/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150609.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 9, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 114 Headlines AA POULTRY: Recalls Contaminated Chicken & Turkey Products ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Falsely Marketed Similac(R), Suit Claims AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernard M. Gross Files Class Action in NJ ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Lead Plaintiffs Filed Amended Class Action AMERICAN ELECTRIC: To Defend Wage & Hours Case Against PSO AMERICAN SCIENCE: Johnson & Weaver Probes Possible Violations ANGIE'S LIST: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss Class Action ANGIE'S LIST: Responsive Pleadings Deadline Set in "Moore" Case ANTHONY'S RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ARUBA NETWORKS: Agreement-in-Principle Reached in Class Action ASK FOODS: Recalls Ground Stuffing Products Due to Misbranding AT&T INC: Faces "Walton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BATS GLOBAL: High-Frequency Traders' Class Action Nixed BEST STORAGE: "Green" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BI-LO SUPERMARKET: Recalls Ground Beef Products BOULDER BRANDS: Sued in Colo. Over Misleading Financial Reports BRIDGEPOINT MORTGAGE: Faces "Sommers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV: Wins Ruling in Tuition Fee Hike Suit CAMERA VIDEO: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CANADIAN SOLAR: Plaintiff Obtained Class Certification Order CAPRI NAILS: Faces "Rong" Suit Over Failure Overtime Wages CATALINA RESTAURANT: Faces Second Class Action Over Mass Layoffs CELERA CORP: June 28 Deadline to File Claim in Class Suit CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: To Defend Against Securities Class Action CHC GROUP: Removed "McCrory" Class Suit to S.D. New York CMG OIL: Sued in D.N.D. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Case Goes Back to Dist. Ct. COOPER VISION: Faces "Burt" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing CRYSTAL TOUCH: Faces "Monarca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CULINARY BRANDS: Recalls Pork Products Due to Misbranding EBAY INC: Defending Against Class Action Lawsuit ENVIVIO INC: Funded Settlement Amount Into Escrow Account FACEBOOK INC: Filed Opposition to Class Certification FIRST AMERICAN: Defending Class Actions Over Improper Rate FIRST AMERICAN: Narrow Class Certified in "Edwards" Case FIRST AMERICAN: Class in "Gale" Case Decertified FIRST AMERICAN: Sager v. Interthinx Case Not Yet Certified FIRST AMERICAN: 7 Class Action Cases Not Yet Certified FITBIT: Faces New Round of Rash Complaints GALESBURG, IL: Teachers' Unions's Grievances Head to Arbitration GAWKER MEDIA: Use of Social Media to Notify Class Members Okayed GENERAL MOTORS: 108 Class Actions Pending by Vehicle Consumers GENERAL MOTORS: NY Teachers File Consolidated Class Action GENERAL MOTORS: Trial Held on Class Issues in GMCL Dealers' Claim GENERAL MOTORS: Facing Litigation Over Ordinary Wages Regulation GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal Filed in Inventory Mgmt Securities Action GILLEX FOODS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Moll Law Considers Class Action Over Zofran HALLIBURTON CO: Fact Discovery & Other Pretrial Deadlines Stayed HUNT'S POINT: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Falsely Marketed Copper Sleeves, Suit Says IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Removed "Mansour" Suit to S.D. New York INSULET CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports INTUIT INC: Faces "Lebinski" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach KARNES COUNTY, TX: Detention Facility Sued Over Conditions KHUBBA AL: Recalls Beef Products Due to Misbranding & Allergens KIMBERLY-CLARK: Wyoming Sues Over 'Flushable' Wipes LAWRENCE COUNTY: Settlement Deal Proposed in Solid Waste Case LOBLAWS: Faces Class Action Over Bangladesh Factory Collapse LQNN INC: Recalls Chicken, Beef and Pork Products LU SIMON BUILDERS: Agency Launched Probe Over November Fire LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Justice Department Seeks Criminal Charges MASSACHUSETTS: Richardson & Cumbo Files Class Action v. MBTA MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Insurance Carrier Paid Settlement Amount METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER: Unpaid Intern Files Class Action in Calif. MICROSOFT CORPORATION: British Columbia Case Trial in 2016 MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Argument Held in US Cell Phone Litigation MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Canadian Class Action Not Yet Active NATROL INC: Leaf123 Settles Tea Product Labeling Class Action NEW BEGINNINGS: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages NEW YORK, NY: Four Nonprofits to Get Residual Settlement Funds NEWMAN & LEVENTHAL: "Mercado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT OCWEN FINANCIAL: Settles Insurance Class Action for $140 Million OHL-ARELLANO: Faces "Mora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime OLD NATIONAL: Appeals Court Says Suit Can Go Ahead on One Count OLD WORLD: Recalls Roast Beef Products Due to Misbranding PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Complaint Dismissed, Claims Time-Barred PIEDMONT REALTY: Georgia Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim PRO OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Medina" Suit Claims QUEENSLAND: Government May Launch Fresh Probe Into Flood RITE AID: Indergit Class Action Still Pending RITE AID: To Obtain Approval of Deal in Chase & Scherwin Case RITE AID: Proceedings in "Hall" Case Stayed RIWO INC: "Theodoridis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ROYAL BANK: Bank Unit Must Pay $1.4 Million in Fines, Finra Says ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Unable to Estimate Impact of Arbitration Bids RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Illinois SHIVA YOGA: School to Be Wound Up; Ex-Leader Facing Class Suit SIRIUS XM: 2nd Circuit to Weigh in on Broadcaster Dispute SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Policyholders Urged to Join Class Action SP WHOLESALE: Recalls Pork & Chicken Sausages Due to Misbranding SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Police Dep't Targets Latino, Suit Claims SUNNYSLOPE CEMETERY: Faces Class Action Over Grave Desecration SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Settles Class Action for $500 Million SUNWATER: Breached Own Manual with Callide Dam Release TEMPUR-PEDIC: Faces Class Action Over Memory Foam Mattress Odor TFORCE ENERGY: Faces "Esterline" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT TOP RANK: Faces "Mendez" Over Nondisclosure of Pacquiao Injury TOP RANK: Faces "Thrailkill" Suit in D.S.C. Over Pacquiao Injury TOTAL PACKAGING: Recalls Turkey & Cheese Lunch Kits TUK TUK: Faces "Cano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Nate Quarry Surprised by Backlash to Lawsuit UNION PACIFIC: No New Hearing Date on Class Certification Bid UNITIL CORPORATION: Oral Arguments Conducted on Motion to Certify US PENSION: Sued in D.N.J. Over Alleged Imprudent Plan Investment USG CORPORATION: July 15 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval USG CORPORATION: Canadian Suits Not Part of US Settlement VICTORY KITCHENS: Recalls Chicken Noodle Soup Products WACOAL AMERICA: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $1.3MM WALKER'S FOODS: Recalls Pork with Sauce Products Due to Allergen WARREN COUNTY, NY: Court Denies Bid for Bed Tax Class Action WEST BANCORPORATION: No Date Yet for Oral Argument in Appeal WOODBURY COUNTRY CLUB: Man Sues for Receiving 2 Unsolicited Faxes ZYK ENTERPRISES: Recalls Veal Products Due to E. Coli * Accounting Allegations Hike Securities Suits, Cornerstone Says * U.S. House of Representatives Reviews Class Action Bill ********* AA POULTRY: Recalls Contaminated Chicken & Turkey Products ---------------------------------------------------------- AA Poultry Processing, LLC, a Ridgeland, Wis. establishment, is recalling approximately 2,191 pounds of chicken and 21 pounds of turkey products, which may have been contaminated with trichloro- s-triazinetrione, which is not approved for use in poultry processing, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced . The whole and cut chicken and turkey pieces were produced on various dates from May 4, 2015 through May 11, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- Various weights of whole or cut chicken and turkey parts. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P- 45525" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Live poultry was brought to the establishment for processing. Following processing, the carcasses were returned to their original owners in Wisconsin. The problem was discovered by FSIS in-plant personnel during routine verification activities. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse allergic reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers or media with questions about the recall can contact Ty Martin, Owner, at (715) 949-1108. ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Falsely Marketed Similac(R), Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Marentette, Matthew O'neil Nighswander, and Ellen Steinlien, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02837-CBA-RLM (E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading misrepresentations on its private-label Similac(R) Advance(R) Organic Infant Formulas. However, contrary to the Defendant's representation that the Infant Formula is organic, it contained ingredients not permitted in organic products, including sodium selenate, taurine, cholecalciferol, l-carnitine, choline bitartrate, adenosine-5'- monophosphate, cytidine-5'-monophosphate, disodium guanosine-5'- monophosphate, disodium uridine-5'-monophosphate, calcium pantothenate, cyanocobalamin, ascorbyl palmitate, choline chloride, m-inositol, docosahexaenoic acid single cell oil, arachidonic acid single cell oil, biotin, lutein, and beta carotene. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. owns and operates a pharmaceuticals and health care company with its principal place of business in North Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. D. Gregory Blankinship FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220 White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: (914) 298-3283 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com gblankinship@fbfglaw.com - and - Yvette Golan, Esq. THE GOLAN FIRM 1919 Decatur St. Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (866) 298-4150 Facsimile: (928) 441-8250 E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com - and - Kim E. Richman, Esq. THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP 195 Plymouth Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (212) 687-8291 Facsimile: (212) 687-8292 E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernard M. Gross Files Class Action in NJ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. on April 30 filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, 15cv03007, on behalf of purchasers of AERI common stock between August 6, 2014 and April 23, 2015. Aerie is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of patients with glaucoma and other eye diseases. The Complaint was filed against AERI and its officers/directors who misrepresented and/or concealed material adverse facts about the Company's operations and financial prospects. Specifically, Rhopressa(TM) was in recent drug trials that compared it to an older, twice per day eye drop called Timolol. The study was designed to show that Rhopressa(TM) was not inferior to Timolol at reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) after two weeks, six weeks and 90 days of treatment. In August, 2014, Aerie issued a press release announcing that the Phase 2b clinical trial demonstrated a strong IOP-lowering effect. Pending successful advancement in Phase 3 registration studies, the Company expected to submit an NDA filing by mid-2016. Shortly thereafter, one of Aerie's largest beneficial holders of the stock sold 1.225 million shares at artificially inflated prices for proceeds of $35.1 million. Then, on April 23, 2015 Aerie announced that Rhopressa(TM) Phase 3 results did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint of demonstrating non-inferiority of IOP lowering for once daily Rhopressa(TM) compared to twice daily Timolol. As a result of this news, the price of Aerie stock plummeted from $22.52 per share to close at $12.87 per share on April 24, 2015, a one day decline of nearly 64% on volume of nearly 14.7 million shares. In fact, defendants' statements about the prospects for the Phase 3 Rhopressa(TM) study were materially false and misleading as Rhopressa(TM) was not performing as well as Timolol and would not lead to commercial success. If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than June 29, 2015. Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. To discuss this action or ask questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact plaintiff's counsel, toll-free 866-561-3600 or via email at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com The firm has expertise in prosecuting class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws. To discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice with respect to these matters, PLEASE CONTACT: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Susan R. Gross, Esq. Deborah R. Gross, Esq. Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600 E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Lead Plaintiffs Filed Amended Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint which adds Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant. On September 8, 2014, the West Palm Beach Firefighter's Pension Fund filed a putative securities class action suit against Altisource and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 with regard to disclosures concerning pricing and transactions with related parties that allegedly inflated Altisource share prices. The court subsequently appointed the Pension Fund of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 35 and the Annuity Fund of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 35 as Lead Plaintiffs. On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint which adds Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant, and seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between April 25, 2013 and December 21, 2014 and an unspecified amount of damages. Altisource intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. AMERICAN ELECTRIC: To Defend Wage & Hours Case Against PSO ---------------------------------------------------------- American Electric Power Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that management will continue to defend the Wage and Hours Lawsuit against Public Service Company of Oklahoma, an AEP electric utility subsidiary. In August 2013, PSO received an amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by 36 current and former line and warehouse employees alleging that they have been denied overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to overtime pay for "on call" time. They allege that restrictions placed on them during on call hours are burdensome enough that they are entitled to compensation for these hours as hours worked. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to conditionally certify this action as a class action, claiming there are an additional 70 individuals similarly situated to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of unpaid overtime over a three-year period and liquidated damages in the same amount. In March 2014, the federal court granted plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the action as a class action. Notice was given to all potential class members and an additional 43 individuals opted in to the class, bringing the plaintiff class to 79 current and former employees. Management will continue to defend the case. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring. AMERICAN SCIENCE: Johnson & Weaver Probes Possible Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- The Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws by American Science & Engineering Inc. and certain of its officers. The investigation will seek to determine if certain officers and directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties relating to its contractual agreements with the U.S. Government. American Science develops, manufactures, markets, and sells X-ray inspection and other detection products for homeland security, force protection, public safety, and other defense applications in the United States and internationally. On April 24, 2015, American Science revealed that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), relating to an investigation by the GSA and the Department of Defense of the Company's compliance with the terms of its contractual arrangements with the GSA. American Science receives a significant portion of its revenue from the federal government. On the news, American Science shares fell over 8% in trading on April 24, 2015. If you have information that could assist in this investigation, or if you are an American Science shareholder and are interested in learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- by email or by phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number where you can be reached. Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. ANGIE'S LIST: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants' motion to dismiss an amended class action complaint has yet to be ruled upon by the Court. On December 23, 2013, the first of two putative securities class action complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, naming the Company and various of its current and former directors and officers as defendants. The first complaint is styled as Baron v. Angie's List, Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-2032. On January 9, 2014, the second putative securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The second complaint is styled as Bartolone v. Angie's List, Inc., et al, 1:14-cv-0023. Both complaints allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making material misstatements in and omitting material information from the Company's public disclosures concerning the Company's business prospects. On June 16, 2014, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed United Food & Commercial Workers Local 464A Pension Fund as lead plaintiff ("Local 464A"). On August 29, 2014, Local 464A filed its consolidated Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges that Angie's List made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding its paid membership model ("PPM"). The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which has yet to be ruled upon by the Court. ANGIE'S LIST: Responsive Pleadings Deadline Set in "Moore" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court issued an Order approving the parties' proposed responsive pleadings deadline in the case, Moore v. Angie's List, Inc. On March 11, 2015, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Court"). The lawsuit alleges claims of breaches of contract and covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, alleging, in part, that the Company lures consumers to purchase membership fees for "access to purportedly unfiltered reviews, ratings and search result rankings." On April 10, 2015, the Court issued an Order approving the parties' proposed responsive pleadings deadline. ANTHONY'S RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Anthony's Restaurant, Inc., and Antonios Konidaris, Case No. 1:15-cv-04331 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate Anthony's Restaurant located at 4720 West 63rd Street, Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com ARUBA NETWORKS: Agreement-in-Principle Reached in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Aruba Networks, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, that defendants and plaintiffs in the class action reached an agreement-in-principle providing for the settlement of the outstanding litigation on the terms and conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding. On April 3, 2015, Aruba Networks, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive proxy statement (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") with respect to the special meeting of Aruba shareholders scheduled to be held on May 1, 2015 (the "Special Meeting"). As previously disclosed, on March 3, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Hewlett-Packard Company ("Parent") and Aspen Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. As disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement, beginning on March 9, 2015, a number of shareholder class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") on behalf of a putative class of Aruba shareholders and naming as defendants the board of directors of Aruba, HP, Merger Sub, and, in some instances, Aruba: Ballester v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10765-VCL (filed March 9, 2015); Williams v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10778-VCL (filed March 11, 2015); New Jersey Building Laborers Statewide Welfare Fund v. Orr, et al., C.A. No. 10786-VCL (filed March 12, 2015); Maturi v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10798-VCL (filed March 16, 2015); Adams v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10800-VCL (filed March 16, 2015); Watts v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10802-VCL (filed March 17, 2015); Litwin v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10825-VCL (filed March 23, 2015). On April 10, 2015, the Delaware actions were consolidated as In Re Aruba Networks, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 10765-VCL (the "Action"). On April 22, 2015, defendants and plaintiffs in the Action reached an agreement-in-principle providing for the settlement of the outstanding litigation on the terms and conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU"). Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, without agreeing that any of the claims in the Action have merit or that any supplemental disclosure was required under any applicable statute, rule, regulation or law, the Company agreed to make certain supplemental and amended disclosures in this Current Report on Form 8-K. The MOU further provides that, among other things, (a) plaintiffs will conduct appropriate confirmatory discovery; (b) the parties to the MOU will enter into a definitive stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") and will submit the Stipulation to the Court for review and approval; (c) the Stipulation will provide for dismissal of the outstanding litigation on the merits; (d) the Stipulation will include a general release of defendants of claims relating to the transaction; and (d) the proposed settlement is conditioned on final approval by the Court after notice to Aruba shareholders. There can be no assurance that the settlement will be finalized or that the Court will approve the settlement. The settlement will not affect the timing of the Special Meeting or the amount of merger consideration to be paid to shareholders of Aruba in connection with the proposed Merger. The Company and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and continue vigorously to deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in the referenced lawsuits, and expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with any applicable fiduciary and other legal duties and are entering into the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation, to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay to the closing of the Merger that might arise from further litigation. ASK FOODS: Recalls Ground Stuffing Products Due to Misbranding -------------------------------------------------------------- A.S.K. Foods Inc., a Palmyra, Penn. establishment, is recalling approximately 414 pounds of ground stuffing product due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains soy lecithin, a known allergen which is not declared on the product label. The following product is subject to recall: 3-pound plastic tubs of Wegman's Herb Stuffing, With Pork and Veal, with plant EST. 9551 printed on the label. This item was produced on May 5, 8, and 12 of 2015. The product bears the establishment number "EST. 9551" inside the USDA mark of inspection. This item was shipped to Wegman's Grocery stores for in-store Meat Department sales in Pennsylvania. The problem was discovered when an FSIS inspector performing routine labeling verification noticed that the bread crumb ingredient contained soy lecithin as a processing aid. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Sandy Grubb, Customer Service at 1-717-838-6356 Ext 132. Media with questions should contact Wendie DiMatteo Holsinger, CEO, at 1-717-838-6356 Ext 132. AT&T INC: Faces "Walton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wendell Walton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T Inc. and AT&T Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 03716 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a multinational telecommunications corporation, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com - and - Michael N. Litrownik, Esq. Deirdre Aaron, Esq. 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: mlitrownik@outtengolden.com daaron@outtengolden.com - and - Jason C. Marsili, Esq. Brianna M. Primozic, Esq. POSNER & ROSEN LLP 3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 389-6050 Facsimile: (213) 389-0663 E-mail: jmarsili@posner-rosen.com bprimozic@posner-rosen.com BATS GLOBAL: High-Frequency Traders' Class Action Nixed ------------------------------------------------------- Bradley Hope, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a federal judge dismissed three class-action lawsuits alleging stock exchanges gave high-frequency traders an unfair advantage, according to court documents. The suits were inspired by allegations made in author Michael Lewis' book "Flash Boys," which last year argued the stock market was rigged in favor of exchanges, big banks and high-frequency traders. Harold Lanier, an individual investor and plaintiff in a case that included three proposed class actions, alleged that exchanges created an unfair marketplace by giving some trading firms and banks a faster data feed for stock market prices than the data feed used by other market participants. On April 28, Judge Katherine Forest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the claims, ruling that the Securities and Exchange Commission approved of the way the exchanges distributed data. The suit was filed against all of the U.S. stock exchanges, including those operated by BATS Global Markets Inc., Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. and Intercontinental Exchange Inc. Another lawsuit against high-frequency traders filed by the city of Providence, Rhode Island, and other investors is ongoing. It, too, was inspired by "Flash Boys," documents show. BEST STORAGE: "Green" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Green, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Storage, Inc., Best Storage Northgate, L.P., and Best Storage Constuction, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00118 (S.D. Tex., May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendant own and operate a Texas based company that specializes in storage services, moving-truck rentals, and packing supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rhonda Hunter Wills, Esq. WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC 1776 Yorktown, Suite 570 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 528-4455 Facsimile: (713) 528-2047 E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com BI-LO SUPERMARKET: Recalls Ground Beef Products ----------------------------------------------- Bi-Lo Supermarket #5406, a Rossville, Ga. establishment, is recalling approximately 11-22 pounds of ground beef products that may be contaminated with pieces from a small plastic pop-up timer, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The ground beef item was produced on April 23, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 1-2 lb. packages of "Bi-Lo Market Style Ground Beef." The products subject to recall have a sell by date of 4/25/15. These items were sold from one retail location to consumers from Georgia and Tennessee. The problem was discovered by the company. The company notified FDA of the issue and FDA notified FSIS on May 1, 2015. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions or oral injury associated with consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact the consumer call center, at (866) 946-6349. Media with questions about the recall can contact Brian Wright, at media@biloholdings.com or (904) 370-6029. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/xnYIGk BOULDER BRANDS: Sued in Colo. Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Insider Asset Management, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boulder Brands, Inc., Stephen B. Hughes, James B. Leighton, and Christine Sacco, Case No. 1:15-cv- 01043 (D. Colo., May 18, 2015), asserts that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Boulder Brands, Inc. is a natural consumer packaged food company with its principal executive offices located at 1600 Pearl Street, Suite 300, Boulder, Colorado 80302. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kip B. Shuman, Esq. Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM 885 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 484-4886 E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com BRIDGEPOINT MORTGAGE: Faces "Sommers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maggie Sommers, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Bridgepoint Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02748 (E.D. Pa., May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay proper overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Bridgepoint Mortgage, LLC owns and operates a home loan and mortgage company located at 259 East Market Street Bethlehem, PA 18018. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC 1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 E-mail: rswartz@swartz-legal.com CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV: Wins Ruling in Tuition Fee Hike Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Daily Breeze reports that the Long Beach-based California State University system acted properly when it hiked tuition in 2009, despite claims by students that they were unfairly double-billed, a jury ruled on April 30. A San Francisco Superior Court jury voted 9-3 in favor of the university, rejecting a class-action lawsuit that challenged the validity of the CSU Board of Trustees' May 2009 vote to raise tuition by 10 percent in the face of state funding shortfalls. "The verdict affirms the California State University's commitment to student success and the fiscal stability of the university for future generations of Californians," said Framroze Virjee, CSU executive vice chancellor and general counsel. "While raising tuition fees is always a decision of last resort, the CSU acted reasonably and responsibly to preserve academic programs and minimize disruption to students completing degree programs. "With the state's reinvestment in the university, tuition fees have remained stable for the past four years," Mr. Virjee said. "The CSU continues to offer one of the most affordable quality undergraduate degree programs in the nation." Five students sued the CSU on behalf of about 200,000 students, contending the fall 2009 tuition hike was illegal because they had already paid their tuition for that semester. The Board of Trustees voted on May 13, 2009 to boost tuition by 10 percent. CSU officials said the system was facing "an unprecedented and devastating financial crisis" at the time, notably in the face of back-to-back cuts in state funding. In defending against the lawsuit, attorneys for the CSU argued that students were repeatedly warned that tuition and fees can change at any time. CAMERA VIDEO: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Moore v. Camera Video Clinic, Hanik Avshman, and Anatole Levant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00350 (E.D. Tex., May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate stores that provide camera and video equipment and related services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane Allister McClelland, Esq. SIMON HERBERT & MCCLELLAND, LLP 3411 Richmond Avenue, Suite 400 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 987-7100 Facsimile: (713) 987-7120 E-mail: smcclelland@shmsfirm.com CANADIAN SOLAR: Plaintiff Obtained Class Certification Order ------------------------------------------------------------ Canadian Solar Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiff in a class action obtained an order for class certification. The Company asid, "In 2010, we received two subpoenas from the SEC requesting documents relating to, among other things, certain sales transactions in 2009 and whether those transactions potentially impacted the guidance issued by us in advance of our follow-on offering in October 2009. As part of its investigation, the SEC requested that we voluntarily provide certain documents and other information. We fully cooperated with the SEC and on December 15, 2014, the SEC imposed a cease-and-desist order and civil penalties against us and Mr. Yan Zhuang, our Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer. The SEC found that we had violated the reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the Exchange Act resulting from our recognition of revenue for certain transactions with U.S. customers during the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2009. The SEC also found that Mr. Zhuang was a cause of the violations. In addition, the SEC found that by directing a customer to make certain revisions to purchase orders, Mr. Zhuang had also violated Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act. In anticipation of the proceedings leading up to the order, we and Mr. Zhuang submitted offers of settlement, which the SEC accepted. Pursuant to the proceedings, the SEC ordered us to cease and desist from committing any future violations of the relevant provisions of the Exchange Act and imposed a $500,000 civil money penalty. Similarly, the SEC ordered Mr. Zhuang to cease and desist from committing any future violations of the relevant provisions of the Exchange Act and pay a $50,000 civil money penalty." "Following the two subpoenas from the SEC in 2010, six class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the New York cases, and another class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, or the California case. The New York cases were consolidated into a single action in December 2010. "On January 5, 2011, the California case was dismissed by the plaintiff, who became a member of the lead plaintiff group in the New York action. On March 11, 2011, a Consolidated Complaint was filed with respect to the New York action. The Consolidated Complaint alleged generally that our financial disclosures during 2009 and early 2010 were false or misleading; asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and named us, our chief executive officer and our former chief financial officer as defendants. We filed our motion to dismiss in May 2011, which was taken under submission by the Court in July 2011. On March 30, 2012, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint with leave to amend, and the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint against the same defendants on April 19, 2012. On March 29, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice a class action lawsuit filed against us and certain named defendants alleging that our financial disclosures during 2009 and early 2010 were false or misleading and in violation of federal securities law. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a securities law violation and granted our motion to dismiss all claims against all defendants with prejudice. On December 20, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing such class action lawsuit. "In addition, a similar class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on August 10, 2010. The lawsuit alleges generally that our financial disclosures during 2009 and 2010 were false or misleading and brings claims under the shareholders' relief provisions of the CBCA, Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act as well as claims based on negligent misrepresentation. "In December 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss the Ontario action on the basis that the Ontario Court has no jurisdiction over the claims and potential claims advanced by the plaintiff. The court dismissed our motion on August 29, 2011. On March 30, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal denied our appeal with regard to our jurisdictional motion. On November 29, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada denied our application for leave to appeal the order of the Ontario Court of Appeal. "The plaintiff's motions for class certification and leave to assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities Act were served in January 2013 and initially scheduled for argument in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in June 2013. However, the plaintiff's motions were adjourned in view of the plaintiff's decision to seek an order compelling us to file additional evidence on the motions. On July 29, 2013, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to compel evidence. On September 24, 2013, the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal from the July 29 order was dismissed. "In September 2014, the plaintiff obtained an order granting him leave to assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities Act for certain of his misrepresentation claims. In January 2015, the plaintiff obtained an order for class certification in respect of the claims for which he obtained leave to assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities Act, for certain negligent misrepresentation claims and for oppression remedy claims advanced under the CBCA. We are seeking leave to appeal from specific aspects of these two decisions. The motion for leave to appeal will be decided in 2015. We believe the Ontario action is without merit and we are defending it vigorously." CAPRI NAILS: Faces "Rong" Suit Over Failure Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- James Rong, Individually and on Behalf of Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Capri Nails and Eco Spa, Inc, Jae Woo Kim a/k/a David Kim, Case No. 2:15-cv-02824 (E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a nail salon and spa on Oceanside, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 Facsimile: (212) 563-9870 E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com CATALINA RESTAURANT: Faces Second Class Action Over Mass Layoffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Jennings, writing for Nation's Restaurant News, reports that two more Coco's Bakery locations in Southern California closed on Thursday, officials with owner Food Management Partners, or FMP, confirmed. FMP, the new owner of parent company Catalina Restaurant Group Inc., has closed a total of 77 locations in recent weeks. Catalina operates and franchises the Coco's Bakery and Carrows family-dining brands. As of March 31, it operated 149 restaurants. The news comes as a second class-action lawsuit was filed, citing both Carlsbad, Calif.