseen by the state Department of Commerce and regulated by the state's Unclaimed Property Act, which was enacted in 1969 and has been amended several times. Before the court weighs in on the issues, the Unclaimed Property Act could change again. Rep. Joe Atkins, DFL-Inver Grove Heights, has introduced a bill that addresses the same concerns as the lawsuit. It is awaiting a floor vote in the House, Atkins said. Atkins proposes adding three requirements: -- Publication of property owners' names in a newspaper. -- Proactive efforts to notify owners they have unclaimed property being held. -- Providing names of property owners to legislators, who would conduct their own outreach to constituents on the list. "We have a lot of other people's money that belongs to them, not us, and we ought to be doing a better job of getting it back to the rightful owners," Atkins said. Atkins said the state ramped up efforts about 10 years ago to collect unclaimed assets from insurance companies and other financial institutions, which resulted in huge increases to the funds. The value of unclaimed funds and property in the program at the end of fiscal year 2006 was more than $318 million, according to a spokesman for the Commerce Department. As of a few weeks ago, it was more than $654 million. "The number of claims being processed has increased significantly," said Ross Courson, spokesman for the department. In the first nine months of the current fiscal year, 13,759 claims were processed, Courson said. That's more than the total 13,052 claims of the last fiscal year, he said. "That's partly because the Commerce Department has revamped its claims processing to make it more consumer-friendly," he said. That includes an easier-to-use website and fewer documentation requirements, he said. While the commerce department has increased its efforts to reach property owners, it hasn't been enough, Atkins said. "Something has to change here," Atkins said. "Even with greater efforts by the department, we're still falling behind in getting people their money." It's unclear what effect passage of Atkins' bill would have on the class-action lawsuit. In California, where a similar class-action suit was filed, lawmakers changed the unclaimed property law, requiring the state to notify owners before property was taken into state custody. The California class action sought an additional effort of state officials to track down property owners using all available databases. On appeal, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of the case, saying the law's new notification requirements were sufficient. Hall's class-action lawsuit says, "The purpose of the (Minnesota law) is to protect consumers by placing unclaimed property in the custody of the state pending its return to its rightful owners. "But Minnesota seizes and uses private property for its own substantial benefit under the (Unclaimed Property Act) without making any meaningful effort to locate the rightful owners of this unclaimed property." Hedlund, Hall's attorney, said he sees this as a problem with a solution. "I think with some modest efforts, there could be great strides to reunite people with their money," he said. "And our hope is that this lawsuit will accomplish just that, either in law changes or in how the Department of Commerce deals with it. Because just setting up computers and telling people about missingmoney.com is insufficient to do what needs to be done to reunite these people with their money." MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Court Indicated It Would Approve Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the court has indicated that it would approve a class action settlement. The Company said, "On June 11, 2012, we announced the pending restatement of the Company's financial statements for the periods ending on or before April 30, 2012 (the "June 11, 2012 Announcement"), related to the Company's accounting treatment of rebates associated with volume discounts provided by vendors. The restated financial statements were filed on January 11, 2013. After the June 11, 2012 Announcement, stockholders of the Company commenced three purported class actions in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts arising from the circumstances described in the June 11, 2012 Announcement (the "Securities Actions"), entitled, respectively: * Irene Collier, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11044-DJC, filed June 12, 2012 (the "Collier Action"); * Alexander Shnerer Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11078-DJC, filed June 18, 2012 (the "Shnerer Action"); and * Harold Heszkel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler, and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11279-DJC, filed July 11, 2012 (the "Heszkel Action"). Each of the Securities Actions purports to be brought on behalf of those persons who purchased shares of the Company between September 26, 2007 through and including June 8, 2012 (the "Class Period") and alleges that failure to timely disclose the issues raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement during the Class Period rendered defendants' public statements concerning the Company's financial condition materially false and misleading in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Securities Actions. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 11, 2013. On March 26, 2014, following a November 8, 2013 hearing, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and, on May 26, 2014, the Company answered the Amended Complaint. In October 2014, the parties agreed to a stipulation for a proposed $4 million class settlement to be covered by insurance proceeds, subject to Court approval. On November 24, 2014, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, certification of the settlement class, and provision of notice of the settlement to the settling class. The Court held a final approval hearing for the settlement on March 11, 2015, at which the Court indicated that it would approve the settlement and enter an order as proposed by the parties. Once the Court has entered its order of final judgment, this matter will be concluded. NEW JERSEY: Kelly, Wildstein in Default in Bridgegate Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, report that Bridget Kelly and David Wildstein, two figures at the center of the Bridgegate scandal, have been found in default in connection with a putative class action suit brought on behalf of individuals and businesses who experienced traffic delays caused by the September 2013 closures of local access lanes to the George Washington Bridge. The clerk of court found Ms. Kelly and Mr. Wildstein in default May 4. Both were properly served, but neither filed a pleading or response to the complaint, interim class counsel Barry Epstein said in his request for default. Ms. Kelly and Mr. Wildstein are among the defendants named in the class action, Galicki v. State of New Jersey, which seeks damages for the traffic delays on the week of Sept. 9, 2013. The civil suit claims Kelly, a former deputy chief of staff to Gov. Chris Christie, and Mr. Wildstein, a former Christie appointee to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, were part of a scheme to cause extreme traffic delays in Fort Lee in retaliation for the failure of the town's mayor, Mark Sokolich, to endorse Mr. Christie's reelection campaign. Ms. Kelly accepted service of the complaint in the civil suit at her home in Ramsey in May 2014, according to a court document. She was required to issue a response to the court by July 4, 2014, but failed to do so, according to a filing by Mr. Epstein. Mr. Wildstein was served in January 2015 when the complaint was affixed to the door of his residence in Montville, a court document said. He was required to answer the complaint by March 12, 2015, but failed to do so, Epstein said in a filing. The default order comes on the heels of Mr. Wildstein's May 1 guilty plea to one count each of conspiracy to misapply Port Authority property and conspiracy against civil rights in a criminal case stemming from the lane closures, and the unsealing of an indictment on the same date that charged Ms. Kelly with conspiracy to misapply and misapplication of Port Authority property, as well as counts for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of civil rights. The civil suit seeks to recover on behalf of individuals and business owners who sustained physical or psychological injury or economic damages as a result of the defendants' conduct. In addition to Kelly and Wildstein, the defendants include Mr. Christie; his reelection campaign; the state of New Jersey; the Port Authority; former Port Authority deputy executive director Bill Baroni; Bill Stepien, a former deputy chief of staff to Christie; and Michael Drewniak, a former press secretary to Christie. All of the defendants aside from Kelly and Wildstein are represented by counsel. The state, the Port Authority, the Christie campaign, Stepien, Drewniak and Baroni have moved to dismiss the class suit, and the state and Drewniak have also moved to strike the class-action allegations and claims. The plaintiffs have until May 18 to file papers opposing those motions. Mr. Epstein, the interim class counsel, said he sought to serve Ms. Kelly through her lawyer in the criminal case, Michael Critchley Sr., but he refused to accept service. Mr. Epstein said events in the criminal case had served to delay progress in the civil case. Yet the criminal charges would also help "show there was a conspiracy going on with multiple parties that caused the traffic jam in violation of lots of laws," Mr. Epstein said, adding that the default would allow him to collect against Ms. Kelly and Mr. Wildstein even if he does not prevail against the other parties. But the case is a long way from any discussion of damages, Mr. Epstein said. Mr. Epstein also said he does not plan, based on what he knows now, to seek testimony from Christie in this case. Mr. Critchley and Alan Zegas, who represents Mr. Wildstein in the criminal case, did not return calls about the civil suit. OCEAN SPRAY: Judge Denies Plaintiff's Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Weinstein, Esq. and Benjamin Rattner, Esq. of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for National Law Review, report that Class certification in false advertising cases often fails due to problems with the class itself such as ascertainability. But what happens when a class action plaintiff admits she didn't rely upon the purportedly deceptive claims in making her purchasing decision? A recent decision in California's "food court" may provide an answer. In Major v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. before a federal court in the Northern District of California , the plaintiff alleged that Ocean Spray labeled its 100% juice products deceptively. Specifically, plaintiff claimed that Ocean Spray's 100% juice products boasted that they had "no sugar added," but, contrary to the requirements of 21 C.F.R. Sec. 101.60(c)(2) which California adopted, the labels of these juices omitted a disclaimer that they were not a "low calorie" or "calorie reduced" food. Plaintiff alleged that this omission rendered the 100% juice labels misleading under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and its Consumers Legal Remedies Act. She further alleged that the "no sugar added" claim was literally false because the 100% juice products allegedly included fruit juice concentrate -- an ingredient banned from products labeled "no sugar added" by federal and state regulations. Ocean Spray moved for partial summary judgment on these claims, while plaintiff attempted to certify a class with herself appointed as the lead plaintiff. Among other things, Ocean Spray highlighted plaintiff's deposition testimony wherein she conceded that she did not believe Ocean Spray's 100% juice products to be low calorie drinks. Ocean Spray also submitted evidence supporting plaintiff's understanding that "no sugar added" meant that there was no sugar present aside from what naturally existed in the fruit matched the way Ocean Spray blended its 100% juice. The Court granted Ocean Spray's motion for partial summary judgment. In granting Ocean Spray's motion, the Court held that the "no sugar added" claim had not even deceived the plaintiff, and therefore she had not relied upon the deception alleged in the complaint when purchasing the 100% juice products. Accordingly, plaintiff could not establish the necessary causation for a false advertising claim to advance. The Court also found the "no sugar added" claim was not literally false as plaintiff alleged because Ocean Spray used fruit juice from concentrate, not concentrated fruit juice, which contains sugar in excess of the amount that naturally exists in the fruit. Notably, the Court applied its summary judgment ruling against the plaintiff's class certification motion. In doing so, the Court held that an individual plaintiff's lack of reliance on the "no sugar added claim" prevented the Court from certifying a class. It remains to be seen whether plaintiff will appeal this ruling and whether other courts will follow the food court's lead in holding that admissions of non-reliance by the lead plaintiff can prevent a class from being certified. However, class plaintiffs that cannot substantiate causation and actual deception are liable to see their unripe claims pulped and put on ice. OMEGA FLEX: Judges Granted Motion to Dismiss 2 Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that two putative class action cases were filed against the Company; one in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida titled Hall v. Omega Flex, Inc. and one in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio titled Schoelwer v. Omega Flex, Inc. In both cases, the lead plaintiffs claimed that they are exposed to an increased likelihood of harm if one of the plaintiffs' houses that contain TracPipe corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) is struck by lightning, that could damage the CSST causing a release of fuel gas in the house and causing a fire. However, none of the lead plaintiffs have suffered any actual harm. In 2014, the judges in both cases granted the Company's motion to dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims due primarily to a lack of jurisdiction because there is no actual case or controversy posed by these claims. OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. stock OREX, +0.20% between March 3, 2015 and March 5, 2015. You are hereby notified that a class action has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of California. If you purchased Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. ("Orexigen") securities between March 3, 2015 and March 5, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information, go to: HTTP://ZLK.9NL.COM/OREX-INFOSHEET or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363- 7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that as part of the FDA's post-marketing approval process for its drug Contrave, Orexigen was required to conduct a "new . . . study to evaluate the effects of long-term treatment with Contrave on the incidence of [major adverse cardiac events] in overweight and obese subjects with [cardiovascular] disease or multiple [cardiovascular] risk factors." The complaint alleges that on March 3, 2015, Orexigen disclosed detailed interim results of its ongoing study despite the fact that the Company had been previously admonished by the FDA for inappropriately releasing interim study data. On March 5, 2015, a report published by Forbes quoted a purported FDA official as saying the interim data from the study was probably "unreliable" and "misleading" and suggesting that Orexigen could "face fines, civil penalties, or even the withdrawal of Contrave from the market." If you suffered a loss in Orexigen you have until May 11, 2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Discovery Stayed Under 2nd Scheduling Order --------------------------------------------------------------- Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Second Scheduling Order in a class action lawsuit stays all discovery in the case pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss. On May 25, 2012, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and executive officers (collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S- 3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and financial results, including misleading statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012. Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order, SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013. Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case are stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to address discovery and the filing of a motion for class certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and defendants' defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013, the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013. On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012. Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013 all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August 23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was held on April 29, 2014. A decision from the court on the motions to dismiss is pending. The Second Scheduling Order stays all discovery in the case pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informs the parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification will be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to dismiss. The matter is currently progressing through the legal process. The Orrstown Defendants believe that the allegations in the amended complaint are without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously against those claims. Considering that no ruling has been made on the motions to dismiss, discovery in the proceeding remains stayed and class certification has not been granted, it is not possible to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, at this time in connection with SEPTA's putative class action complaint. PACIFIC COAST: Faces Class Actions Filed by Welch and Berliner -------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Coast Oil Trust is facing class actions filed by Thomas Welch and Ralph Berliner, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others. The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court may deem just and proper. On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action. The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the consolidated action. Nevertheless, the Trust may incur expenses in connection with the litigation. The Trust will estimate and provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation to the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment will be required in making any such estimates and any actual liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different than any such estimates. The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in connection with the consolidated action, and has not established any reserves relating to the litigation. The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to cover future costs associated with the litigation if determined necessary at any time. PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Plaintiffs Have Yet to Amend Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Continental Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs in a class action have indicated that they intend to amend their complaint but have not done so as of the date of this form 10-K. On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (Class Action) was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, both currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The lawsuit, which initally asserted two claims for violations of state securities laws and a third claim for aiding breach of tort duties, names Pacific Continental Bank, along with the Holcomb Family Limited Partnership, Fred "Jack" W. Holcomb, Holcomb Family Trust, Jones & Roth, P.C. and Umpqua Bank, as defendants. Claimants seek the return of the money placed with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, plus interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. Those complaints indicate the range of damages sought by the putative class, which are claimed to be in excess of $10 million. The Class Action was removed from Oregon state court to the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon. On October 27, 2014, the federal court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court under exceptions to the Class Action Fairness Act but also referred the case to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon to resolve the issue of equitable remand of the case to state court. On January 14, 2015, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand. The Class Action is now pending in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah. After defendants filed motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs amended their complaint in the federal court proceedings, asserting one claim for violations of Oregon securities laws and omitting the second claim for violations of Oregon securities laws and the third claim for aiding breach of fiduciary duty. The Federal Court did not resolve the motions to dismiss before the case was remanded to State Court. Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to amend their complaint but have not done so as of the date of this form 10-K. PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: To Seek Dismissal of Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend a securities related class action lawsuit, including seeking dismissal of any amended complaint. The Company said, "On September 28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against us and certain of our executive officers and one consultant (collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the interim results of our bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On February 5, 2013, the court consolidated the related actions with the low- numbered case (captioned Anderson v. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647-PSG (FMOx)). After the court issued two separate orders granting the Defendants' two separate motions to dismiss, on May 1, 2014, the court issued a third order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice. On May 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with respect to the court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Lead plaintiff's opening brief with respect to the appeal was filed on December 15, 2014 and the Defendants' answering brief was filed on January 30, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a reply brief on February 27, 2015. We believe that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action, including seeking dismissal of any amended complaint." PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: HIPA Offers "No Shelter" to Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy G. Hulton, writing for The National Law Review, reported that back in 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the tort of invasion of privacy -- fast forward to the recent string of privacy breaches of personal information held by health care facilities in Ontario. Along comes Hopkins v. Kay, 2014 ONSC 321 (CanLII), where patients from the Peterborough Regional Health Centre (the "Hospital") have launched a $5.6 million class action lawsuit against the Hospital alleging that approximately 280 patient records were intentionally and unlawfully accessed and disseminated to third parties without the patients' consent. The Hospital, in response, brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim on the basis that it did not disclose a cause of action, arguing that the claim was precluded by the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, SO 2004, c 3, Sch A ("PHIPA") because the legislature intended PHIPA to be a comprehensive code that displaces any common law cause of action, including intrusion upon seclusion (aka the tort of breach of privacy). The Hospital's position is that the plaintiffs' only recourse is a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Hospital's motion to strike, concluding that it was not plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and the Hospital launched an appeal of this decision. The Ontario Court of Appeal subsequently held that the Hospital cannot escape from the proposed class action proceeding on the basis of the provisions of PHIPA. The proposed class action was launched by a former patient whose records were improperly accessed. Her claim was based on the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, a claim recognized by Ontario courts in Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, 108 O.R. (3d) 241. The representative plaintiff, Erkenraadje Wensvoort, claims that she attended the Hospital on several occasions for treatment of injuries inflicted by her ex-husband. She eventually left her husband, but still feared for her safety. Along with two hundred eighty other patients, the plaintiff received two notices from the Hospital notifying her that the privacy of her personal health information has breached. The plaintiff was afraid that her ex- husband had paid someone to access her records in order to try to find her. Wensvoort initially relied on breaches of PHIPA to assert a cause of action, but she later amended her statement of claim to contain only the common law cause of action identified in Jones v. Tsige for intrusion upon seclusion. PHIPA is an Ontario law that governs the collection, use and disclosure of personal health information. It also provides rules to protect the confidentiality of that information and the privacy of individuals, while facilitating the effective provision of health care. PHIPA provides that an individual may make a complaint to Ontario's Information and Privacy Commission for contravention of the Act and the Commissioner has powers to make a variety of orders to ensure compliance with the Act. The Court also noted that: The possibility of recovering damages as a result of a breach of PHIPA is the subject of s. 65: 65. (1) If the Commissioner has made an order under this Act that has become final as the result of there being no further right of appeal, a person affected by the order may commence a proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice for damages for actual harm that the person has suffered as a result of a contravention of this Act or its regulations. (2) If a person has been convicted of an offence under this Act and the conviction has become final as a result of there being no further right of appeal, a person affected by the conduct that gave rise to the offence may commence a proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice for damages for actual harm that the person has suffered as a result of the conduct. (3) If, in a proceeding described in subsection (1) or (2), the Superior Court of Justice determines that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was caused by a contravention or offence, as the case may be, that the defendants engaged in willfully or recklessly, the court may include in its award of damages an award, not exceeding $10,000, for mental anguish. The Court of Appeal pointed out that PHIPA does not allow the Commissioner to award damages, and instead requires individuals to bring an action in Superior Court to seek compensation for any harm caused. The Court found that this undermines the argument that the legislature intended to exclude courts from resolving disputes governed by PHIPA. The Court ultimately concluded that PHIPA does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Commissioner to resolve all disputes over misuse of personal health information, holding: PHIPA's highly discretionary review procedure is tailored to deal with systemic issues rather than individual complaints. There is no basis to exclude the jurisdiction of the Superior Court from entertaining a common law claim for breach of privacy and, given the absence of an effective dispute resolution procedure, there is no merit to the suggestion that the court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction. The health care community needs to be even more vigilant in its efforts to protect the privacy of health information, now that Hopkins has thrown the doors wide open to tort claims against custodians of health information for privacy breaches. PLY GEM: Approval of Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court's final approval order of the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement is under appeal. In John Gulbankian and Robert D. Callahan v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"), plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of MW's V-Wood windows. In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Hartshorn"), a purported class action filed in July 2012 in the Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of MW's Freedom and Freedom 800 windows. On April 22, 2014, plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, making similar claims against all MW vinyl clad windows, including MW's V-Wood, Freedom, Freedom 600 and Freedom 800 windows. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. During 2014, MW engaged in mediation sessions with plaintiffs' counsel for both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases. MW signed a settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April 18, 2014 that would settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a nationwide basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement provides that this settlement applies to any and all MW vinyl clad windows manufactured from January 1, 1987 through May 23, 2014, and provides for a cash payment for eligible consumers submitting qualified claims showing, among other requirements, certain damage to their MW vinyl clad windows. The Court granted preliminary approval of this settlement on May 23, 2014, and issued a Final Approval Order, Final Judgment, and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice on December 29, 2014, granting final approval of the settlement as well as MW's payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $2.5 million. On January 13, 2015, notice of appeal of the final approval was given by certain objectors to the settlement, Karl Memari, Joelene Connor-Hethcox and Vincent Cecil Garrett, Jr. As the Court's final approval order is under appeal, the settlement is not yet final, and if the Court's final approval order is overturned on appeal, the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement will not be binding on the parties. The Company and MW deny all liability in the settlement and with respect to the facts and claims alleged. "We, however, are aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, and agreed to settle the litigation to avoid these," the Company said. "As a result of this settlement, we recognized a $5.0 million expense during the year ended December 31, 2014 within selling, general, and administrative expenses in our consolidated statement of operations in the Company's Windows and Doors segment. It is possible that we may incur costs in excess of the recorded amounts; however, we currently expect that the total net cost to resolve the lawsuits will not exceed approximately $5.0 million. Approximately $4.6 million of this liability is currently outstanding, with $2.6 million as a current liability within accrued expenses and $2.0 million as a noncurrent liability within other long-term liabilities in our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014." PLY GEM: Class Certification in "Memari" Case Not Yet Scheduled --------------------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the hearing regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled as the Memari case is currently stayed pending the appeal in the Gulbankian and Hartshorn matters. In Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported class action filed in March 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the illegality and/or defects of MW's vinyl clad windows. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) actual and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive damages, and (iii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. Discovery regarding class certification has closed, however, the hearing regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled as this case is currently stayed pending the appeal in the Gulbankian and Hartshorn matters. While the damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified, it is expected that, if the settlement of the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases receives final approval after appeal, it will result in the dismissal of this action. PLY GEM: No Class Certification Ruling Yet in "Pagliaroni" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has not yet ruled on the class certification in the case filed by Anthony Pagliaroni. In Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and railing, which was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC ("Deceuninck") and sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. ("MHE"). The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. Discovery regarding class certification has closed and the hearing regarding class certification was held on March 10, 2015, although the Court has not yet ruled on this hearing. Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has agreed to indemnify MHE for certain liabilities related to this claim pursuant to the sales and distribution agreement, as amended, between Deceuninck and MHE. MHE's ability to seek indemnification from Deceuninck is, however, limited by the terms of the indemnity as well as the strength of Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change in the future. PLY GEM: Faces Class Action by Aaron Kraemer -------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in Aaron Kraemer v. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported class action filed in February 2015 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of MW's Mira aluminum clad wood windows. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) actual and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive damages, (iii) injunctive and declaratory relief, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. PLY GEM: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Filed ------------------------------------------------------ Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants have filed their motion to dismiss the Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., Securities Litigation. In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., Securities Litigation is a purported federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's IPO. It is filed on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and seeks remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was negligently prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material information which was required to be disclosed. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) damages together with interest thereon and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. On February 13, 2015, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013, entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter. Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013, between the Company and each of the directors and officers named in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of such directors and officers. "We believe the purported federal securities class action is without merit and will vigorously defend against the lawsuit," the Company said. PROVECTUS BIOPHARMA: Lead Plaintiff Has Yet to File Amended Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of March 4, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit has yet to file a consolidated amended complaint. On May 27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Farrah Case"), and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Chaney Case"), and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Dauphinee Case") (the plaintiffs in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), each filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Company, H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the "Defendants") alleging violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege that the Defendants are liable for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about the Company, in connection with the Company's application to the FDA for Breakthrough Therapy Designation ("BTD") of the Company's melanoma drug, PV-10, in the Spring of 2014, and the FDA's subsequent denial of the Company's application for BTD. The Company intends to defend vigorously against all claims in these complaints. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation and the early stage of this litigation, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. No amounts have been recorded in the consolidated financial statements as the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and the amount of any potential loss is not estimable at this time. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. By order dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case (collectively and, as consolidated, the "Securities Litigation") and transferred the Securities Litigation to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. On November 26, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (the "Court") entered an order appointing Fawwaz Hamati as the Lead Plaintiff in the Securities Litigation, with the Law Firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP as counsel to Lead Plaintiff. On February 3, 2015, the Court entered an order compelling the Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days of entry of the order. As of March 4, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff has yet to file a consolidated amended complaint. QUIKSILVER INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal securities class action has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased securities of Quiksilver, Inc., from June 6, 2014 through March 26, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Wolf Haldenstein encourages all shareholders who suffered losses on Quiksilver securities purchased within the Class Period to contact us immediately at (800) 575-0735 or email classmember@whafh.com According to the lawsuit, during the period between March 4, 2015 and March 27, 2015, the Company revealed that it would delay its first quarter earnings report due to its audit committee investigation of a "revenue cut-off issue," and that its internal controls over financial reporting were not effective as of October 31, 2014. On March 26, 2015, the Company announced that its Chief Executive Officer, Andy Mooney, and Chief Financial Officer, Richard Shields, had left the Company. In addition, the Company restated its selected quarterly fiscal year 2014 balance sheet data and income statement data as a result of a write-down concerning the sale of its stake in Surfdome Shop Ltd. If you purchased Quiksilver securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than June 1, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has over 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com All e-mail correspondence should make reference to the "Quiksilver Investigation." REACHLOCAL INC: Lawsuit Filed by Former Clients in Early Stage -------------------------------------------------------------- ReachLocal, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the lawsuit filed by one of the Company's former clients is at an early stage. The Company said, "On May 2, 2014, a lawsuit, purporting to be a class action, was filed by one of our former clients in the United States District Court in Los Angeles. The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California's unfair competition law. The complaint seeks monetary damages, restitution and attorneys' fees. We filed a motion to dismiss on June 20, 2014, which was denied on December 4, 2014. While the case is at an early stage, we believe that the case is substantively and procedurally without merit. Our insurance carrier is providing us with a defense under a reservation of rights." RESTAURANT BRANDS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held --------------------------------------------------------- Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company expected final court approval hearing of a class action settlement to take place in April 2015. On March 1, 2013, Jay Clogg Realty Group, Inc. v. Burger King Corporation, Civ. Action No. 8-13-CV-00662 (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland), a putative class action lawsuit, was filed against Burger King Corporation in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. The complaint alleges that Burger King Corporation and/or its agents sent unsolicited advertisements by fax to thousands of consumers in Maryland and elsewhere in the United States to promote its home delivery program in violation of the Telephone Consumers Protection Act. The plaintiff sought monetary damages and injunctive relief. On August 19, 2014, Burger King Corporation agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle the lawsuit. On December 2, 2014, the parties finalized a settlement agreement which received preliminary court approval on December 2, 2014. "We expect the final court approval hearing to take place in April 2015," the Company said. ROCK CREEK: Court Scheduled Final Approval Hearing for June 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court scheduled a final approval hearing for June 22, 2015, in the Securities Class Action Lawsuits. Three individuals, Francis J. Reuter, Charles Boravian and Marty Cole, filed separate similar purported class actions on behalf of putative classes of persons or entities collectively encompassing those who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between October 31, 2011 and March 18, 2013. The first action was filed on or about March 25, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Francis J. Reuter v. Star Scientific, Inc. et al., E.D. Va. Richmond Division, 13-00183-JAG (the "Reuter Action"). The Reuter Action named as defendants the Company, its subsidiary, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (which is now known as RCP Development, Inc.), and certain of the Company's current or former officers and/or employees. The second action was filed on or about March 26, 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boravian v. Star Scientific, Inc. et al. D. Mass. 13-1-695-DJC (the "Boravian Action"). The Boravian Action named as defendants the Company and Jonnie R. Williams, Sr. and was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. The third action was filed on or about May 7, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Cole v. Star Scientific, Inc. et al., E.D. Va. Richmond Division, 13-00287-JAG (the "Cole Action"). The Cole Action named as defendants, the Company, its subsidiary, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (which is now known as RCP Development, Inc.), and certain of its officers and employees. In general, the complaints collectively allege that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder as related to statements