-based Catalina Restaurant Group, as well as new owners San Antonio-based FMP and other unnamed defendants, for failing to give workers adequate notice of mass layoffs, according to court documents. FMP acquired Catalina in March. On April 1, its first day of ownership, FMP abruptly closed 38 Coco's Bakery units and 35 Carrows restaurants, as well as two units of the fast-casual Ranch House Cafe and Grill brand, according to former employees. FMP officials confirmed on April 30 that two more Coco's locations, in Santa Maria and Manhattan Beach, Calif., were closed, but offered no details. In the past, officials said it was necessary to close restaurants that were not performing at a competitive level to make both brands stronger. Former employees said thousands of workers were left jobless after the restaurants closed without warning. Many learned of the closures when they showed up for work and found a sign on the door. The layoffs also included an unknown number of workers at Catalina's Carlsbad headquarters. On April 27, a group of former workers from Orange County and Los Angeles County, Calif., filed a class-action lawsuit citing violations of federal and state labor codes known as Worker Readjustment and Retraining, or WARN, acts. The federal WARN Act requires employers of 100 or more workers to give 60 days notice of a plant or facility closure that impacts at least 50 full-time employees. Filed in the U.S. District Court of Central California, the lawsuit names plaintiffs identified as Roseann Barnett, Gary Bowles, Onesimo Cantoran, Sabino Gonzales, Adriana Macias, Marcos Miranda, Angel Ortiz, Maria Ramirez and Violeta Ramirez, all of whom have worked for Catalina for the past six months, for at least 20 hours per week. The lawsuit seeks civil penalties of $500 per day for each violation, back pay and reimbursement of medical expenses that would have been covered under the employee benefit plan. The suit is the second such case. On April 8, former employee Ronald Ross filed a class-action lawsuit, also citing WARN Act violations. According to Nation's Restaurant News' Second 100 census, Coco's had estimated U.S. systemwide sales of $141.5 million for fiscal 2013, a decrease of nearly 2 percent from the previous year. The chain had 113 units at the end of the year. Carrows had estimated domestic systemwide sales of $55.2 million, a decrease of nearly 5 percent from the previous year. The chain had 58 units at the end of the year. The family-dining segment has been showing strength recently, due in part to lower gas prices, analyst Mark Kalinowski of Janney Montgomery Scott LLC said in a report on April 30. Both IHOP and Denny's have reported strong same-store sales increases. But the struggles of the Coco's and Carrows brands indicate that "a rising tide does not lift all boats -- a lot of hard work, and smart work, goes into making a restaurant concept successful, even in a segment blessed with some outside help," Mr. Kalinowski wrote. Both IHOP and Denny's have made meaningful improvements to their concepts, he noted. And because both brands were born in California and have a strong presence in the state, both will likely benefit from the Catalina closures, he said. "With over 70 Coco's and Carrows combined closing, and with most of those closures apparently coming in California, it seems that some IHOP and Denny's restaurants in the Golden State could benefit in terms of new patrons," he wrote. "We think they'll like what they find." CELERA CORP: June 28 Deadline to File Claim in Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- GroundReport.com reports that the Shareholders Foundation disclosed that a deadline is coming up on June 28, 2015 in the settlement reached in the securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors who purchased shares of Celera Corporation (formerly NASDAQ: CRA; Celera Corporation was acquired by Quest Diagnostics in 2011) between April 24, 2008 to July 22, 2009. Investors who purchased a significant amount of shares of Celera Corporation (formerly NASDAQ: CRA) between April 24, 2008 to July 22, 2009, have certain options and should contact the Shareholders Foundation by email at mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1(858) 779 - 1554. The settlement proof of claim form or detailed settlement notice for the settlement in the Celera Corporation (formerly NASDAQ: CRA) Investor Securities Class Action Lawsuit can be downloaded at: http://shareholdersfoundation.com/case/celera-corporation- nasdaq-cra-investor-securities-class-action-lawsuit-06142010 In order to submit a claim an investor has to submit the claim proof to the class action claim administrator in a timely manner. The deadline to submit the proof with the class administrator is June 28, 2015. The class action administrator for this case is Gilardi & Co LLC. The lawsuit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Celera Corporation over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between April 24, 2008 and July 22, 2009. According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that Celera Corporation and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing between April 24, 2008 and July 22, 2009 false and misleading statements regarding its business and financial results, repeatedly assuring investors that Celera Corporation would be able to increase the amount of its Lab Services business that was under contract, thus making its ability to collect on its receivables more predictable and less costly and time consuming. Defendants further assured investors that Celera Corporation was adequately reserving for its bad debts. As a result of defendants' false statements, Celera Corporation stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period, trading as high as $16.23 per share in September 2008. Then on July 22, 2009, Celera Corporation announced that its "second quarter 2009 revenues relative to the prior year quarter [were] expected to show a reduction for Celera Corporation's Lab Services business." According to Celera Corporation, the Lab Services revenues were "adversely affected by lower than anticipated sample volume due to broad economic pressures, lost business as a result of the Company's efforts to collect aged receivables, and the denial of reimbursement on a number of legacy . . . tests by certain payors in some regions." In addition, Celera Corporation expected to record "significant charges in the second quarter of 2009 for bad debt expense and impairment of goodwill and intangible assets." On this news, so the complaint, Celera Corp's stock declined $1.91 per share to close at $5.83 per share on July 23, 2009, a one-day decline of nearly 25%. Celera Corporation, located in Alameda, California, is a healthcare business focusing on the integration of genetic testing into routine clinical care through a combination of products and services. Those who purchased shares of Celera Corporation (formerly NASDAQ: CRA) have certain options and should contact the Shareholders Foundation. CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: To Defend Against Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc., a biomedicine firm engaged in the development of effective stem cell therapies for degenerative diseases and immunotherapies for cancer, on April 30 disclosed that it intends to vigorously defend against the claims made in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed against the company and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint is based in large part on an anonymous article published on the Seeking Alpha website, which CBMG has already addressed on its website. CBMG has reviewed the complaint and views the allegations as meritless. Adrienne Marie Ward of Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP ("EGS") will serve as lead defense counsel for CBMG and its officers. Barry Grossman of EGS will also advise the Company in connection with its defense of the class actions. About Cellular Biomedicine Group Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. -- http://www.cellbiomedgroup.com -- develops proprietary cell therapies for the treatment of certain degenerative diseases and cancers. CHC GROUP: Removed "McCrory" Class Suit to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- CHC Group Ltd. removed the class action captioned Peter McCrory, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHC Group Ltd., et al., Case No. 651272/2015 from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit is brought under the Securities Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq. Scott Jacobsen, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com sjacobsen@scott-scott.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew J. Levander, Esq. DECHERT LLP 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-6797 Telephone: (212) 698-3500 E-mail: andrew.levander@dechert.com CMG OIL: Sued in D.N.D. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lankford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CMG Oil & Gas, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00061-CSM (D.N.D., May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection with recent the mass layoff and plant closing at the Defendant's Ross, North Dakota site of employment. CMG Oil & Gas, Inc. owns and operates gas stations with principal place of business located at 9101 62nd Ave NW, Ross, North Dakota 58776. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras Jr., Esq. HUNT, HASSLER, LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP 100 Cherry St. Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Case Goes Back to Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CMS Energy Corporation and Consumers Energy Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation will be sent back to the district court for continued proceedings, including completion of discovery, motions, and trial. CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, have been named as defendants in five class action lawsuits arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report trade information. Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs are making claims for the following: full consideration damages, treble damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorney fees. After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court based on FERC preemption. Plaintiffs filed appeals in all of the cases. The issues on appeal were whether the district court erred in dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a federal Sherman Act antitrust claim. The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases, but other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants. In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court decision and remanded the case to the district court judge for further proceedings. The appellate court found that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims. In August 2013, the joint defense group in these cases, of which CMS Energy defendants are members, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In July 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear this case. In April 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Ninth Circuit. The case will now be sent back to the district court for continued proceedings, including completion of discovery, motions, and trial. COOPER VISION: Faces "Burt" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Beneta D. Burt, Judy Dillon,, Willie Dillon, Jeanne M. Lyles, Brent Halversen, Stacia Winfield, Catherine Dingle, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB/Con-cise Optical Group, LLC a/k/a ABB Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-00616-HLA-JBT (M.D. Fla., May 18, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those products. The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the business of making eye care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Kneece Grimm, Esq. John Andrew DeVault III, Esq. BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, PA The Bedell Bldg 101 E Adams St Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-0211 Facsimile: (904) 353-9307 E-mail: cgrimm@bedellfirm.com jad@bedellfirm.com - and - Daniel R. Karon, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO AND KARON, PC 55 Public Square, Suite 1500 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 622-1851 Facsimile: (216) 622-1852 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com CRYSTAL TOUCH: Faces "Monarca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Martinez-Monarca, Hilda Lucero, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Crystal Touch Cleaners, Inc. and Bener Kandkhorov Case No. 1:15-cv-03791-KBF (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a dry cleaning and laundry shop located at 607 Westchester Avenue, Bronx, New York 10455. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com CULINARY BRANDS: Recalls Pork Products Due to Misbranding --------------------------------------------------------- Culinary Brands Inc., a Vernon, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 4,038 pounds of pork products due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The pork product was mistakenly mislabeled and may contain the wrong product, a mushroom risotto which contains wheat, a known allergen which is not declared on the product label. The pork chile verde product was produced on March 30 and April 2, 2015. The following product is subject to recall: --- 9-oz. plastic tray packages labeled "Simply Balanced Pork Chile Verde" bearing lot #A5089G2. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 6009" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items produced were shipped to retail locations nationwide. The problem was discovered after the firm received a customer complaint that the package contained the wrong product. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Frank Calma, Chief Executive Officer, at (626) 289-3000 (ext. 116). EBAY INC: Defending Against Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------ eBay Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that "In May 2014, we publicly announced that criminals were able to penetrate our network and steal certain data, including user names, encrypted user passwords and other non-financial user data, from eBay's Marketplaces business unit. Upon making this announcement, eBay Marketplaces required all buyers and sellers on the Marketplaces platform to reset their passwords in order to login to their account. In addition to making this public announcement, we proactively approached a number of regulatory and governmental bodies, including those with the most direct supervisory authority over our data privacy and data security programs, to specifically inform them of the incident and our actions to protect our customers in response. Certain of those regulatory agencies have requested us to provide further, more detailed information regarding the incident, and we believe that we have fully cooperated in all of those requests. To date, we have not been informed by any regulatory authority of an intention to bring any enforcement action arising from this incident; however, in the future we may be subject to fines or other regulatory action. In addition, in July 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us for alleged violations and harm resulting from the incident. We are vigorously defending the lawsuit." ENVIVIO INC: Funded Settlement Amount Into Escrow Account --------------------------------------------------------- Envivio, Inc. has funded into an escrow account its portion of a class action settlement of approximately $1.0 million, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015. The Company said, "On October 5, 2012 a complaint captioned Wiley v. Envivio, Inc., et al. CIV-517185 was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, each of our directors, our chief executive officer, our chief financial officer, and certain underwriters of our IPO. The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in the IPO and generally alleges that the registration statement for the IPO contained materially false or misleading statements. The complaint purports to assert claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief." "On October 19, 2012 a similar complaint captioned Toth v. Envivio, Inc. et al. CIV-517481 was filed in the same court. On November 2, 2012 defendants removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California where they were assigned case numbers 12-cv-05637-CRB and 12-cv-05636-CW. A similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 20, 2012 entitled Thomas v. Envivio, Inc., et al. C 12-06464. The Wiley and Toth actions were subsequently remanded to the San Mateo Superior Court, where they are now pending, and the Thomas case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. "On February 28, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Gary Silverberg v. Envivio, Inc. et al., Civil No. 14-cv-00933- PJH. The complaint purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of our securities between April 25, 2012 and September 7, 2012. It names as defendants the Company and our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. "On June 25, 2014, the Silverberg case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. In November 2014, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the above-described actions without any admission of any wrongdoing by us or any of the named defendants. The parties subsequently entered into a formal settlement agreement, which must be approved by the court before becoming final. The agreement requires us to contribute approximately $1.0 million toward the settlement. On March 16, 2015, we funded into an escrow account our portion of the settlement of approximately $1.0 million, and the remaining settlement payment will be covered by our director and officer insurance providers. The settlement payment will be released from escrow subject to and upon final court approval of the settlement." FACEBOOK INC: Filed Opposition to Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company filed its opposition to class certification. The Company said, "Beginning on May 22, 2012, multiple putative class actions, derivative actions, and individual actions were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and in other jurisdictions against us, our directors, and/or certain of our officers alleging violation of securities laws or breach of fiduciary duties in connection with our initial public offering (IPO) and seeking unspecified damages. We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend them. The vast majority of the cases in the United States, along with multiple cases filed against The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (collectively referred to herein as NASDAQ) alleging technical and other trading-related errors by NASDAQ in connection with our IPO, were ordered centralized for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York." "In a series of rulings in 2013 and 2014, the court denied our motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action and granted our motions to dismiss the derivative actions against our directors and certain of our officers. The plaintiffs in four of these derivative actions have filed notices of appeal. The appeals have been fully briefed. On December 23, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed their motion for class certification. On April 10, 2015, we filed our opposition to class certification. In addition, the events surrounding our IPO became the subject of various state and federal government inquiries. In May 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notified us that it had terminated its inquiry and that no enforcement action had been recommended by the SEC." FIRST AMERICAN: Defending Class Actions Over Improper Rate ---------------------------------------------------------- First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance transaction, including: ** Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on February 26, 2009 and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ** Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, and ** Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on February 14, 2004 and pending in the Circuit Court, Nassau County, Florida. All of these lawsuits are putative class actions. A court has only granted class certification in Lewis and Raffone. The Company has been unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is immaterial to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole. FIRST AMERICAN: Narrow Class Certified in "Edwards" Case -------------------------------------------------------- First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as an inducement to refer title insurance underwriting business to the Company or gave items of value to title insurance agents and others for referrals of business in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, including: ** Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on June 12, 2007 and pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In Edwards a narrow class has been certified. The Company has been unable to estimate the possible loss or the range of loss. FIRST AMERICAN: Class in "Gale" Case Decertified ------------------------------------------------ First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, including: ** Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed on October 16, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court of Connecticut. The class originally certified in Gale was subsequently decertified. The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss. FIRST AMERICAN: Sager v. Interthinx Case Not Yet Certified ---------------------------------------------------------- First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents misclassified certain employees, including: ** Sager v. Interthinx, Inc., filed on January 23, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Sager is a putative class action for which a class has not been certified. The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss. FIRST AMERICAN: 7 Class Action Cases Not Yet Certified ------------------------------------------------------ First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and services, denied home warranty claims, failed to timely file certain documents, and gave items of value to developers, builders and others as inducements to refer business in violation of certain laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain obligations, including: ** Bushman v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed on November 21, 2013 and pending in the Circuit Court of the State of Michigan, County of Washtenaw, ** Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States District Court of New Jersey, ** Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on July 14, 2008 and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, ** Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, ** Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, ** Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, ** Snyder v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on June 21, 2014 and pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, ** Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and ** In re First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation, consolidated on October 9, 2014 and pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Kirk, are putative class actions for which a class has not been certified. In Kaufman a class was certified but that certification was subsequently vacated. A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded, plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal and the Company filed a cross appeal. The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is immaterial to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole. FITBIT: Faces New Round of Rash Complaints ------------------------------------------ Cristin Severance, writing for 10 News, reports that Team 10 uncovered several hundred new complaints about Fitbits that were supposed to be fixed. People are complaining online and to the Consumer Product Safety Commission about rashes while wearing the popular fitness trackers. However, Fitbit stands by their products and blames new rashes on users wearing the products too tightly. Rash of Rashes Leslie Fisher bought a Fitbit two years ago after learning she was pre-diabetic. "Is it a bummer that I can't have red velvet cake -- yeah, but I feel a lot better," the 45-year-old said. The education and technology keynote speaker feels better thanks to the high-tech tracker that never leaves her wrist. Her Fitbit Charge helps her monitor her calories, steps and exercise. "For me, it was a great way to take the weight off and also to live a healthier lifestyle," said Fisher. Fisher was so happy with her first Fitbit Flex that she then bought the Force. "I love it -- absolutely love the concept. I love that I had a watch on my hand. Love that I could see my data right there," she said. Fisher loved the Force too, until she said it abruptly woke her up one night. "It felt itchy, like you got bit by something," she said. Fisher said her itch grew into a rash that eventually scabbed over. She checked online and learned that hundreds of people were experiencing the same rash from the Force. "I ended up with a scar . . . that was from the scab," she said. Kim Reichelt in Boston was one of the first Force owners to complain of a red, flaky rash. The mom of three sent Team 10 pictures of her injuries from the fitness tracker. "It was disgusting. It looked like some sort of industrial burn," said Reichelt. Fitbit voluntarily recalled one million Force Fitbits in February 2014 after 10,000 people complained to the CPSC. Fitbit said the rashes from the Force were from users who experienced allergic contact dermatitis and likely reacted to the adhesives used to manufacture Force or, to a lesser degree, nickel in the stainless steel casing. "They discontinued the other band and they came out with this replacement," said Fisher. New products, New Rash Reports Fitbit released the Surge, Charge and Charge HR at the end of 2014. Fisher continued her commitment to Fitbit with the Charge. "Within a week of owning it I got another rash," she said. Fitbit promised the adhesive in the new products would not make contact with the skin, but Team 10 found hundreds of rash complaints online from Surge, Charge and Charge HR owners. People posted pictures of their rashes on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, while Fisher showed us other complaints on the Fitbit forum. "Day 3 with my 'new won't irritate skin' fitbt [sic] charge," one Charge owner tweeted. "I got the new surge, also got this rash," said another Surge owner. "I sent a tweet to Fitbit, I can't believe I have another rash. Went online and sure enough other people were getting rashes as well," said Fisher. Lawsuit filed Force and Flex injury lawsuits were filed in San Diego in March 2014 by John Fiske of John Gomez Trial Attorneys, on behalf of Force users. Tim Lapean in Saint Paul, Minnesota, is also represented by Gomez Trial Attorneys, but he got his rash from the Surge. A new lawsuit has not been filed on behalf of Surge and Charge owners. "I didn't buy the other ones because of the rashes, but I had heard with the new ones, they fixed the issues," said Lapean. He called Fitbit's response to his rash complaint demeaning. "They told me I was wearing it wrong and they sent me a pdf that basically told me how to wear a watch," said Lapean. Fitbit tells users complaining of rashes online to take off the watch, and the company blames the new round of rashes on users wearing it too tight. "If there was any question, why would they release another one?" asked Lapean. Questions Over Cause Many Fitbit owners wonder if the nickel or adhesive were the right problems to address. CEO James Park wrote in his October 2014 blog: "Independent test results have not found any issues with the battery or electrical systems." Team 10 uncovered that the CPSC continued testing after the recall and that chemicals from the battery were a plausible cause of the reactions in a more than 500-page Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response. "If people are still getting rashes then it's obviously not fixed," said Fredrick. A CPSC spokeswoman told Team 10 they can't talk specifically about a company unless that company gives them permission. Team 10 found people are reporting rashes from the Surge and Charge on the CPSC website Safeproducts.gov. Fitbit responds The company responded to a number of questions regarding the new complaints: "We learned a lot from Force, which was voluntarily recalled early last year, and have applied these learnings to all of our products. While Force's housing and band were held together with adhesive, which was determined to be the cause of nearly all allergic reactions, the housing and band for Fitbit's new products are held together with screws, completely eliminating the potential for any adhesive to contact the skin. We also significantly reduced the amount of surgical-grade stainless steel. We have conducted extensive testing with laboratories and consulted with top dermatologists to develop stringent standards so that users can safely wear and enjoy our products, and we have worked to ensure that our new products meet those stringent standards. As part of our commitment to help consumers live a healthier, more active life, we've created a board of leading, certified dermatologists who have helped us enhance our testing protocols and develop wear and care guidelines so our users can maximize their enjoyment of Fitbit products. These guidelines are available at www.fitbit.com/productcare." Team 10: Was any more testing done to find out what caused the rashes with the Force product? " -- Fitbit conducted a thorough investigation with Force and found users who experienced allergic contact dermatitis likely reacted to the adhesives used to manufacture Force or, to a lesser degree, nickel in the stainless steel casing. We have made this information available to our users through this open letter from the CEO: http://www.fitbit.com/forcesupport. -- Reactions we are seeing with other products are different from the allergic reactions we saw with Force, and are not uncommon with jewelry or wearable devices that stay in contact with the skin for extended periods. According to our consulting dermatologists, they are likely from wearing the band too tight; sweat, water, or soap being held against the skin under the device; or from pressure or friction against the skin, and should resolve quickly when users take a break from the device, usually within hours or days." Team 10: Are you getting complaints of rashes with the Surge, Charge and Charge HR products, and if so, what is the company telling customers and what do you believe is causing these rashes? "We continue to be aware of very limited reports of skin irritation by our users. As the user base grows, we expect the number of reports to grow even though the overall incidence rate remains negligible. The reactions we are seeing with new products are different from the allergic reactions we saw with Force, and are not uncommon with jewelry or wearable devices that stay in contact with the skin for extended periods. According to our consulting dermatologists, they are likely from wearing the band too tight; sweat, water, or soap being held against the skin under the device; or from pressure or friction against the skin, and should resolve quickly when users take a break from the device, usually within hours or days. We are encouraging anyone wearing an activity tracking wristband, regardless of the brand, to follow four key elements for maximum enjoyment: keep it clean, keep it dry, don't wear it too tight, and give your wrist a rest. These guidelines are available at www.fitbit.com/productcare." Team 10: Fitbit stated that independent testing did not find any issues with the battery or electrical systems, but an email from the CPSC in May of 2014 shows they continued testing after the recall and that chemicals from the battery were a plausible cause of the reactions. Do you have any comment? " -- Independent test results have not found any issues with the battery or electrical systems. -- Any issue a user experiences is likely from wearing the band too tight; having something get under the device and held against the skin; or from pressure or friction against the skin. In any of these circumstances, the issue could be located near the charging port. -- We continue to monitor this issue, as it impacts all companies that make products worn next to the skin, particularly the wearables industry as people tend to wear devices for long periods without giving their skin a break." GALESBURG, IL: Teachers' Unions's Grievances Head to Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Zigterman, writing for The Register-Mail, reports that the Galesburg teachers' union's grievances against District 205 appear to be headed to arbitration. The two grievances, filed with the Illinois Education Association, accuse the district of not applying the evaluations consistently across the different schools in the district. "One has specifically to do with inconsistencies in the evaluations," Galesburg Education Association President David Sharp said. "And the other one also addresses a specific as to how a certain evaluation was done and how it was different than the rest of them." He added, "We feel strongly that we needed to file the grievances and that we need to come up with a solution to make it more consistent. That's my goal." The GEA filed the grievances with the district about two months ago, Mr. Sharp said, and Superintendent Bart Arthur denied them earlier in April. "They filed them as class action grievances," Mr. Arthur said. "We denied them because there's only one person in each grievance that they allege we violated their rights. Class action is the whole group. Basically they were fishing to see if there were other people involved, and there weren't. We feel we didn't do anything contractually wrong with the procedures. We're solid on our stance." Since the grievances couldn't be resolved at the local level, the GEA has filed them with the IEA, which will decide whether to move toward arbitration. If it does, the IEA will notify the district that the GEA is seeking arbitration. Mr. Sharp noted that the GEA and district can still avoid arbitration. "I'm still willing to work with administration to get a solution to this grievance problem so that it doesn't have to go all the way to arbitration," Mr. Sharp said. Overall, Mr. Sharp said relations with the district have improved since last year's teachers' strike. "I'm pretty happy with the progress that's been made," Mr. Sharp said. "There has been a line of communication that has been opened up that wasn't necessarily there in the past, and there has been some issues and concerns that we've had, and we met and came to solutions." GAWKER MEDIA: Use of Social Media to Notify Class Members Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gauri Punjabi, Esq. -- GPPunjabi@mintz.com -- of Mintz Levin, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in what appears to be a sign of things to come, a federal court in New York recently approved the use of social media to notify potential class members who were more likely to be reached that way rather than by more traditional forms of notice, such as regular mail. The order permitting social media use comes on the heels of a similar order by a federal court in California. In Mark v. Gawker Media LLC, former unpaid interns brought a collective/class action against Gawker alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law. Recognizing that most, if not all, of the potential class members use social media, a New York federal court allowed the interns to submit a proposal to notify them through this medium. The interns initially proposed to give notice using a Twitter account called "GawkerInterns" in conjunction with several hashtags; creating a public LinkedIn group called "Gawker Intern Lawsuit" where any person, whether inside or outside of the class, could comment; posting a link to the Court-authorized notice on multiple Reddit pages and on Tumblr; and "friending" interns on Facebook, sending them messages directing them to the lawsuit website, and publishing a public Facebook group called "GawkerInternLawsuit". The court rejected the interns' initial proposal in its entirety, finding it substantially overbroad. The Court had expected the interns to use social media to provide private, personalized notifications to potential class members whose identities were known but could not be reached through other means. The interns' proposal, on the other hand, provided, at best, messages to the general public and lacked "any realistic notice of specifically targeting its notice to individuals with opt-in rights." It was clear to the Court that the primary purpose of the interns' proposal was to punish Gawker by publicizing the lawsuit rather than provide notice of opt-in rights. But the court did let the plaintiffs take another stab at a revised proposal and this time it gave the thumbs up. The revised proposal was far narrower and allowed notice via social media with a message "substantially similar" to that contained in traditional forms of notice already approved by the Court and therefore removed "the danger of simply advertising a lawsuit against Defendants." Specifically, the plaintiffs proposed utilizing: Twitter: the plaintiffs using the handle @Gawkerintern would follow the intern and then if the intern followed them back, the plaintiffs would send them a private message about how to join the lawsuit. Facebook: plaintiffs would try to "friend" the interns and send them a message about the lawsuit; alternatively, if they did not accept the friend request, they could send a private Facebook message. LinkedIn: plaintiffs could send an "In-Mail" message to the intern about the lawsuit. The court largely accepted the proposal except that it required the plaintiffs to "unfollow" interns who did not respond to the private Twitter message, and it did not allow them to "friend" any interns on Facebook; at most, they could send them a private Facebook message. The Gawker Court was not the first and will not be the last court to approve of the use of social media to provide notice. In March, a federal court in California, in Woods v. Vector Mkt. Corp., granted a proposal to provide notice of a FLSA collective action using Facebook. Unlike in Gawker, these plaintiffs proposed using a short Facebook ad that required users to enter their last name and last four digits of their social security numbers before redirecting them to the official case website and long-form notice of their opt in rights. Because it was not clear that email could provide a reliable form of contact to these potential class members, the court found the Facebook ad a "particularly useful form of ensuring actual notice." The court further found that the proposed verification process would filter out ineligible claims. Courts have also approved the use of social media to distribute other forms of legal notice. For example, a New York state family court allowed a summons and petition to be served via Facebook on an individual in a child support proceeding who maintained an active presence on Facebook but whose actual physical whereabouts were uncertain. As social media use continues to grow, it is likely courts will increasingly approve of notification via social media where it is more likely to reach potential class members or other parties that way. In order to avoid the use of social media, employers, therefore, should maintain up-to-date records of employees' traditional contact information. GENERAL MOTORS: 108 Class Actions Pending by Vehicle Consumers -------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that through April 20, 2015 the Company is aware of 108 putative class actions pending against GM in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation. The Company said, "In the year ended December 31, 2014 we announced a number of recalls relating to safety, customer satisfaction and other matters. Those recalls included recalls to repair ignition switches that could under certain circumstances unintentionally move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position with a corresponding loss of power, which could in turn prevent airbags from deploying in the event of a crash." "Through April 20, 2015 we were aware of 108 putative class actions pending against GM in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases). Additionally, through April 20, 2015 we were aware of 21 putative class actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking relief similar to that sought in the economic-loss cases in the U.S. In the aggregate these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, such as alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as well as punitive damages and injunctive and other relief. "Through April 20, 2015 we were aware of 144 actions pending in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. against GM alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the subject of recalls announced in 2014 (personal injury cases). In the aggregate these personal injury cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, punitive damages and other relief. "Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has issued orders from time to time directing that certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal lawsuits involving alleged faulty ignition switches or other defects that may be related to the recalls announced in the year ended December 31, 2014 be transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the Southern District of New York (the multidistrict litigation). Through April 20, 2015 192 cases have been transferred to, and consolidated with, the multidistrict litigation. "Because many of the plaintiffs in the actions described in the above paragraphs are suing over the conduct of General Motors Corporation or vehicles manufactured by that entity for liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, we moved to enforce the terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude claims from being asserted against us for, among other things, personal injury claims based on pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss claims based on acts or conduct of General Motors Corporation and claims asserting successor liability for obligations owed by General Motors Corporation (successor liability claims). On April 15, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a Decision precluding claims against us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims based upon the acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation and successor liability claims, except for claims asserting liabilities that had been expressly assumed by us in the July 2009 Sale Agreement and claims that could be asserted against us only if they were otherwise viable and arose solely out of our own independent post-closing acts and did not in any way rely on acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will appeal the Bankruptcy Court's decision." GENERAL MOTORS: NY Teachers File Consolidated Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the putative shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the court appointed the New York State Teachers' Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On January 15, 2015 New York State Teachers' Retirement System filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against GM and several current and former officers and employees (the Defendants). On behalf of purchasers of GM common stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014, the Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges that Defendants made material misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings and other public statements. On March 13, 2015 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. GENERAL MOTORS: Trial Held on Class Issues in GMCL Dealers' Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that trial of the class issues in the GMCL Dealers' Claim was completed in the fourth quarter of 2014. On February 12, 2010, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL) on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down agreements with GMCL. In May 2009 in the context of the global restructuring of the business and the possibility that GMCL might be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GMCL offered the Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from the GMCL dealer network and to facilitate winding down their operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009 or such other date as GMCL approved but no later than on October 31, 2010. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding" Canadian Dollar $750 million, without explanation of any specific measure of damages. On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of "good faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GMCL interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association; (3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a disclosure statement and/or disclose more specific information regarding its restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down agreements; and (4) assuming liability, whether the Plaintiff Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed to proving individual damages). A number of former dealers have opted out of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. Trial of the class issues was completed in the fourth quarter of 2014. "We are now awaiting a decision from the Ontario Superior Court. The current prospects for liability are uncertain, but because liability is not deemed probable we have no accrual relating to this litigation. We cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in the event of liability as the case presents a variety of different legal theories, none of which GMCL believes are valid," the Company said. GENERAL MOTORS: Facing Litigation Over Ordinary Wages Regulation ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is party to litigation with current and former salaried employees over allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation. The Company said, "Commencing on or about September 29, 2010 current and former hourly employees of GM Korea Company (GM Korea) filed eight separate group actions in the Incheon District Court in Incheon, Korea. The cases, which in aggregate involve more than 10,000 employees, allege that GM Korea failed to include bonuses and certain allowances in its calculation of Ordinary Wages due under the Presidential Decree of the Korean Labor Standards Act. On November 23, 2012 the Seoul High Court (an intermediate level appellate court) issued a decision affirming a decision of the Incheon District Court in a case involving five GM Korea employees which was contrary to GM Korea's position. GM Korea appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Supreme Court) and initiated a constitutional challenge to the adverse interpretation of the relevant statute." "In December 2013 the Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case involving another company not affiliated with us which addressed many of the issues presented in the cases pending against GM Korea and resolved many of them in a manner which we believe is favorable to GM Korea. In particular, while the Supreme Court held that fixed bonuses should be included in the calculation of Ordinary Wages, it also held that claims for retroactive application of this rule would be barred under certain circumstances. "On May 29, 2014 the Supreme Court rendered its decision with respect to the case involving the five GM Korea employees and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court consistent with its December 2013 ruling. In July 2014 GM Korea and its labor union agreed to include bonuses and certain allowances in Ordinary Wages retroactively to March 1, 2014. Therefore our accrual related to these cases was reclassified from a contingent liability to the Pensions liability. "We estimate our reasonably possible loss, as defined by ASC 450, "Contingencies," in excess of amounts accrued to be 568 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $512 million) at March 31, 2015, which relates to periods before March 1, 2014. "We are also party to litigation with current and former salaried employees over allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation. At March 31, 2015 we have identified a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount of our accrual of 168 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $152 million). Both the scope of claims asserted and GM Korea's assessment of any or all of the individual claim elements may change if new information becomes available. These cases are currently pending before various district courts in Korea and the Supreme Court." GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal Filed in Inventory Mgmt Securities Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiff filed an appeal in the Inventory Management Securities Class Action. The Company said, "On June 29, 2012 a putative securities class action was filed against us and a number of our past and current officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (George G. Scott v. General Motors Company et al). Purporting to sue on behalf of owners of common stock deriving from our 2010 initial public offering, plaintiff asserts non-fraud prospectus based liability claims under various federal securities statutes alleging that the Company has made false statements about its vehicle inventory controls and production decisions, particularly with respect to full-size trucks. The plaintiff's complaint requests compensatory damages, rescission and litigation costs, fees and disbursements. On November 21, 2012 the court appointed the Teamster's Local 710 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the matter. On February 1, 2013 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On September 4, 2014 the district court granted our motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff filed an appeal." GILLEX FOODS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Rocio Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, known and unknown v. Gillex Foods, Inc., d/b/a Subway, Sab Food, Inc., d/b/a Subway, and Minhaz Lakhani, Case No. 1:15-cv-04363 (N.D. Ill., May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a Subway franchise with several locations in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen Ann Salas, Esq. Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq. Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq. Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com dwerman@flsalaw.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Moll Law Considers Class Action Over Zofran ------------------------------------------------------------ A Chicago law firm said it is considering filing the first nationwide class action lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the makers of Zofran, a powerful anti-nausea drug alleged to increase the risk of birth defects when used by pregnant women, particularly during the first trimester. Moll Law Group (www.molllawgroup.com) reports that, based on a federal investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that GSK agreed to plead guilty and pay $3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company's unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, including Zofran. The law firm notes, however, that this ruling does not specifically address the severe fetal defects that Zofran allegedly may cause. "As early as 1992, GSK began receiving more than 200 reports of birth defects associated with the use of Zofran by pregnant women, conditions ranging from congenital heart, orofacial and septal defects to kidney malformation and even stillbirths," said attorney Ken Moll of Moll Law Group, which concentrates in product liability and protecting the rights of consumers. "We believe the number of events reported to GSK is only a small fraction of the actual incidents. However, in all that time, GSK failed to warn and never updated Zofran's labeling to disclose that the drug can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. "Despite evidence showing the unreasonable risk of harm to babies exposed to Zofran prenatally, GSK continued to promote to obstetrics and gynecology healthcare practitioners, among others, that Zofran is a safe treatment alternative for morning sickness in pregnant women," Moll said. "In addition, back in 1999, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) directed GSK to immediately cease distribution of its promotional materials about the drug, a mandate we believe was disregarded. "The Zofran lawsuit we are considering would focus on such acts and how GSK failed to protect newborns from serious and life- threatening medical conditions," Moll added. Moll said his firm has initiated discussions with women whose babies were possibly affected through use of Zofran during pregnancy and is available to talk to others (Moll can be contacted at 312-462-1700). According to Moll, GSK developed Zofran to treat cancer patients afflicted with severe cases of nausea that resulted from chemotherapy or radiation treatments. The FDA approved Zofran for such use in 1991. "However, due to the many cases of pregnancy-related nausea, and the absence then of a prescription medication approved by the FDA for such a condition, GSK recognized an opportunity to significantly expand sales of Zofran and proceeded to promote its off-label use to pregnant women," said Moll. A new FDA rule that takes effect this June will help expand the availability of information about drugs such as Zofran, Moll said. The rule will require manufacturers to summarize the risks of using a drug during pregnancy, offer data to support that summary, and provide healthcare providers key information to help them counsel pregnant women about the use of drugs. "But GSK should be taking measures immediately to comply with this vital FDA stipulation to prevent further harm and injuries to newborns," said Moll. About Moll Law Group Chicago-based Moll Law Group represents people around the nation who were severely injured, and families who have lost a loved one, due to defective products, dangerous prescription drugs, faulty medical devices or unsafe vehicles. HALLIBURTON CO: Fact Discovery & Other Pretrial Deadlines Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the securities and related litigation, the district court has held a hearing to consider whether there was an impact on the Company's stock price from the alleged misrepresentations, and fact discovery and other pretrial deadlines have been stayed. The Company said, "In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against us in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated an investigation in connection with our change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, approximately twenty similar class actions were filed against us. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or former officers and directors. The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund). We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004. "In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc., including that we failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure. "In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than our Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against our CEO and us. "In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The district court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order in November 2008 denying the motion for class certification. The Fund appealed the district court's order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying class certification. In May 2010, the Fund filed a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. In January 2011, the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and accepted the appeal. The Court heard oral arguments in April 2011 and issued its decision in June 2011, reversing the Fifth Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification. The Court's ruling was limited to the Fifth Circuit's loss causation requirement, and the case was returned to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration of our other arguments for denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit returned the case to the district court, and in January 2012 the court issued an order certifying the class. We filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Fifth Circuit, which was granted. In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order affirming the District Court's order certifying the class. "We filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking an appeal of the Fifth Circuit decision. In November 2013, the Supreme Court granted our writ. Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court in March 2014. The Supreme Court issued its decision in June 2014, maintaining the presumption of class member reliance through the "fraud on the market" theory, but holding that we are entitled to rebut that presumption by presenting evidence that there was no impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentation. Because the district court and the Fifth Circuit denied us that opportunity, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court decision. "In December 2014, the district court held a hearing to consider whether there was an impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentations. Fact discovery and other pretrial deadlines have been stayed. The court has not yet issued a ruling on class certification. We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which we intend to vigorously defend." HUNT'S POINT: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Venus Sanchez, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the Proposed New York Rule 23 Class v. Hunt's Point Triangle, Inc., William Hangan, John Doe and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-03787 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Hunt's Point Triangle, an adult entertainment club in the County of Bronx. New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: George Theodore Peters, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE T. PETERS 402 W. 145th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10031 Telephone: (347) 751-0157 Facsimile: (347) 464-0921 E-mail: george.peters@myatty1.com IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Falsely Marketed Copper Sleeves, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernard Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ideavillage Products Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-03365-ES- JAD (D.N.J., May 15, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the purchasers of Copper Fit brand knee and elbow sleeves that were falsely marketed by the Defendant that the products help relieve aches and pains and speed muscle recovery time. In fact, they do not provide any additional benefits beyond those provided by ordinary, less expensive, non-copper-infused knee and elbow sleeves. Ideavillage Products Corp. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Wayne, New Jersey. Ideavillage develops, manufactures, markets, and sells Copper Fit brand copper-infused knee and elbow sleeves. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin D. Elga, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1819 E-mail: belga@cuneolaw.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1819 E-mail: CharlesL@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: 314-226-1015 Facsimile: 202-789-1819 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 South Washington Ave., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rashelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON PC 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net bomarty@hudsonlaw.net - and - Erica Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW, LLC 132 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Removed "Mansour" Suit to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Stephen Mansour, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. iDreamSky Technology, Ltd., et al., Case No. 651340/2015, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03794 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq. Scott Jacobsen, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com sjacobsen@scott-scott.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott D. Musoff, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 1036-6518 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2000 E-mail: scott.musoff@skadden.com INSULET CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Burns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Insulet Corporation, Duane Desisto, Patrick J. Sullivan, Allison Dorval, and Brian Roberts, Case No. 1:15-cv- 11855-JCB (D. Mass., May 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The Defendants are engaged in the development, manufacturing and sale of its proprietary OmniPod Insulin Management System (the OmniPod System), an insulin infusion system for people with insulin-dependent diabetes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. Adam M. Stewart, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Seaport East Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 Facsimile: (617) 439-0134 E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com astewart@shulaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. C. Dov Berger, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Larry W. Jander and all other individuals similarly situated v. International Business Machines Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03781-NSR (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. International Business Machines Corporation is a technology and consulting company with a principal office a New Orchard Rpad, MD 261, Armonk, New York 10504. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward H. Glenn Jr., Esq. Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq. Samuel Ethan Bonderoff, Esq. ZAMANSKY L.L.C. 50 Broadway, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 742-1414 Facsimile: (212) 742-1177 E-mail: eglenn@zamansky.com jake@zamansky.com samuel@zamansky.com INTUIT INC: Faces "Lebinski" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- James Lebinski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Intuit, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-02209 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems to prevent fraudulent tax returns from being e-filed in the name of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class. Intuit, Inc. is a provider of financial software solutions to consumers and businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd A. Seaver, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6282 E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Eric S. Taubel , Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com etaubel@gustafsongluek.com - and - Mark S. Goldman, Esq. Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. Brian D. Penny, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C. 101 E. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 204 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (484) 342 0700 Facsimile: (484) 580 8747 E-mail: goldman@lawgsp.com scarlato@lawgsp.com penny@lawgsp.com KARNES COUNTY, TX: Detention Facility Sued Over Conditions ---------------------------------------------------------- A federal lawsuit filed by three mothers who entered the U.S. illegally with their children and who are detained at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement 'residential center' in Texas claims ICE is retaliating against them for protesting their continued detention, News Radio 1200 WOAI reports. The women, two of whom are from Honduras and one is from Brazil, are held in the Karnes County Residential Facility south of San Antonio along with their children pending a court hearing on their asylum claims, say they led eighty of their fellow residents in a hunger strike, and in response, officials placed them in isolation cells and threatened to separate them from their children. They claim in the lawsuit, which is filed in U.S. District Court in San Antonio, that the GEO Group, Inc, the private firm which operates the facility under contract with ICE, fired all of the women who participated in the hunger strike from their jobs in the Center, and 'falsified charges of insurrection against the hunger strikers.' The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all of the women at the facility and all who will be detained in the future, and asks a judge to allow residents to exercise their rights to demand their release and protest what they say are the inadequate conditions of their detention, without facing retaliation. ICE earlier denied that a hunger strike had taken place, and rejected allegations that any residents of the Karnes facility were victims of retaliation, saying the facility doesn't have the 'isolation cells' that the women claim they were placed in. Officials took reporters on a closely controlled tour of the facility where they were shown women and children eating in the cafeteria, playing in an outdoor playground, and living in small but well-furnished dormitory-style rooms, equipped with flat screen TVs. "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement fully respects the rights of all people to voice their opinion without interference, and all detainees, including those in family residential facilities such as Karnes, are permitted to do so," an Immigration and Customs official who asked not to be identified said. ICE said the huge residential detention facilities in Karnes City and in Dilley Texas, about 100 miles to the west, are an effective and humane alternative for maintaining family unity as families go through immigration proceedings or await return to their home countries." All of the residents are women who arrived in the U.S. during the immigration spike last summer. Most say they were fleeing, in the words of the lawsuit 'widespread life threatening violence and sexual violence in their home countries,' and have a 'credible expectation of being granted asylum in the U.S. The continued detention of women and children has sparked widespread protests and several other lawsuits challenging the legality of open-ended incarceration of children. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said during the opening of the Dilley facility earlier this year that one of the reasons the facilities exist is to send the message to other would be immigrants that "if you enter the United States without permission, it is now more likely that you will be detained and sent back." KHUBBA AL: Recalls Beef Products Due to Misbranding & Allergens --------------------------------------------------------------- Khubba Al Nahrain, Inc., a Skokie, Ill. establishment, is recalling approximately 665 pounds of beef products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain wheat, soy, and milk, known allergens which are not declared on the product label. The beef items were produced on various dates from September 11, 2014 to April 29, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 10-lb. packages containing 10 pieces of "ARCHIE'S POTATO CHOPS" with lot numbers "11915, 10615, 07515, 36014, 33514, 28314 or 25314" on the packaging label. --- 10-lb. packages containing 10 pieces of "ARCHIE'S KUBBA HALAB" with lot numbers "25314, 28314 or 33514" on the packaging label. --- 10-lb. packages containing 10 pieces of "ARCHIE'S KRASS" with lot numbers "02615 or 10615" on the packaging label. --- 10-lb. packages containing 10 pieces of "ARCHIE'S KUBBA TAPSI" with lot number "07515" on the packaging label. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 45103M" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items produced were shipped to retail locations in Illinois and Michigan. The problem was discovered during a routine label review by FSIS personnel. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers and Media with questions about the recall can contact Refat Nissan, Owner, at (847) 834-4383. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/v528iM KIMBERLY-CLARK: Wyoming Sues Over 'Flushable' Wipes --------------------------------------------------- Sputnik News reports that the city of Wyoming is pointing to costly damages they say are being caused by residents using the wipes. "These flushable wipes do not degrade after flushing," the lawsuit reads. "Rather, the flushable wipes remain intact long enough to pass through private wastewater drain pipes into the municipal sewer line, causing clogs and other issues for municipal and county sewer systems and wastewater treatment plants, resulting in thousands, if not millions, of dollars of damages." Wyoming may be the first city to take class-action status on behalf cities facing sewer-system issues caused by the flushing of wet wipes. A post made on the Facebook account of Wadena, Minnesota, states "A wipe labeled flushable only means they will fit down the piping within your home." Cities argue that these wipes travel beyond private wastewater drain pipes and wind around pumps at lift stations causing wastewater to reach higher elevations. They also state that these wipes get caught in screens creating large clumps known as "Polar Bears." The lawsuit filed in federal court by Wyoming, Minnesota, urges companies including Kimberly-Clark to cease marketing products as "flushable," and "sewer-safe." It also seeks the creation of a fund to compensate cities for the costs of removing wipes from their sewer systems. According to Bob Brand, Kimberly-Clark's director of external communications, the company conducts "extensive testing" on products it calls "flushable" such as Kleenex Cottonelle FreshCare, which is labeled with the words "SafeFlush Technology" beside an image of a wipe going down a toilet. Trade groups supporting the industry making wet wipes argue that the plumbing-related problem being faced by cities result from the flushing of wet wipes that are not marketed as flushable. These items include cheap baby wipes which are meant to be wrapped in disposable diapers and discarded in the trash. Dave Rousse, president of the Association of Nonwoven Fabrics Industry, says the industry expresses empathy for issues that non flushable materials are causing for wastewater operators. However, he maintains certain companies are not to blame. "We take great exception to any effort to blame flushable wipes for the problems being caused by nonflushable wipes," Rousse told the Star Tribune. LAWRENCE COUNTY: Settlement Deal Proposed in Solid Waste Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonece Dunigan, writing for Times Daily, reports that lawyers representing the Lawrence County Commission have drafted a proposed settlement agreement that will require the commission to return $300,000 to the solid waste fund during a four-year period. The $75,000 annual payments would come out of the county's general fund and would be placed in the Lawrence County Solid Waste Account. The first transfer, which is $90,000, would include attorney fees for the plaintiff. Dalton McCreless accused the commission of overcharging for garbage fees in a class action lawsuit filed December 2013. Residents pay $15 a month for garbage services. County Attorney Dave Martin said a settlement would not result in a reduction in garbage rates. The county's garbage fee puts it in line with Moulton's garbage fee, he said, which is also $15. Martin said the municipality has a compact service area and shorter routes, which cause less wear and tear on trucks. Martin said the fee, as well as the settlement funds, will lead to improvements in the county's solid waste service. "The money from the settlement will be put back into the solid waste fund, and that money can be used for a transfer station or other solid waste services," Martin said. Attorney Ken Webb, of Montgomery-based Webb and Eley, presented the draft agreement to the public during a special meeting April 17. Webb represents the commission in the case. Webb said it was cheaper for the county to negotiate terms with the plaintiff's attorneys than to go to trial. "It would have cost both sides hundreds and thousands of dollars to prosecute and defend if we would have gone through a trial," Webb said. McCreless' class action lawsuit accused the commission of using the funds for purposes other than solid waste, which he said violated state law. In July 2013, the commission voted to transfer $65,000 from the solid waste account in order to meet payroll, but returned the funds after finalizing a $400,000 line of credit. A 1998 state Supreme Court ruling and a 2011 attorney general's opinion support the lawsuit's claim that the use of solid waste money should be restricted to that department. Moulton-based attorney Christine Graham, who represents the plaintiff, said she hopes the settlement will serve as a warning to other officials who might see garbage fee collections as another piggy bank to get through tough financial times. "I hope the people of Lawrence County will look at this and be reminded that there are state laws regarding solid waste funds and that they're not to be used for general fund purposes," she said. Under the proposed settlement, commissioners would agree not to use solid waste funds to finance matters other than those involving solid waste. The commission did not admit to any wrongdoing in the settlement agreement. There will be a public hearing to discuss the fairness of the settlement. Martin said former Cullman County Circuit Judge Frank Brunner will set the hearing date after the agreement is filed in circuit court. All solid waste customers will receive a notice of the hearing at least 60 days before the hearing date. If customers don't agree to the settlement agreement terms, they can challenge its fairness during the hearing. LOBLAWS: Faces Class Action Over Bangladesh Factory Collapse ------------------------------------------------------------ Diana Mehta, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that Loblaws is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit that alleges the retail giant knew of a "significant and specific risk" to workers making garments for its Joe Fresh clothing line in a Bangladeshi factory before the building collapsed, killing more than 1,000 people. Toronto law firm Rochon Genova launched the lawsuit on behalf of those who survived the 2013 collapse of the Rana Plaza and the estates and dependants of those who died in the building. A statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court seeks $1.85 billion