made regarding its past and future prospects and certain scientific data relating to its products, as well as related to unspecified private placements and related party transactions engaged in since 2006. The Reuter Action and the Cole Action have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed by the Court in the consolidated cases on June 21, 2013. Pursuant to a joint scheduling order in place in these cases, plaintiff filed a consolidated operative complaint on September 5, 2013 and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated operative complaint on October 25, 2013. Following full briefing and argument on January 7, 2014, the Court indicated that it would not grant the motion at that time and would allow the case to proceed to discovery, but ordered additional briefing. Also, the Court entered a scheduling order for discovery and an order directing the parties to participate in mediation before a Magistrate Judge. Defendants thereafter filed answers. Subsequently, the United States, on January 28, 2014, moved to stay discovery in the case pending the completion or other disposition of the criminal trial of former Governor McDonnell and his wife. That motion was granted by the Court on January 28, 2014. On February 12, 2014, the Court granted a joint motion by the parties to stay all deadlines other than a court sponsored mediation session and the issuance of the Court's opinion on the motion to dismiss. On March 11, 2014, defendants filed a motion for leave to submit new authority in support of their motion to dismiss. On March 13, 2014, the Court granted defendants' motion and ordered the submission of additional supplemental briefs by the parties. Those briefs were filed on March 19, 2014 and March 26, 2014. On June 11, 2014, a mediation conference was held before Magistrate Judge David J. Novak. On July 29, 2014, the parties participated in a private mediation and reached an agreement in principle on a settlement dependent on certain material conditions within the control of third-parties. Following a status conference on October 10, 2014, which the court ordered since the parties had not yet been able to finalize the preliminary settlement, the court lifted the discovery stay, set a trial date for May 18, 2015, and ordered briefing on class certification and for the defendants to submit any motion to dismiss. The parties continued to litigate. On January 15, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement. On February 5, 2015, the parties filed an amended stipulation of settlement and the lead plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of the settlement. A preliminary approval hearing was held on February 12, 2015, after which the Court entered an order indicating that preliminary approval of the settlement would be conditional on counsel submitting a new notice to shareholders that the Court finds acceptable. The Court also scheduled a final approval hearing for June 22, 2015. After the parties filed a revised notice, the court on March 2, 2015 entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for notice. The Company has recorded the obligation and related insurance proceeds receivable as of December 31, 2014. ROCK CREEK: Baldwin Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------- Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Baldwin filed an Amended Complaint against Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. f/k/a Star Scientific, Inc., RCP Development, Inc. f/k/a Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and GNC Holdings, Inc. in the Consumer Class Action. On January 27, 2014, Howard T. Baldwin filed a purported class action naming the Company, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and GNC Holding, Inc., or "GNC," as defendants. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Generally, the complaint alleged that claims made for the Company's Anatabloc(R) product have not been proven and that individuals purchased the product based on alleged misstatements regarding characteristics, uses, benefits, quality and intended purposes of the product. The complaint purported to allege claims for violation of state consumer protection laws, breach of express and implied warranties and unjust enrichment. The Company has agreed to indemnify and defend GNC pursuant to the terms of the purchasing agreement between RCP Development and GNC. Consistent with that commitment, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of this matter on its own behalf as well as on behalf of GNC. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 24, 2014. On January 13, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. On February 10, 2015, Mr. Baldwin filed an Amended Complaint against Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. f/k/a Star Scientific, Inc., RCP Development, Inc. f/k/a Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and GNC Holdings, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"). The Amended Complaint also includes an additional named plaintiff, Jerry Van Norman, who alleges that he is a citizen of Parkville, Missouri. The Amended Complaint requests certification of an "Illinois Class" consisting of "[a]ll persons who paid, in whole or in part, for Anatabloc dietary supplement in Illinois between August 1, 2011 and the present for personal, family or household uses," and a "Missouri Class" consisting of "[a]ll persons who paid, in whole or in part, for Anatabloc dietary supplement in Missouri between August 1, 2011 and the present for personal, family or household uses." The Amended Complaint is pleaded in seven counts: (1) violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act of Illinois; (2) violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act; (3) breach of express warranty under Illinois law; (4) breach of express warranty under Missouri law; (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Illinois law; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Missouri law; and (7) unjust enrichment. Like the original complaint, the Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants manufactured, marketed and/or sold Anatabloc, a dietary supplement purportedly derived from an anatabine alkaloid, and promoted Anatabloc as a "wonder drug" with a number of medical benefits and uses, from treating excessive inflammation (associated with arthritis) to Alzheimer's disease, traumatic brain injury (or concussions), diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have never proven any of these claims in clinical trials or received FDA approval for Anatabloc, and that Anatabloc "was never the 'wonder drug' it claimed to be." Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Anatabloc based upon claims that it provides "anti-inflammatory support." Mr. Baldwin alleges that he purchased Anatabloc to "reduce inflammation and pain in his joints," and Mr. Van Norman alleges that he "suffers back and knee problems, as well as arthritis, and expected Anatabloc to be effective in treating these symptoms and purchased Anatabloc to help alleviate his symptoms." Both plaintiffs allege that Anatabloc did not provide the relief promised by the Defendants. Although the Amended Complaint does not include claims based on the consumer protection laws and breach of warranty laws of several additional states like the original Complaint, on February 10, 2015, counsel for plaintiffs also served a "Notice pursuant to: Alabama Code Sec. 8-19-10(e); Alaska Statutes Sec.45.50.535; California Civil Code Sec. 1782; Georgia Code Sec. 10-1-399; Indiana Code Sec. 24-5-0.5-5(a); Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5, Sec. 50-634(g); Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Sec. 9(3); Texas Business & Commercial Code Sec. 17.505; West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-6-106(b); and Wyoming Statutes Sec. 40-12-109 as well as state warranty statutes," which purports to give notice to Defendants on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a "class of similarly situated individuals" that Defendants have "violated state warranty statutes and engaged in consumer fraud and deceptive practices in connection with its sale of Anatabloc," and demanding that "Defendants correct or otherwise rectify the damage caused by such unfair trade practices and warranty breaches and return all monies paid by putative class members." RUST-OLEUM: Faces Class Action Over Deck Protector Product ---------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline, reported that a company that sells deck treatments was sued on April 1 over allegations its newest product failed to live up to claims of protecting decks for 10 years. Michael Baden, Michael Allen, Cynthia Scaglione and Inese Blanchard filed the lawsuit against Rust-Oleum alleging its Restore product would chip and peel months after it was applied to decks. The lawsuit alleged that after months of using the product it began to bubble and peel away, leaving the decks looking worse than before applying the Restore. The lawsuit alleged Rust-Oleum continues to violate state law by marketing and selling the product when it doesn't perform as advertised. The lawsuit seeks class status for those who purchased the Restore product and is asking for $5 million plus court costs. The plaintiffs are represented by Edward A. Wallace and Amy E. Keller, of Wexler Wallace, LLP in Chicago; Eric H. Gibbs, A.J. De Bartolomeo and Steve Lopez, of Gibbs Law Group, LLP in Oakland, Calif.; and William M. Audet and Theodore H. Chase, of Audet & Partners, LLP in San Francisco. SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Appeals Court Reinstates Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Sturms, writing for The National Law Review, reported that on March 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made a number of significant holdings in a case involving a mutual fund advised by Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (CSIM). The following is a summary of the litigation to date, including the recent findings by the Ninth Circuit: In August 2008, North star Financial Advisors, Inc., on behalf of its clients, filed a shareholder class action lawsuit against Schwab Investments, a Massachusetts business trust, the board of trustees of Schwab Investments and CSIM, setting forth a number of claims based on allegations that the Schwab. Total Return Bond Fund, a series of Schwab Investments for which CSIM serves as investment adviser, deviated from its fundamental investment policies. Specifically, between September 2007 and February 2009, the Fund is alleged to have: (1) deviated from its fundamental investment objective to track the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, the Fund's benchmark, by investing in non-U.S. agency collateralized mortgage obligations that were not included in the Index; and (2) invested in non agency mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations in excess of fundamental investment policies prohibiting the Fund from investing more than 25% of its total assets in any industry and investing more than 25% of its total assets in U.S. agency and non-agency mortgage- backed securities and CMOs. As a result of these investments, the Fund significantly underperformed its benchmark during the relevant period. The plaintiffs' initial complaint asserted a number of claims relating to this activity, including: a violation of Section 13(a) of the 1940 Act, which prohibits a fund from, among other things, deviating from a fundamental investment policy without shareholder approval; a breach of fiduciary duty by the Fund's board of trustees relating to a denial of voting rights; a breach of a purported contract between Fund shareholders and Schwab Investments created when shareholders voted in 1997 to change the Fund's fundamental investment policies to those alleged to have been violated; and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The defendants initially moved to dismiss the suit, claiming that North star, the lead plaintiff, had no standing to sue because it never itself invested in the Fund, and that there is no private right of action under Section 13(a). The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California agreed that Norths tar had no standing to sue but allowed a shareholder's claim to be assigned to North star to cure the deficiency. While the District Court initially ruled against the defendants on the Section 13(a) claim, the defendants ultimately prevailed on appeal, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that there was no private right of action under that section. In September 2010, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to re move the Section 13(a) claim and add a claim for breach of the investment advisory contract between Schwab Investments and CSIM, which required CSIM to manage the Fund in accordance with the Fund's fundamental investment objectives and policies, on a theory that plaintiffs were third-party beneficiaries of the contract. The defendants again moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that all of the plaintiffs' claims should be precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), which prohibits class actions brought by more than 50 plaintiffs if the action is based on state law claims and alleges either a material misrepresentation or omission or the use of manipulation or deception in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. On this point, the District Court agreed that all of the plaintiffs' claims, with the exception of the fiduciary duty claim to the extent it was based purely on Massachusetts law, should be precluded by SLUSA because such claims all related essentially to misrepresentations by the defendants, in the Fund's prospectuses and other documents, relating to how the Fund would be managed. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, determining that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the 1997 proxy vote created a contract between Schwab Investments and Fund shareholders. The District Court also determined that the harm from the purported breach of fiduciary duty affected all shareholders equally and therefore was properly viewed as being inflicted on the Fund; accordingly, the District Court determined that the claim must be brought in a derivative suit rather than individually by Fund shareholders. The District Court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to reassert the fiduciary duty claim in a manner so as not to be derivative or to implicate SLUSA. Finally, while the District Court was not fully persuaded by the defendants' arguments that Fund shareholders were not third-party beneficiaries of the investment advisory contract, the District Court noted that this claim, as previously presented, was precluded by SLUSA. The District Court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to re-assert the third-party beneficiary claim in a manner that did not trigger SLUSA preclusion. In March 2011, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint, w hich contained revised breach of fiduciary duty claims against Schwab Investments' board of trustees and CSIM as well as updated breach of contract claims against CSIM under the third-party beneficiary theory. The defendants again moved to dismiss all claims. The District Court was not persuaded by the plaintiffs' additional pleading on the fiduciary duty claims and dismissed with prejudice all of the claims, determining that such claims failed to allege a breach of duty owed directly to shareholders, and that these claims would need to be brought derivatively. The District Court also dismissed the third-party beneficiary claims with prejudice, having not been persuaded by additional pleading that shareholders should be considered third-party beneficiaries of an investment advisory contract under California law. The plaintiffs thereafter appealed a number of the claims previously dismissed by the District Court, including the breach of contract claim relating to the 1997 proxy vote, the fiduciary duty claims and the third-party beneficiary claim relating to the Fund's investment advisory contract. On March 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the prior dismissal of these claims and remanded the case for further deliberation. In reversing the prior dismissal of the breach of contract claim relating to the 1997 proxy vote, the Ninth Circuit concluded that "the mailing of the proxy statement and the adoption of the two fundamental investment policies after the shareholders voted to approve them, and the annual representations by the Fund that it would follow these policies are sufficient to form a contract between the shareholders on the on e hand and [Schwab Investments] on the other." The Ninth Circuit concluded that the Fund offered investors the right to invest on the terms set forth in its proxy statement and prospectuses, that shareholders accepted the offer by so investing, that the investment or continued investment by shareholders was the consideration and that the parties' object was lawful, thereby satisfying the requirements for a contract. The Ninth Circuit also vacated the prior dismissal of the plain tiffs' fiduciary duty claims, disagreeing with the District Court's determination that the plaintiffs "failed to successfully allege a breach of any duty owed directly to Fund investors." The Ninth Circuit pointed to the Fund's declaration of trust, which states that "the Trustees hereby declare that they will hold all cash, securities and other assets, which they may from time to time acquire as Trustees hereunder IN TRUST to manage and dispose of the same . . . for the pro rata benefit of the holders from time to time of Shares of the Trust." In addition, citing cases under Massachusetts law and various secondary sources, the Ninth Circuit determined that trustees of a Massachusetts business trust owe a fiduciary relationship to all trust shareholders, and that "there is no logical basis for the argument that the trustees of a mutual fund organized as a Massachusetts business trust owe a fiduciary duty to the trust, rather than the shareholders, and that for this reason they are limited to a derivative action on behalf of the trust." The Ninth Circuit further identified general differences between when a derivative action should be required in the case of an operating corporation, where share prices rise and fall as a by-product of business success and share price declines may result from either unsuccessful decisions or fiduciary misconduct, and in the case of a mutual fund, where there is no business other than investing and any decrease in share price flows directly and immediately to shareholders, which would especially be true when such a decrease results from the violation of a fundamental investment policy. Finally, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision below to dismiss the third-party beneficiary claim relating to the Fund's investment advisory contract, concluding that plaintiffs adequately alleged that the investment advisory contract was entered into with the intention to benefit Fund shareholders. Among other things, the Ninth Circuit cited as evidence that shareholders should be considered third party beneficiaries of the investment advisory contract the requirement of the 1940 Act that investment advisory contracts be approved by fund shareholders. The Ninth Circuit declined to address the effect of SLUSA on the various common law causes of action in the case and remanded the case to the District Court to determine the applicability of SLUSA to the plaintiffs' various claims. SEAWORLD PARKS: Faces "Kuhl" Class Suit Over Orca Mistreatment -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reported that a South Carolina woman has become the second plaintiff in the past 30 days to file a proposed class action lawsuit against SeaWorld over allegations of deceptive marketing about whales in captivity. The lawsuit is part of continuing fallout from attacks on SeaWorld's culture, which came under fire in a 2013 documentary, Blackfish, and again in a recent book by a former trainer, John Hargrove. The new lawsuit, filed in Orlando federal court, takes aim specifically at the Florida SeaWorld location. A similar suit filed in California in March targeted the SeaWorld locations in San Diego and San Antonio also. The new suit was filed by Gainesville attorney Paul Rothstein, on behalf of South Carolina resident Joyce Kuhl. Kuhl said she bought a $97 ticket to SeaWorld Orlando in December of 2013. The lawsuit alleges that Kuhl "relied on a false understanding of the conditions and treatment of SeaWorld's orcas, given SeaWorld's omission of fact regarding the treatment, longevity and well-being of the orcas." The suit includes a lengthy list of allegations about mistreatment of whales at SeaWorld, including sunburn, living in cramped spaces, short life spans, broken teeth, broken up whale families, and intentional witholding of food. SeaWorld said in a statement about the previous suit in California that "SeaWorld is among the world's most respected zoological institutions, regularly inspected by the U.S. government and two professional zoological associations. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums recently granted SeaWorld accreditation from its independent Accreditation Commission. There is no higher priority for SeaWorld than the health and well-being of its animals." The Florida lawsuit proposes to eventually include all people who bought a ticket at SeaWorld Orlando in the past four years. Although the company doesn't release attendance figures for individual parks, it reported in 2014 that annual attendance for the three parks dropped 4.1 percent to 24.4 million visitors. The California lawsuit was filed in March by an attorney that also worked for Hargrove. SEAWORLD PARKS: Author of 'Beneath the Surface' Warned ------------------------------------------------------ Ken Stone, writing for Times of San Diego, reported that a lawyer writing on behalf of SeaWorld warned former killer whale trainer John Hargrove against disclosing "confidential information" in his then-upcoming book "Beneath the Surface." Attorney Lawrence Iser, in a 580-word letter to Hargrove in mid- November, said SeaWorld didn't consent to use of such information in the book and demanded that he "immediately certify, in writing and under oath," that he wouldn't divulge company secrets. "Should you fail to make this certification as requested, SeaWorld reserves its right to exercise all of its rights and remedies against you (and Macmillan Publishing) at law and in equity, all of which are hereby expressly reserved," said the letter. The letter was provided to Times of San Diego by Hargrove. When Hargrove described the letter as a threat intended to block the critical book, SeaWorld spokesman Fred Jacobs said: "We never threatened Hargrove with a lawsuit." Hargrove signed an employee agreement in February 2008 but not the "declaration" demanded by SeaWorld in the Nov. 13 letter from Iser. Was the letter a threat of legal action? Iser said no, writing: The concluding paragraph of my letter does not contain a threat to sue Mr. Hargrove. Quite to the contrary, it constitutes a reservation of rights that is typical of letters of this type. You should be aware that when SeaWorld did not sue Mr. Hargrove, his attorneys filed a meritless class action lawsuit against the company in what appeared to be an attempt to garner publicity for his book. The fact that Mr. Hargrove subsequently released to the news media my letter is consistent with his apparent desire to obtain additional publicity for himself and his book. But experts with Californians Aware, a journalist resource group, saw a threat in the letter. "Yes," said a representative of CalAware, which mainly focuses on government transparency. "It states that a book about his experiences with SeaWorld would violate the nondisclosure agreement that bound him as an employee and continues to bind him as a former employee, and that SeaWorld intends to take legal action to enforce the agreement." However, CalAware said SeaWorld's power to enforce the agreement was "very dubious." "Generally, NDAs are enforceable to the extent they expressly protect specific intellectual property, such as trade secrets that would have demonstrable utility to a competitor if revealed," CalAware said. "This agreement purports to make all that the employee learns about the company by working there confidential and subject to the NDA in perpetuity -- a little like the British Official Secrets Act." SeaWorld itself didn't respond to requests for comment. Neither has MacMillan, publisher of the book by the former SeaWorld San Diego trainer. Hargrove, 41, has said that MacMillan also received lawsuit threats to block the book, which is No. 2 on The New York Times' bestseller list for animal books. CalAware cautioned that the SeaWorld letter, "coming from a private, nongovernmental employer," is not a First Amendment issue. "Employers are free to try their best to gag employees from disclosing what they learn on or because of the job," CalAware said. "Whether a particular NDA will work is another question." But Hargrove, who calls himself an orca advocate rather than activist, says the letter is part of SeaWorld's efforts to silence him. The Orlando-based company released a 5-year-old video showing its former senior killer whale trainer drunk and using the N-word seven times. Hargrove, who also appeared in the documentary "Blackfish," has repeatedly apologized for his taped behavior. SeaWorld, meanwhile, has begun soliciting the public to join its "Truth Team," part of a push to improve its reputation and blunt a decline in stock value and attendance that led to the December resignation of James Atchison, its CEO and president. People who sign up for the SeaWorld newsletter are told: "As a member of our special Truth Team, you'll receive weekly emails on current topics and specific ways you can help spread the truth." It told subscribers to be on the alert for "rapid response" messages with "urgent action items" that require "immediate attention." SMITH & NEPHEW: Medical Device Class Certification Denied --------------------------------------------------------- Randy C. Sutton, writing for Norton Rose Fulbright, reported that a recent Alberta decision refusing to certify a proposed medical device class action illustrates that in some cases a class action is not preferable given the individual nature of the claims. Overview of the case. The defendant manufactured a hip resurfacing system used by members of the proposed class as an alternative to a total hip replacement. The representative plaintiff underwent the procedure to implant this system and allegedly experienced problems, including cobalt poisoning, which led to the system's removal. Class counsel said he had been retained by nine additional class members who had experienced similar problems with the resurfacing system. The representative plaintiff sought to certify a class action on behalf of all individuals in Canada who had had the defendant's hip resurfacing system implanted. Certification denied The court rejected certification based on the following reasons. First, the court found no evidence of a second individual who suffered the same harm as the putative representative plaintiff. In the court's view, it was not sufficient that counsel had identified nine other individuals with similar problems without identifying any of the other putative class members or their evidence, or indeed any particulars at all beyond "similar problems." The court viewed this as a description "so brief and generic as to defeat any attempt to evaluate whether there is 'some basis in fact' to bare, conclusory allegations." The court also rejected what little evidence it did have of other class members as being hearsay and "double hearsay," with the plaintiff describing claims that had been described to her counsel. Second, many of the common issues proposed by the plaintiff, such as the question of whether a duty of care existed, were not in dispute. Moreover, the plaintiff's proposed common issues did not speak to the real issue of whether the product should have been on the market at all. Third, and most importantly, the court concluded that a class action was not preferable. The court found that, contrary to the requirements of section 5(2)(a) of the Alberta Class Proceedings Act, a class action in relation to these claims would be predominated by questions affecting individual class members. Considering the many possible causes of the harm and the known and disclosed risks of the procedure, the court held that causation would be a significant issue for each individual class member. The court rejected the argument that defining the issue as whether the product should be on the market at all would result in the common issue taking precedence. Even if that were the common issue, the court noted that the individual facts of each class member would still be important with respect to consideration of causation and damages. In addition, the court held it was unlikely a court could find the product should not have been on the market considering it was licensed both provincially and federally and had never been subject to a recall. Ultimately, the court held it would not be in the interests of judicial economy to proceed with a class action where the common issues are of little import compared to the individual ones. Conclusion This case is significant given the court's preferability analysis and its consideration of the multitude of other potential causes of injury to the putative class members, all of which made individual considerations overwhelming compared to the proposed common issues. The decision underlines and accepts many of the arguments that defendants have been making for years in relation to the individual nature of inquiries for claims in this area. SYNGENTA AG: Objections to Proposed Benefit Work Order Overruled ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district litigation IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION, CASE NO. 14-MD-2591-JWL, (D. Kan.), Co-Lead-Counsel (CLC) for plaintiffs have submitted to the Court on February 20, 2015, a a proposed Order Establishing Protocols for Common Benefit Work and Expenses and Establishing the Common Benefit Fee and Expense Funds. By order of March 6, 2015, the Court set a telephone hearing to discuss the proposed order, set a deadline for the filing of any objections to the proposed order, and ordered CLC to respond to certain questions from the Court concerning the proposed order. On March 20, 2015, CLC filed their response to the Court's questions. On March 20, 2015, Syngenta filed its objections, and CLC responded to those objections on March 31, 2015. On March 25, 2015, a group of plaintiffs' attorneys designated the Byrd Objectors or the Byrd Group filed their objections to the proposed order, to which CLC responded on March 31, 2015. According to District Judge John W. Lungstrum's memorandum and order entered May 8, 2015, a copy of which is available http://is.gd/CcIqiWat from Leagle.com, the Court has overruled all objections to CLC's latest proposed common benefit order other than Syngenta's objection to the application of the order to cases outside the MDL (including after remands to state court) where the plaintiff's counsel has not agreed to be bound to the order. The Court finds that other terms in the proposed order to which no objection was lodged are reasonable and appropriate. Thus, Syngenta's remaining objection is sustained; and objections submitted by the Byrd Objectors and attorney Brandon Wise (by letter of April 22, 2015) are overruled, ruled Judge Lungstrum. In addition, the Court denied CLC's motion for approval of certain agreements, and it denied the Byrd Objectors' motion to unseal CLC's motion for approval. CLC was directed to submit another revised proposed order that conforms to the Court's rulings. Specifically, CLC must remove the "Non-Paticipating Counsel" category; revise the "MDL Counsel" category to exclude cases outside the MDL, including cases that are remanded to state court; and revise the "Participating Counsel" category to provide for execution of the agreement by attorneys with respect to their non-MDL cases (even if they also have cases within the MDL). Moreover, CLC must add language to make clear that to the extent that funds collected from assessments exceed the amounts approved by the Court for distribution to attorneys performing common benefit work, that excess will be refunded to those who have paid assessments on a pro rata basis. SYNGENTA AG: Two Cases in Corn Litigation Return to State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John W. Lungstrum issued on May 5, 2015, a memorandum and order in IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/eaYjTu from Leagle.com. The document relates to: Cargill Inc., et al. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., No. 15-2018-JWL Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Syngenta Corp., et al., No. 15-2240-JWL Fornea-5, LLC v. Syngenta AG, et al., No. 15-2017-JWL W. Edgar Wilman 2000 Trust, et al. v. Syngenta Corp., et al., No. 15-2012-JWL, CASE NO. 14-MD- 2591-JWL, (D. Kan.). In this multi-district litigation (MDL), various plaintiffs assert claims against various entities related to Swiss company Syngenta AG. Prior to their transfer to this Court, many of the cases were removed to federal court by Syngenta from the state courts in which they were originally filed. Although in some cases (for instance, when the parties were diverse or when federal claims were asserted) it cited additional bases for federal jurisdiction, in each case Syngenta relied on the federal common law of foreign relations in asserting that federal question jurisdiction arose under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. In four such cases, plaintiffs have moved for remand back to state court, based on their argument that the federal common law of foreign relations does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331 in these cases. As an initial matter, in two of these four cases, Case Nos. 15- 2012-JWL and 15-2017-JWL, Syngenta also asserted federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). In its Scheduling Order No. 1, the Court ordered that any remand motion addressing any such basis for removal be filed by March 12, 2015, but plaintiffs in those two cases have not filed any motion addressing the removal of their cases under CAFA. Accordingly, because an independent basis for federal jurisdiction exists in those two cases, the Court denies the motion for remand as applied to Case Nos. 15-2012-JWL and 15-2017- JWL. In the remaining two cases, the Court concludes that the federal common law of foreign relations does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331. Accordingly, in Case Nos. 15-2018-JWL and 15-2240-JWL, the Court grants the motion for remand to state court in which they were originally filed. Because the Court concludes that the federal issue in these cases is not substantial, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction here, and these cases must be remanded to the state courts for this reason as well. SYSCO CORP: Merger Trial Begins in FTC Antitrust Case ----------------------------------------------------- Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Kicking off his opening arguments in a merger trial that pits the Federal Trade Commission against Sysco Corp. and US Foods Inc., O'Melveny & Myers partner Richard Parker got a big laugh. "You know you're in Washington when an antitrust trial draws a crowd. If this was Minneapolis, no one would care," said Mr. Parker, who represents Sysco in the contested $8.2 billion deal. Indeed, Courtroom 5 on the second floor at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was packed shoulder-to-shoulder with about 100 onlookers including FTC Bureau of Competition head Deborah Feinstein, FTC staff, private antitrust lawyers, investor representatives and lawyers from state attorneys general offices. Roughly 20 more people waited in the hallway outside, reduced to peering through the windows in the courtroom doors until courthouse staff made arrangements to put an audio feed in a vacant room. "I have to confess, I didn't expect this many people to be here," said U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who has scheduled four days of hearings on the matter. Litigated merger trials are rare, and the antitrust bar is keenly following the showdown. In February, the FTC voted 3-2 to oppose the merger, arguing it would reduce competition and raise prices. Sysco and US Foods sell and deliver food to restaurants, hotels, hospitals and other institutions. Market leader Sysco has about 425,000 customers across the United States, with sales of $46.5 billion in fiscal year 2014, according to the FTC. US Foods is number two, with $22 billion in sales to 200,000 customers. The agency wants Judge Mehta to issue a preliminary injunction to halt -- and effectively kill -- the deal pending a full administrative trial at the FTC on the merits. Judge Mehta, in his questions and comments in court, gave some hint of how he'll evaluate the proposed combination. He noted that the FTC's case is based "in large part on dividing up" the food distribution market. "How am I supposed to analyze those arguments? That's where the rubber meets the road," the judge said. The FTC argues that Sysco and US Foods are "national broadline foodservice distributors," distinct from other foodservice channels, like specialty distributors and cash-and-carry stores like Costco, and "systems" distributors that mainly service chain restaurants. Moreover, the FTC argues that there is a separate market of "national customers" that require a distributor with nationwide coverage. The FTC says there are only two such distributors: Sysco and US Foods. Food service distribution, Mr. Parker said in court on May 5, is "a large, sprawling industry," with more than 15,000 companies that compete with each other. The firms "may have different business models, but it all comes down to the same thing: delivering food from point A to point B." He said the FTC "tries to put up brick walls between all these different models. The markets are not as neat as they pretend they are." Judge Mehta responded, "I understand your point. The FTC's definition of the national market may be over-inclusive." Judge Mehta also seemed to grapple with how to evaluate the proposed merger's effect on pricing. The companies don't offer a single product or service, like tax preparation, he said, a likely reference to the Justice Department's successful challenge to the merger of H&R Block Inc. and TaxACT in 2011. "One key thing is the impact of this merger on prices," the judge said. The food distributors offer "a whole host of different services" and products, Judge Mehta said. "How am I supposed to assess the question of pricing?" Stephen Weissman, deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition and a former partner at Baker Botts, handled opening arguments for the FTC. U.S. Foods lawyer Joseph Tringali, of counsel to Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, argued for 10 minutes. TARGET CORPORATION: Initial Injunction Bid in Breach Case Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paul A. Magnuson denied a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs in In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, NO. 14-2522 (PAM/JJK), (D. Minn.). The Motion followed the April 2015 announcement that Target and MasterCard had settled a dispute over the amount Target owed MasterCard's issuing banks for the December 2013 data breach. These issuing banks are all members of the putative class in this case, although no class has yet been certified. MasterCard is, however, not a party to this action. The Court agreed with Plaintiffs' counsel that the terms of the settlement do not appear altogether fair or reasonable. "At the very least, the way this issue has arisen is neither fair nor is it how the Court expects attorneys to conduct themselves in litigating matters before the Court. But the Court cannot enjoin a proposed settlement in this situation because it suspects that neither the settlement nor the putative class's options are completely fair. The Court may act only if there is "misconduct of a serious nature." . . . Although the settlement may not "pass the smell test," as the saying goes, it is not serious misconduct," wrote Judge Magnuson in his memorandum and order entered May 7, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1PRdfKDfrom Leagle.com. The document relates to Financial Institution Cases. TRANSOCEAN LTD: Plaintiffs Filed Opening Brief in Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs have filed an opening brief in their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company said, "On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming us, former chief executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of our acquired companies as defendants. In the action, a former shareholder of the acquired company alleged that the joint proxy statement relating to our shareholder meeting in connection with the merger with the acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff claimed that the acquired company's shareholders received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the plaintiff and the proposed class members. In connection with this action, we are obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual defendants, which may be covered by our directors' and officers' liability insurance, subject to a deductible. On March 11, 2014, the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the claims as time-barred. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ("Second Circuit") and filed an opening brief on December 19, 2014." TRAVERS AUTOMOTIVE: Court Denies Motion to Modify Case Mgmt Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE ST. LOUIS, LLC D/B/A PLAZA MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TRAVERS AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC, and JASON CATLIN, Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14-CV-1796-JAR, (E.D. Mo.) came before the Court on Defendant Jason Catlin's motion to modify the amended case management order. Plaintiff Asbury Automotive Group d/b/a Plaza Motors has responded. The Court abbreviated the timeline for Catlin to reply. Subsequently, Catlin requested, and the Court granted, an extension of time, up to and including April 29, 2015 to file his reply. As of May 8, 2015, Catlin has not filed a reply. Against this backdrop, District Judge John A. Ross denied Catlin's Motion to Modify in a memorandum and order dated May 8, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/VP3iXqfrom Leagle.com. Judge Ross concluded that Catlin has not demonstrated good cause to allow amendment of his pleadings to assert a counterclaim alleging a class-action. "While Catlin may have acted with diligence in his attempt to meet the Case Management Order's requirements, allowing an amendment to add the class action counterclaim would clearly prejudice Plaza. At this late stage, discovery is nearly complete and the consolidated preliminary and permanent injunction hearing is scheduled for May 19, 2015, less than two weeks from today's date. Granting such an amendment would require considerable additional discovery and would result in a delay to the proceedings, both of which would prejudice Plaza," Judge Ross added. Asbury Automotive St. Louis, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Corey L. Kraushaar -- ckraushaar@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. Travers Automotive Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles F. Dufour, Jr. -- dufourbdy@aol.com -- BECKER AND DUFOUR. Jason Catlin, Defendant, represented by Brian E. McGovern -- bmcgovern@mlklaw.com -- MCCARTHY AND LEONARD & Bryan M. Kaemmerer -- bkaemmerer@mlklaw.com -- MCCARTHY AND LEONARD. TWEEN BRANDS: Atty Objects to Proposed $6-Mil. Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Tim Feran, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reported that Central Ohio lawyer Sean Costello has filed an objection to a proposed $6 million settlement of an Ohio class-action suit against Tween Brands, the owner of Justice stores. In a filing, Costello argues that the settlement is rigged against class members, and he faults it for "tossing peanuts to the class" while rewarding the original plaintiff's attorney with a much larger sum. A spokeswoman said Tween Brands does not comment on pending litigation. In May, Marian Perez, a shopper from Lake County, sued Tween Brands, alleging that the chain's practice of offering sales of 40 percent off was deceptive because the sale price "is actually the everyday price." And that, the suit said, violates Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act. Ohio law says that stores can advertise a "sale price" on items only if the items were sold at a higher, regular price for a run of at least 28 days in the previous 90. Tween Brands, the owner of Justice stores, denies it violated Ohio law. But it agreed to a settlement, offering refunds to people who bought items at an Ohio Justice store between July 1, 2012, and Aug. 31, 2014, and submit a claim form. The refunds could be a one-time $12 payment; a 40 percent-off coupon to Justice stores for future purchases; or, if the customers can provide receipts, 20 percent off purchases made during the 2012-2014 period. Those who do not submit a claim get no relief but are still barred from suing Tween Brands unless they have asked to "opt out," Costello said. Meanwhile, Costello said, the attorney who filed the suit will ask for as much as $3 million in fees. A hearing on the proposed settlement and objections was scheduled for May 8 in Lake County Common Pleas Court in Painesville. UBS GROUP: Has Settlement to Resolve Foreign Currency Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that putative class actions have been filed since November 2013 in US federal courts against UBS and other banks. These actions are on behalf of putative classes of persons who engaged in foreign currency transactions with any of the defendant banks. They allege collusion by the defendants and assert claims under the antitrust laws and for unjust enrichment. In March 2015, UBS entered into a settlement agreement to resolve those actions. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, requires among other things that UBS pay USD 135 million and provide cooperation to the settlement class. UBS GROUP: Added as Defendant to Silver Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2015, UBS was added to an ongoing putative class action against other banks in federal court in New York on behalf of a putative class of persons that transacted in physical silver or a silver financial instrument priced, benchmarked, and/or settled to the London silver fix at any time from January 1, 1999 to an unspecified date. The complaint asserts claims under the antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act and for unjust enrichment. UBS GROUP: Faces Class Action on FX Futures Contracts ----------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in February 2015, a putative class action was filed in federal court in New York against UBS and other banks on behalf of a putative class of persons who entered into any standardized FX futures contracts and options on FX futures contracts on an exchange since January 1, 2008. The complaint asserts claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and the antitrust laws. UBS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Swiss Franc LIBOR ---------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in February 2015, a putative class action was filed in federal court in New York against UBS and other financial institutions on behalf of parties who entered into interest rate derivatives linked to Swiss franc (CHF) LIBOR. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to manipulate CHF LIBOR and the prices of CHF LIBOR-based derivatives from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2009 in violation of US antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act, among other theories, and seek unspecified compensatory damages, including treble damages. UBS GROUP: Discovery Stayed in Euroyen TIBOR Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in 2013, a federal court in New York dismissed the federal antitrust and racketeering claims of certain US dollar LIBOR plaintiffs and a portion of their claims brought under the Commodity Exchange Act and state common law. The court has granted certain plaintiffs permission to assert claims for unjust enrichment and breach of contract against UBS and other defendants, and limited the CEA claims to contracts purchased between April 15, 2009 and May 2010. Certain plaintiffs have also appealed the dismissal of their antitrust claims. UBS and other defendants in other lawsuits including the one related to Euroyen TIBOR have filed motions to dismiss. In March 2014, the court in the Euroyen TIBOR lawsuit dismissed the plaintiff's federal antitrust and state unfair enrichment claims, and dismissed a portion of the plaintiff's CEA claims. Discovery is currently stayed. UBS GROUP: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an appellate court has affirmed the district court's dismissal of a securities fraud class action. In 2012, a consolidated complaint was filed in a putative securities fraud class action pending in federal court in Manhattan against UBS AG and certain of its current and former officers relating to the unauthorized trading incident that occurred in the Investment Bank and was announced in September 2011. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of parties who purchased publicly traded UBS securities on any US exchange, or where title passed within the US, during the period 17 November 2009 through 15 September 2011. In 2013, the district court granted UBS's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, from which plaintiffs filed an appeal. In 2015, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action. UBS AG: Class Action Over Funds Moved From Puerto Rico to NY ------------------------------------------------------------ Stephanie Russell-Kraft, writing for Law360, reported that a Puerto Rico federal judge has moved to New York federal court a $5 million putative class action alleging UBS AG and a Banco Popular subsidiary steered older investors into risky and volatile mutual funds, denying the plaintiffs' arguments that Puerto Rico has a public interest in the case, according to court documents. In an order dated March 30, District Judge Carmen C. Cerezo denied the plaintiff's request to keep the case in Puerto Rico. WACHOVIA CORP: Court Orders Wells Fargo to Donate $10,500 --------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE WACHOVIA CORPORATION ERISA LITIGATION, CIVIL CASE NO. 3:09-CV-00262-MR, (W.D. N.C.), the Defendants moved the Court for approval to rectify a recently discovered inadvertent error in the administration of the Settlement of this matter. Pursuant to Section 12.1 of the parties' Settlement Agreement, the Court retained jurisdiction over the parties to resolve issues concerning the administration of the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs in this action asserted claims for breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq. The Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the Wachovia Savings Plan and A.G. Edwards, Inc. Retirement and Profit Sharing Plan fiduciaries failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plans' investment in Wachovia stock. The Defendants included, among others, Wachovia Corporation and thirty individual defendants In an order entered May 6, 2015, District Judge Martin Reidinger ruled that the Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Approve Corrective Action of a Settlement Administration Error is granted, and Wells Fargo & Company will make a donation of $10,500.58, payable to the North Carolina Interest on Lawyers Account with the funds to be split between the North Carolina State Bar and the Indigent Person's Attorneys Fund as directed by N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 1- 267.10. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/tBRQidfrom Leagle.com. WAL-MART STORES: Faces Wage Theft Class Action in Alameda County ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julian Mark, writing for East Bay Express, reports that Walmart is facing a class action lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court that alleges that the giant retailer has been engaging in wage theft by using so-called "assistant store managers" to do the work of lower-level employees in order to avoid paying overtime. The suit was filed earlier this year by Bonnie Cardoza, an assistant manager at Walmart for close to five years. According to the suit, Ms. Cardoza, as an assistant manager, performed many of the same tasks as hourly employees -- greeting customers, taking inventory, operating self-checkout areas, among many other duties. But unlike hourly employees, she performed these duties for more than eight hours each day without receiving overtime. "[Cardoza] and all the other [Walmart] Assistant Store Managers were 'managers' in name only because they did not have the managerial duties or authority and should therefore have been properly classified as non-exempt employees," the lawsuit states. The suit further alleges that Walmart has "willingly" and "deceptively" incorporated the practice of misclassifying its employees as assistant managers into company policy in an attempt to cut costs. The lawsuit claims that, in addition to overtime pay, Ms. Cardoza and other assistant managers were deprived of rest and meal breaks, and that they weren't provided with pay stubs detailing how many over hours they actually worked. Ms. Cardoza filed the suit on behalf of any Walmart employee who has worked as an assistant store manager since January 2011 to January 2015. On behalf of the class, Cardoza is suing for back wages for unpaid overtime, as well as compensation for missed rest breaks. Nicholas De Blouw of the law firm Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik, the firm handling the case, said it's still too early to know the size of the class, how much a settlement could total, and even if the lawsuit will achieve class action status. WALGREEN CO: Faces Securities Class Suit by Robbins Geller ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Walgreen Co., (now trading as NYSE:WBA) common stock during the period between March 25, 2014 and August 5, 2014. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/walgreenco/.Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Walgreens and certain of its former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Walgreens is the largest drug retailing chain in the United States. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Walgreens' business and prospects, including the purported benefits of Walgreens' strategic partnership with Alliance Boots GmbH. Specifically, defendants publicly announced goals for fiscal year 2016 of $1 billion in combined synergies and $9 to $9.5 billion in adjusted earnings before interest and taxes ("EBIT") for the combined entity, but concealed a $1.8 to $2.3 billion fiscal year 2016 earnings shortfall and the reasons for the shortfall from the investing public. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and/or omissions during the Class Period, the price of Walgreens stock traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of $76.08 per share. Then on August 4, 2014, Walgreens announced that its CFO, defendant Wade Miquelon, would be resigning. Two days later, on August 6, 2014, defendants lowered the fiscal year 2016 EBIT target to $7.2 billion, $1.8 billion below the low-end and $2.3 billion below the high-end of the range that they had previously announced to investors. Following these disclosures, Walgreens' share price declined, falling from a close of $69.12 per share on August 5, 2014 to a close of $59.21 per share on August 6, 2014, a drop of over 14% on volume of more than 84 million shares traded. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Walgreens common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action judgment. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. WORLD WRESTLING: Three Former Wrestlers File Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Stav Ziv, writing for Newsweek, reported that three former World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE) wrestlers filed a class action in California against their onetime employer, claiming it "has for decades subjected its wrestlers to extreme physical brutality that it knew, or should have known, caused . . . latent conditions and long term irreversible bodily damage, including brain damage." News of the lawsuit filed was first reported by TMZ. Russ McCullough (a.k.a., Big Russ McCullough), Ryan Sakoda and Matt Wiese (a.k.a., Luther Reigns) seek damages for what they charge is WWE's "egregious mistreatment of its wrestlers for its own benefit, as well as its concealment and denial of medical research and evidence concerning traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE wrestlers," according to the court document. They are represented by Michael McShane and Jonas P. Mann of Audet & Partners LLP in San Francisco. The class action was filed on behalf of all current and former wrestlers who claim to have suffered as a result of injuries sustained while working for the WWE. The plaintiffs allege that the WWE "disavowed, concealed, and prevented any medical care for these head injuries after they were sustained and to date." The court document demands a jury trial, an injunction prohibiting WWE from continuing the alleged conduct and an order for medical monitoring, in addition to damages. Jerry McDevitt of the law firm K&L Gates, who acts as WWE's outside counsel, calls the lawsuit "defective," "fraudulent" and "frivolous," and says it contains "fabricated claims" and "nonsense." He adds that this is not the first lawsuit to have been filed making virtually "identical allegations," pointing to a lawsuit filed last year in Oregon and one filed in January in Pennsylvania. "All it takes is 50 bucks and a pen to file a lawsuit," he says. "Whether you can prove the things you allege is another." The National Football League, the National Collegiate Athletic Association and other sports bodies have faced similar litigation concerning concussions suffered by players. XARELTO: New Class Suit Filed in Canada --------------------------------------- Eric T. Chaffin, writing for The Legal Examiner, reported that all U.S. federal Xarelto lawsuits were consolidated in one court in the Eastern District of Louisiana in December 2014. Now, plaintiffs have filed a new Xarelto class action case in Canada, seeking to gain compensation for Canadian patients who took the drug and later suffered serious side effects. The lead plaintiff in the case is Betty Samson, who according to her complaint, suffered uncontrolled bleeding after taking Xarelto in 2012. When doctors weren't able to stop the bleeding, she went into cardiac arrest. According to the Calgary Sun, another Xarelto class action lawsuit is forthcoming in Ontario. The lead plaintiff allegedly suffered serious bleeding after taking the anticoagulant drug, and later bled to death. Both plaintiffs name joint manufacturers Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, as defendants. Number of Xarelto Lawsuits Climbing So far, about 220 Xarelto lawsuits are pending throughout the United States. A so-called "new generation" blood thinner, Xarelto was approved in 2011 for preventing blood clots in patients going through hip and knee replacement surgeries, and later in 2012 for reducing the risk of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. When manufacturers released the product on the market, they advertised it as a superior alternative to warfarin, the leading anticoagulant. Unlike patients taking warfarin, those taking Xarelto didn't have to go through blood monitoring or alter their diets. Defendants failed to highlight the fact that there was no readily available antidote to Xarelto bleeding, however. While patients taking warfarin who suffer uncontrollable bleeding can be treated with vitamin K injections, there is apparently no such solution for Xarelto bleeding. Recent studies have suggested that many patients taking Xarelto, would have benefitted from blood monitoring to keep tabs on how they were responding, particularly patients with poor kidney function. Canada Receives Over 1,000 Xarelto Adverse Event Reports Health Canada has so far received about 1,100 reports of problems connected to Xarelto, with twelve of those involving patient deaths. According to her case, Samson came close to death when her doctors had trouble stopping her Xarelto bleeding. She includes in her complaint reports from Germany that linked Xarelto to 130 deaths between 2012 and 2013. Xarelto lawyers in Canada have been approached by other claimants with similar experiences. According to the Calgary Sun, one of the claimants lost her mother when she bled to death in the shower. This is the case that will likely represent the other class action from Ontario. A class action lawsuit differs from an individual lawsuit in that one plaintiff or group of plaintiffs represents a larger group seeking compensation from the defendants. The issues at dispute are the same among all members of the class -- in this case, all members would have been injured by Xarelto and suffered uncontrolled bleeding. There must be enough members in the class to make individual cases impractical. Any jury award is split up among the members. YOUKU TUDOU: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Shareholders Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Youku Tudou, Inc., (NYSE:YOKU) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-2258, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Youku securities between February 27, 2014 and March 19, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Youku securities during the Class Period, you have until May 25, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Youku operates as an Internet television company in the People's Republic of China. Its Internet television platform enables consumers to search, view, and share video content across various devices. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly recognized revenue for multi-element arrangements; (2) the Company improperly recorded certain nonmonetary transactions to exchange online broadcasting rights of video content with other online video broadcasting companies at the carrying values of the broadcasting rights transacted, instead of the properly-accounted fair value; (3) the Company improperly accounted for its licensed content as long-lived assets; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 17, 2015, the Company announced that it would release its fourth quarter results on March 19, 2015, raising red flags by giving investors only two days-notice to prepare for YOKU's earnings announcement. On March 19, 2015, the red flags materialized as the Company reported a net loss of $51.3 million, compared to $4 million in the same quarter of 2013. Moreover, YOKU disclosed that the SEC is investigating certain aspects of the Company's past accounting practices relating to revenue recognition for multi-part deals, accounting of "non-monetary exchanges of licensed content" and the classification of licensed content as long-lived assets. The Company also announced that it is now "evaluating the impact to its 2014 and historical financial statements." In reaction to this news, YOKU's stock price dropped nearly 11%, from a March 19, 2015 closing price of $15.15 per share, to close at $13.50 on March 20, 2015. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Implant Product Liability Suits Head to Trial -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a leading hip implant manufacturer facing about 400 products liability lawsuits goes to trial in two separate cases this month, starting on May 6 with the first federal court suit. Zimmer Holdings Inc. is one of several manufacturers that recalled metal-on-metal hip implants after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration began questioning the safety of the devices, which have been known to cause bone and tissue damage that could lead to pain and replacement surgeries. Hip implant manufacturers DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., a unit of Johnson & Johnson, and Stryker Corp. have reached settlements of $2.5 billion and more than $1 billion, respectively, to resolve litigation over their devices. Zimmer, based in Warsaw, Indiana, has settled some cases involving its Durom Cup, which was implanted in about 13,000 patients before it withdrew the hip device from the U.S. market in 2008, but still faces hundreds of lawsuits. Most are pending as multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton in New Jersey, who is overseeing the May 6 trial, expected to last a month. Another trial is scheduled for May 19 in Los Angeles Superior Court. "These cases have also been pending for nearly five years, and we are excited that these claimants will also begin to see their long awaited day in court," Kyla Cole, a partner at Dallas-based Waters, Kraus & Paul, wrote in an email to The National Law Journal. Ms. Cole is lead plaintiffs counsel in the federal litigation and the Los Angeles case. Zimmer spokeswoman Monica Kendrick declined to comment. So far, Zimmer has had success before jurors. On Nov. 26, Zimmer won the first Durom Cup non-MDL trial in the country in a case brought in St. Clair County, Illinois, Circuit Court on behalf of John Pugliese, who had the device implanted in him in 2008 but removed later. The jury rendered a complete defense verdict in a case alleging the Durom Cup was defective and that Zimmer failed to warn of its risks. The May 6 trial comes in a case brought by retired Louisiana schoolteacher Christine Brady, 65, who had the device implanted in 2006 but removed three years later. Ms. Cole said the trial will be in two phases: The first will decide whether Ms. Brady filed her case within Louisiana's statute of limitations; if so, a second will start May 18 focused on liability. Zimmer is represented by J. Joseph Tanner -- joe.tanner@FaegreBD.com -- an Indianapolis partner who is head of the product liability and environmental group at Faegre Baker Daniels, and Edward Fanning -- efanning@mccarter.com -- head of the products liability group at Newark's McCarter & English. Neither of them responded to requests for comment. The California case, pending before Angeles Superior Court Judge Amy Hogue, goes to trial on behalf of Gary Kline, who had the device implanted in 2007 but later removed. Mr. Kline is one of more than 25 plaintiffs in the case, which has additional trials scheduled this year. Zimmer is in the midst of completing a $13.35 billion acquisition of rival Biomet Inc., which last year settled its own hip implant litigation for $56 million. * Accounting-Driven Class Actions Rising, Study Finds ----------------------------------------------------- Katie Kuehner-Hebert, writing for CFO.com, reported that now that securities litigation related to the 2008 financial crisis has largely petered out, accounting-driven class-action suits based on regulatory enforcement actions are on the rise, according to PwC's 2014 Securities Litigation Study released. There were 53 accounting-driven cases filed last year, representing 31% of all federal securities class-action cases filed during the year, according to the report. In 2013, 46 cases were filed, representing 29% of all cases that year. PwC tracks U.S. federal securities class-actions filed since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995. "There have been numerous cases, regulations, and technological advances which may indicate that accounting enforcement actions from regulators -- and federal securities class action litigation from shareholders -- could continue to grow in the years ahead," the authors wrote. "This trend may be driven by increased public attention on financial fraud, in addition to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's and other regulators' focus on detecting and prosecuting various forms of improper financial reporting." Twenty of the accounting-related cases included allegations of improper revenue recognition. Of those, at least four cases involved revenue-related fraud in the form of fictitious contracts and/or sales invoices in order to inflate company revenue and earnings, according to the report. The report's authors advise companies to be alert to the proliferation of the enforcement of anti-corruption statutes such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; cyber breaches with lasting effects; lawsuits stemming from such capital-market complexities as high frequency trading and "dark pools"; the increase of initial public offerings involving emerging growth companies; and the robust mergers and acquisitions market. PwC tracks all cases filed and more than 50 data points related to each case, including court, circuit, company location, SIC code, class period, stock exchange, and lead plaintiff type. The firm also analyzes a variety of issues, including whether the case is accounting related, a breakdown of accounting issues, and settlement data. * CFPB Study May Pave Way for Class Suits vs. Companies ------------------------------------------------------- Adam Farbiarz and Kim Rinehart, writing for JD SUPRA Business Advisor, reported that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently released a study examining the prevalence, perception and effects of arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial products. Although the study purports to be only "empirical, not evaluative," leading consumer advocacy groups have seized on the study's findings to urge the CFPB to prohibit the inclusion of what the advocacy groups term "forced" arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial products. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has authority to promulgate regulations, through formal rulemaking, that "prohibit or impose conditions or limitations" on the use of arbitration provisions in contracts between consumers and companies who offer or provide consumer financial products, if the regulations are in the public interest and are consistent with the findings of the CFPB's study of arbitration provisions. 12 U.S.C. Section 5518(b). CFPB Director Richard Cordray has stated that now that the study is complete, the agency would "consider what next steps are appropriate." According to the CFPB's study, around half of credit-card and checking-account balances currently outstanding are subject to arbitration provisions, and nearly all of these provisions contain class-action waivers. Thus, these clauses have dramatically restricted class action suits against companies in this sector. The study further finds that consumers are generally unaware of the arbitration provisions. The CFPB also compared changes in consumer prices for issuers that eliminated their arbitration provisions to changes in prices for issuers that did not change their provisions in the same period. The CFPB concluded that there was no reliable evidence that the elimination of an arbitration provision raised consumer prices. This finding cuts against prior scholarship concluding that arbitration agreements reduce costs to businesses, which in turn pass on these savings to consumers. The results of the study suggest that the CFPB is likely to take some action to restrict the use of arbitration agreements in contracts for consumer financial products. If the CFPB does so, this is likely to spur a substantial uptick in class actions against businesses in the consumer financial product sector. Companies operating in this space should consider undertaking a fresh review of their marketing, fee practices, and other consumer-facing aspects of their businesses now. Enhanced compliance today could mean avoiding a costly class action in the future. The 728-page study, which the CFPB was required to undertake pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, purports to be the most comprehensive empirical study of consumer financial arbitration carried out to date. The study is available on the agency's website. ********* 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 * * *