in damages for wrongful death and injury for members of the proposed class action, and punitive damages of $150 million. It alleges Loblaws knew before the collapse that Bangladesh factories had "an extremely poor record" of workplace safety standards and industrial building standards. "The Loblaws defendants were aware that there was a significant and specific risk to workers who manufactured Joe Fresh garments and who were employed by their subcontractors in Bangladesh," the statement of claim said. "The Loblaw defendants were aware that the reason that subcontractors . . . could manufacture and supply the Joe Fresh garments at such low costs was not only because the garment workers were paid extremely low wages . . . but also because the subcontractors often operated sub-standard and unsafe factories." George Weston Limited, which operates Loblaws, and Bureau Veritas, a company used by Loblaws to audit garment factories, are also named as defendants in the suit. A spokesman for Loblaws said the company planned to "vigorously defend" itself. "We believe that this claim is without merit," said Kevin Groh, the company's vice-president of corporate affairs and communication. "We hope this claim does not distract from the positive work Loblaws has done and continues to do in respect of this tragedy, and that it does not discourage others from making similar contributions." Loblaws is part of the Rana Plaza Arrangement, a fund established to provide relief to those affected by the collapse. Rana Plaza was outside the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka, and housed five garment factories when it collapsed, killing 1,127 people and injuring about 2,500. The incident is considered Bangladesh's worst industrial disaster. The lawsuit notes that many of Joe Fresh's garments were made in the factory, which was operated by Loblaws Bangladeshi subcontractors, including one called New Wave. The building had several illegally constructed floors which were added without building permits or proper structural engineering, the statement of claim said, noting that on the day of the collapse, the building had eight levels. "Rana Plaza building was exhibiting clear warning signs of impending collapse and fresh structural cracks were noted in the building the day before the collapse," the statement of claim said. The building had actually been ordered evacuated a day before the collapse, the statement of claim said, but workers were ordered back in the following day. "New Wave and the other factory managers told the garment workers that the building was safe and threatened to cut the workers' pay or terminate their employment if they did not return to work," the statement of claim said. Those factory managers were facing a delivery deadline of 24,000 pieces of boys' pants for Loblaws, the statement of claim said. "This stringent deadline from the Loblaws defendants forced New Wave workers back into the building into unsafe and life- threatening working conditions," the statement of claim alleged. "Neither the Loblaws defendants nor the Bureau Veritas defendants took any steps or made any efforts to release New Wave from the delivery obligations or to prevent workers from re-entering the Rana Plaza." LQNN INC: Recalls Chicken, Beef and Pork Products ------------------------------------------------- LQNN, Inc., a Garden Grove, Calif. firm, added additional items to the recalled products list, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The added products should have been part of the original 213,192 pounds of chicken, beef and pork products that were recalled on May 20, 2015. The new total recalled poundage is 440,923pounds. The products which were moved and sold in commerce, included the unapproved use of another facility's mark of inspection, which has been identified as Establishment number 18995. LQNN, Inc., operating as Lee's Sandwiches, has been processing products from federally-inspected establishments and re-packaging them without the benefit of inspection. Products produced without inspection present potential of increased human health risk. The various poultry, beef and pork items were produced prior to May 26, 2015. The following additional products are subject to recall: --- 63,734-lb of "Ham & Cheese CROISSANT." --- 5,218-lb. of "Cooked Dry SHREDDED PORK Cha Bong Thit Heo." --- 8,631-lb. of "SHREDDED PORK Bi." On May 20, 2015, the company recalled 213,192 pounds of chicken, beef and pork products produced prior to May 26, 2015. The following products listed below were included in the initial recall: The following products are subject to recall and were sent to various restaurant locations in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas to be cooked and served to consumers. The following products may contain "Est. 11041" or "P-11041" inside the USDA mark of inspection: --- 54,509 -lb. of "Banh Bao Pork & Egg Steamed Bun." --- 15,147 -lb. of "Banh Bao Trung Cut Pork & Quail Egg Steamed Bun Vietnamese Style." --- 55,114 -lb. of "PORK PATE CHAUD (LARGE)." --- 6,016.5-lb. of "PORK PATE CHAUD (SMALL)." --- 50,036-lb. of "CHICKEN PATE CHAUD (LARGE)." --- 6,184.5-lb. of "CHICKEN PATE CHAUD (SMALL)." The following products are subject to recall and were sent to the aforementioned restaurant locations in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas to be prepared and served to consumers. The following products may contain "Est. 11041" or "P- 11041" inside the USDA mark of inspection: --- 22,812-lb. of "SLICED OIL BROWNED TURKEY PREMIUM BREAST MEAT FULLY COOKED." --- 2,453.5-lb. of "SLICED SALAMI MEAT with wine FULLY COOKED." The following products are subject to recall and were sent to various retail locations in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas for retail distribution to consumers. The following products may contain "Est. 18995" inside the USDA mark of inspection: --- 222.25-lb. of 4-oz. plastic containers of "FRUIT BEEF JERKY (Kho Bo)." --- 352-lb. of 4-oz. plastic containers of "B.B.Q. BEEF JERKY (Kho Bo)." --- 354-lb. of 4-oz. plastic containers of "Curry BEEF JERKY (Kho Bo)." The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during a surveillance review. During this review, FSIS personnel observed and detained non-federally inspected products which were produced at the warehouse distributorship and had applied USDA marks of inspection without authorization. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Tom Quach, Chief Operating Officer, at (714) 333-8688. LU SIMON BUILDERS: Agency Launched Probe Over November Fire ----------------------------------------------------------- Nick Toscano and Rania Spooner, writing for The Age, reports that the rapid spread of a fire through a Docklands apartment tower was caused in part by combustible construction materials, a review has found, sparking an investigation into building practices and paving the way for an expensive class action. The Victorian Building Authority has launched an investigation into LU Simon Builders after the MFB revealed that the external cladding of the 23-storey Lacrosse Building was untested and had "contributed to the spread of the fire". The cause of the blaze in the early hours of November 25 was revealed to be an unextinguished cigarette on a sixth-floor balcony, which spread to a plastic container, a timber table top and a nearby air-conditioning unit. Fast-running flames soon ignited external wall cladding and aided by "combustible material located within the wall structure" quickly spread to the top of the building, the MFB reported. The MFB called on the City of Melbourne to push for a review of the Building Act and regulatory framework in the wake of the incident. Resident John Wong -- who was only able to return home in April -- said the report's findings were a "relief" because many who witnessed the blaze believed it had spread too quickly. More than 100 owners and residents have contacted law firm Slater and Gordon regarding a potential class action. "It was obvious that it wasn't quite right how quickly the fire propagated and moved up the floors within minutes," Mr. Wong said, adding that he would be attending a meeting hosted by the City of Melbourne. MFB Chief Fire Officer Peter Rau said the building's external cladding, Alucobest, had undergone scientific testing and was found in breach of combustibility requirements for a high-rise building. "The external cladding material on this building did not prevent the spread of the fire, as required by the building code," Mr. Rau said. LU Simon managing director Peter Devitt said aluminium composite panels including Alucobest had been widely used in Australia for decades. He said the cladding complied with Australian standard tests for ignitability, spread of flame, heat and smoke. But in 2010, when the building was commissioned, there was no such product that passed the test for "combustibility", he said. Ben Hardwick, of law firm Slater and Gordon, said legal action potentially worth tens of millions had been on hold awaiting the outcome of the MFB investigation. "Owners and residents of this building are rightly asking how an occupancy permit was ever issued for this building," he said. "They now face the prospect of not only having to deal with the fall out of the fire but will be faced with costly rectification works to replace the external walls to the building." He said whoever was responsible for issuing the occupancy permit in 2012 would "certainly have a number of questions to answer". High occupancy rates in the La Trobe Street apartment tower and excessive amounts of combustible material stored on balconies were also found to have contributed to the spread of the fire. Victorian Building Authority technical and regulation director Jarrod Edwards said the new investigation would probe the conduct of LU Simon Builders and the building surveyor. Mr. Edwards said investigators would try to identify whether the non-compliant external cladding had been used elsewhere. Mr. Devitt said other factors were to blame for the ignition and rapid spread of the fire, including an absence of sprinkler systems on the balconies. He said planned balcony sprinklers had been removed by fire authorities prior to LU Simon's involvement in the project. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Justice Department Seeks Criminal Charges ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the Justice Department is seeking criminal charges against Lumber Liquidators in an ongoing investigation over imported products. The company revealed the Justice Department push in a regulatory filing on April 29 while also posting a surprise loss for the quarter and announcing the departure of its chief financial officer. The CBS news show "60 Minutes" reported in March that the company's laminate flooring made in China contained high levels of formaldehyde, a carcinogen. Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc. has said that it complies with applicable regulations for its products, including California standards for formaldehyde emissions. The company said on April 29 that its March sales declined 12.8 percent due to the allegations and that it had spent $2.3 million on an air-quality assurance program it put into place for customers to calm fears about the flooring. CEO Robert Lynch said during a conference call that Lumber Liquidators has stopped buying Chinese laminate flooring for now, using instead products from parts of Europe and North America. According to a regulatory filing, the Justice Department is seeking charges under the Lacey Act which, among other things, bans illegally sourced wood products. The best estimate of the probable loss that may result from the Justice Department action is about $10 million, the company said. There are more than 100 pending class-action lawsuits related to the flooring from China, the company said. For the period ended March 31, the company lost $7.8 million, or 29 cents per share. That compares with a profit of $13.7 million, or 49 cents per share, a year earlier. The loss caught industry analysts off guard. They had projected a profit of 15 cents per share, according to a survey by Zacks Investment Research. Revenue was $260 million. CFO Dan Terrell will leave the company in June. He has held the position since October 2006. The company appointed Gregory Whirley Jr., formerly of Ernst & Young LLP, as interim CFO. MASSACHUSETTS: Richardson & Cumbo Files Class Action v. MBTA ------------------------------------------------------------ Richardson & Cumbo, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and Keolis Commuter Services, LLC on behalf of MBTA commuter rail customers who purchased January, February or March, 2015 monthly passes. The law firm said it continues to investigate the viability of a class action against the MBTA on behalf of subway or T customers who purchased monthly passes. The MBTA is offering a 15% discount on May, 2015 monthly passes or one day of free rides to placate its commuters for the substandard service it provided. This empty gesture falls well short of fair compensation for what amounted to "service" consisting of: -- countless cancellations and delays; -- constantly changing schedules falling short of a full schedule; -- an ineffective alert and/or notice system to keep riders informed of cancellations, delays and schedule changes; and -- complete indifference by the MBTA towards its customers. These issues resulted in service outages well above 15% of full service or the equivalent of one day of free rides. Of note, the MBTA fined Keolis $900,000 for cancellations and delays this past winter -- the maximum allowed under its contract with Keolis. Apparently, the MBTA thinks the commuter rail service was substandard as well. Years of MBTA mismanagement and a culture of indifference are the real reasons the MBTA failed its customers and provided substandard service this past January, February and March. Among other issues, the MBTA lacked the proper equipment to deal with winter storms. Maybe the MBTA just didn't have the money to purchase the proper equipment? Actually, it did. As Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker pointed out at his April 8, 2015 press conference discussing the Action Report issued by the Panel he commissioned to investigate the problems the MBTA and Keolis experienced this past winter, the MBTA failed to spend $2.3 billion of its capital budget over the last 5 years without explanation. Maybe the MBTA should have spent this money on the proper equipment that would allow it to effectively deal with winter storms. The Action Report also noted that the MBTA is spending $66.5 million, out of its capital budget, on 444 employee salaries for an average annual salary of $150,000 per employee. Apparently, paying employees high salaries is a better use of capital money than purchasing the proper equipment. The Action Report also noted that, on average, an MBTA employee takes 11-12 weeks off per year; that is 3 months and does not include weekends. Another example of ineffective spending by the MBTA was reported in the Boston Globe days before the first snow storm hit. The Globe story details how the MBTA spent $224 million on 40 locomotives that were delivered in an unusable condition. As of January, 2015, only 2 of the 40 were in service. The Globe story also references the $144 million the MBTA paid to a South Korean company for 75 passenger cars that were delivered 30 months late and "so trouble-prone [that] many of their parts . . . had to be replaced." The Governor's Report also noted the following problems with the MBTA: The catastrophic winter breakdowns were symptomatic of structural problems that require fundamental change in virtually all aspects of the MBTA. p. 4 Measured against national benchmarks and other transit systems, the T's operating costs are too high and its productivity and performance is too low. p. 4 The MBTA is largely ineffective in managing its work due to weak workplace customs and practices. p. 23 [The MBTA displays a] lack of customer focus [and] . . . is not organized to operate as the customer-oriented business it is. p. 30 * * * Nick DeLuce, writing for BostInno.Streetwise.co, discloses that just as it appeared things might start improving with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the public transit authority is again finding itself in a spot of trouble. On April 22, just days before the MBTA offered a day's worth of free subway, bus, ferry and commuter rail rides, as well as a 15 percent discount on monthly passes, Richardson & Cumbo, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against the T for a breach of contract in January, February and March, as well as unjust enrichment during that time. The law firm is also seeking charges against Keolis, the Commuter Rail operator for the same counts. Those three months, of course, were when the lion's share of this winter season's historic snowfall dominated the region. Boston recorded more than 112-inches of snow, making it one of the snowiest cities in the entire country last winter. Citing the findings of Gov. Charlie Baker's MBTA advisory panel report, which essentially points out every aspect of the MBTA that's functioned poorly over the years (basically, everything), the law firm alleges that the MBTA had ample time and resources to dig itself out of the snow in between storms. Failure to do so, the suit says, was a breach of contract and the embattled transportation agency must be held accountable. The text of the suit indicates that no specific monetary value is being sought, but rather the court should determine the appropriate compensation for those who purchased monthly passes during those months. It also reads that the customer appreciation day, for which commuters received free rides for a day on, not count as a legally binding reimbursement. According to Boston.com, MBTA spokesperson Joe Pesaturo said "The MBTA has not seen the civil complaint." MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Insurance Carrier Paid Settlement Amount -------------------------------------------------------------- Maxwell Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's insurance carrier paid the settlement amount in the Securities Class Action Matter. From March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. All of these actions were consolidated by the Court on October 24, 2013 under the heading In re Maxwell Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigation. On January 16, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which alleged that during a purported class period of April 29, 2011 to March 19, 2013, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding its financial performance and business prospects and overstated the Company's reported revenue. The complaints purported to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted on May 5, 2014 with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2014, adding an additional claim for scheme liability under Section 10(b). Defendants again moved to dismiss on July 10, 2014. On October 6, 2014, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, which included an all-in settlement value of $3.3 million. On November 3, 2014, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and, on February 16, 2015, granted final approval of the settlement. The settlement amount was paid by the Company's directors' and officers' insurer. As of December 31, 2014, the Company had an accrued liability recorded of $3.3 million, included in "accounts payable and accrued liabilities," and a corresponding receivable from its insurance carrier since it would cover this loss, included in "trade and other accounts receivable,". As the Company's insurance carrier paid the settlement amount during the quarter ended March 31, 2015, the Company removed the liability and associated receivable at this time. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER: Unpaid Intern Files Class Action in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Pedersen, writing for Deadline, reports that another disgruntled former intern for the entertainment industry is suing over the concept of internship vs. free labor. This time the defendant is MGM, which is on the receiving end of a class-action lawsuit filed on April 30. Kimi Gupta interned at the Beverly Hills offices of MGM HD, the studio's cable network, in 2012. The kicker here is Gupta's internship has to be among the shortest of any plaintiff in any of the myriad intern lawsuits -- 15 days, of which only five appear to be workdays. Add this one to the list of intern lawsuits against the likes of NBCUniversal, Viacom, CBS and Fox Searchlight. The 22-page new complaint filed in Los Angeles alleges that MGM interns served as unpaid employees and were told "there was always a chance of getting hired" if they worked for free for a while. "In their operations, Defendants systematically employed unpaid interns, including students such as Plaintiff, and recent and not too recent college graduates, without pay to perform various scheduling tasks," the suit claims. Those tasks included scheduling "of television programs for airing, maintaining records of scheduled programs, tracking programs which were ready to be aired, and entering program and scheduling information into Defendants' computer data-base." It adds: "Uncompensated interns such as Plaintiff were an important source of labor on Defendants' operations and performed important tasks for Defendants. Use of such labor allowed Defendants to avoid payment of employment and other taxes, and gave Defendants an unfair advantage over those who fairly compensated their employees. All of the work performed by Plaintiff and other interns was performed for the immediate advantage of Defendants and was performed at the expense of employees or interns who otherwise would have been compensated by Defendants pursuant to applicable laws." The suit claims that MGM terminated Gupta's internship "because she allegedly made 'mistakes' on an examination but gave Plaintiff no feedback or input as to the nature of the mistakes, further demonstrating that the purpose for employing Plaintiff was primarily to provide Defendants with an immediate advantage rather than to furnish training or educational experience for Plaintiff and other interns." MGM had no comment on the suit, which alleges failure to pay minimum wage and failure to pay compensation at time of termination. It seeks a jury trial and unspecified damages. Also named as defendants are MGM HD Productions and parent company MGM Holdings Inc. Ms. Gupta's attorneys are John P. Kristensen and David L. Weisberg of Los Angeles and Michael V. Pundeff of San Diego. MICROSOFT CORPORATION: British Columbia Case Trial in 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a British Columbia class action is now scheduled for trial in 2016. The Company said, "A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in various state, federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and certain other software products between 1999 and 2005." "We obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims made in the United States. Under the settlements, generally class members can obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and software. The total value of vouchers that we may issue varies by state. We will make available to certain schools a percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two- thirds depending on the state). The total value of vouchers we ultimately issue will depend on the number of class members who make claims and are issued vouchers. We estimate the total remaining cost of the settlements is approximately $200 million, all of which had been accrued as of March 31, 2015. "Three similar cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada have not been settled. In March 2010, the court in the British Columbia case certified it as a class action. After the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the case, in October 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated part of the British Columbia case, which is now scheduled for trial in 2016. The other two cases are inactive." MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Argument Held in US Cell Phone Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the appeal in the U.S. cell phone litigation is scheduled for argument in May 2015. Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse health effects. "We have assumed responsibility for these claims as part of the NDS acquisition and have been substituted for the Nokia defendants," the Company said. "Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed. In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines ("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines." "In September 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the basis of flawed scientific methodologies. The motion was heard in December 2013 and January 2014. In March 2014, defendants filed a separate motion to preclude plaintiffs' general causation testimony on the ground that it is pre-empted by federal law because the experts challenge the safety of all cellular handsets, including those that comply with the FCC Guidelines. In August 2014, the court granted in part defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation experts. The court granted an order permitting an interlocutory appeal of its decision in October 2014. In December 2014, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed to hear en banc defendants' interlocutory appeal challenging the standard for evaluating expert scientific evidence. The appeal is scheduled for argument in May 2015. Trial court proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the appeal." MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Canadian Class Action Not Yet Active ----------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. The litigation is not yet active as several defendants remain to be served. NATROL INC: Leaf123 Settles Tea Product Labeling Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving Leaf 123, Inc. (formerly known as Natrol, Inc.), the manufacturer of Laci LeBeau Super Dieter's Tea. The proposed settlement requires Leaf 123 to make certain modifications to the labeling and packaging of its products. On April 16th, 2015, Federal Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon preliminarily approved a settlement resolving this lawsuit. The lawsuit claimed that Leaf 123 made false and misleading claims regarding its products. Leaf 123 denies these allegations and continues to stand by its products and advertising. The Court has not decided which side is right. Instead, the parties have decided to settle the case. The proposed settlement requires Leaf 123 to change the labeling and packaging of its products. The required changes include adding warnings to the products and removing claims about the effectiveness of its products in reducing weight. Class members, those who purchased one of more of Leaf 123's Products for household or personal use between December 20, 2009, and April 16, 2015, may have their legal rights affected by this settlement and are advised to learn more about the proposed settlement and their options. The Laci LeBeau Super Dieter's Tea products involved in this lawsuit include: Cranberry Twist, Natural Botanicals, Natural Botanicals Maximum Strength, Acai Berry, Cinnamon Spice, Cinnamon Spice Maximum Strength, Lemon Mint, Lemon Mint Maximum Strength, Tropical Fruit, Peppermint, and Apricot. Class members wishing to exclude themselves from the settlement, comment, or object to the settlement, must do so by May 23, 2015. Class members who do nothing will be part of the settlement (if approved) and will release all claims asserted in the lawsuit. This press release is only a summary of the full class action settlement. Detailed information on the terms of the settlement, how to object to the settlement, how to exclude yourself from the settlement, and other important information can be obtained by visiting www.LaciLeBeauLawsuit.com calling toll-free 1-888-963- 9429, or writing to: Laci LeBeau Class Action Settlement, c/o Classaura Class Action Administration, 780 Morosgo Dr #14103, Atlanta, GA 30324. NEW BEGINNINGS: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Eddie Harris, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. New Beginnings Senior Estates, et al., Case No. 4:15- cv-01317 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. New Beginnings Senior Estates owns and operates an assisted living facility in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef Franz Buenker, Esq. 2030 North Loop W., Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Four Nonprofits to Get Residual Settlement Funds -------------------------------------------------------------- New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI), Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, and The Bronx Defenders, all leading civil rights advocacy groups and law firms, on May 1 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved their request to equally distribute nearly $165,000 in remaining class-action settlement funds among four high-quality and innovative nonprofits. The four organizations -- Picture the Homeless, Ali Forney Center, Streetwise & Safe, and the Urban Justice Center Sex Workers Project -- will each receive over $40,000 to continue providing critical services to the homeless and other underserved New Yorkers. The $165,000 is the remaining unclaimed funds of a class-action settlement from 2012, which required New York City to pay $15 million to approximately 22,000 New Yorkers who were illegally charged by the New York City Police Department (NYPD) under unconstitutional "loitering" statutes. New York State and Federal Courts had struck down these laws in the 1980s and 1990s, but the NYPD continued to enforce these void statutes, often targeting people based on poverty, race, and sexual orientation. The three co-counsels -- NYLPI, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, and The Bronx Defenders -- released the following statement: "According to the cy pres doctrine, residual settlement funds may be distributed to support a purpose that is in the interest of the original class members. The four nonprofits not only serve the homeless, LGBTQ, and other marginalized New Yorkers who were initially impacted by the enforcement of void loitering laws, but will also know how to best use the remaining funds by providing community-centered legal and social services." "We are delighted that the Court has approved our plan to distribute the remaining funds and look forward to further extending the impact of our original settlement by putting the additional $165,000 to good use." The Urban Justice Center Sex Workers Project released a statement: "The Sex Workers Project is delighted to receive these funds. We will use this money to assist sex workers by providing legal and social services grounded in human rights values, and to continue to advocate that the criminal justice system treat sex workers with dignity and fairness." Picture the Homeless released a statement: "We are grateful to the Court and the other participating organizations. We look forward to using these resources to continue our work to educate and organize homeless folks about their rights, and to advocate for fair and constitutional treatment of homeless people in the future." About New York Lawyers for the Public Interest New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI) advances equality and civil rights, with a focus on health justice, disability rights and environmental justice, through the power of community lawyering and partnerships with the private bar. Through community lawyering, NYLPI puts its legal, policy and community organizing expertise at the service of New York City communities and individuals. NYLPI's partnership with the private bar strengthens its advocacy and connects community groups and nonprofits with critical legal assistance. NYLPI is the recipient of The New York Community Trust Nonprofit Excellence Awards. About the Bronx Defenders The Bronx Defenders provides innovative, holistic, and client- centered criminal defense, family defense, civil legal, and social work support services to 35,000 indigent residents of the Bronx each year. Through community education, leadership development, impact litigation, and legislative reform, it looks beyond individual cases to challenge the entrenched problems that drive our clients into the criminal justice system. Its success in and dedication to using affirmative litigation to address endemic problems is based in our deep knowledge of its clients' concerns, and complements our community engagement efforts. About Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP is a litigation boutique that handles a diverse array of civil rights, civil liberties, commercial, criminal, and ethics-related matters. It has one of the leading civil rights practices in the country. Its areas of expertise include First Amendment, employment and housing discrimination, election law, sexual harassment and assault, children's rights, disability rights, prisoners' rights, police misconduct, wrongful death, wage and hour, and class action litigation. NEWMAN & LEVENTHAL: "Mercado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Eugenio Mercado, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Newman & Leventhal Caterers, Inc., Burton Leventhal, Jamie Kindos, and Leslie R. Grand, Case No. 1:15-cv-02852 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a premier Glatt Kosher catering business, with a principal place of business at 45 West 81st Street, New York, New York 10024. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. Justin Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com jcilenti@jcpclaw.com OCWEN FINANCIAL: Settles Insurance Class Action for $140 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kristin Broughton, writing for Mortgage Servicing News, reports that Ocwen Financial and Assurant have reached an agreement to settle charges that the embattled mortgage servicer profited from kickbacks on force-placed insurance policies with struggling homeowners. The settlement, filed in federal court, would provide $140 million in monetary relief to nearly 400,000 borrowers. It would also provide an additional $10 million for legal fees and expenses. At issue in the class-action suit are insurance policies placed on foreclosed properties, to cover hazard, flood, flood-gap and wind insurance. Plaintiffs in the case accused Ocwen of inflating premiums and profiting from kickbacks through an arrangement with Assurant, the New York-based insurance provider that administered the policies. "Ocwen decided to settle this matter to avoid prolonged and distracting litigation. The company does not admit any liability or wrongdoing with respect to this matter," the company said in an emailed statement. The settlement covers homeowners who were charged for policies between Jan. 1, 2008 and Jan. 23, 2015. Under terms of the agreement, Ocwen would be prohibited from accepting commission for force-placed policies, or entering into "quota-share" arrangements with insurers. The settlement would also prohibit Assurant from accepting payments from Ocwen for below-cost or free outsourced services. "We do not acknowledge any wrongdoing in this case, but feel it's in the best interest of our company to attempt to resolve the matter," Assurant said in an emailed statement. The settlement is pending final approval in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The class-action settlement is the latest in a string of legal and financial woes for the Atlanta-based Ocwen. The company in December agreed to pay $150 million to settle allegations by New York regulators that it fudged foreclosure documents. As part of that agreement, the company's founder and executive chairman, William Erbey, said he would step down after 30 years with the company. Ocwen posted a $546 loss for the 2014 fiscal year, mainly because of increased legal charges. OHL-ARELLANO: Faces "Mora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Luis E. Mora v. OHL-Arellano Construction Company, Case No. 1:15- cv-21844-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. OHL-Arellano Construction Company is a general contractor specialized in the construction and renovation of healthcare facilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com OLD NATIONAL: Appeals Court Says Suit Can Go Ahead on One Count --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Wilson, writing for Courier Press, reports that an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling said a lawsuit pending against Old National Bank since 2010 can go forward with one of its five claims. The class action lawsuit accuses the Evansville- headquartered bank with purposefully posting debit card and ATM transactions so as to increase depositors' overdraft fees. Class actions allow one or more people to file a lawsuit on behalf of a larger group. Three former Old National customers -- Steven Kelly, Jon Cook and Rebecca Cook -- filed the lawsuit in Vanderburgh Circuit Court in December 2010. It charges that the bank increased overdraft fees by processing electronic transactions from highest to lowest amount instead of in the order they were made. The bank argued that federal banking laws preempted those claims and sought a summary judgement dismissing the lawsuit. At issue are banking practices before Aug. 15, 2010, when a federal regulation called "Regulation E" took effect. The rule requires banks to give customers a choice as to whether or not they want to opt in to "overdraft courtesy" policies. The customers in the lawsuit alleged they were charged multiple $35 overdraft fees on every-day debit card purchases as a result of the bank's practice of posting transactions in order from high to low. Vanderburgh Circuit Court Judge David Kiely denied the bank's motion for summary judgement in April 2014 after the two sides failed to resolve it with mediation. The bank then appealed Kiely's ruling. "We're very excited about the ruling. It's a huge victory and we were confident we would win," said Scott Danks, an attorney representing the customers. "I look forward to trying this case in court." The next step will likely be the setting of a trial date, he said. Jeff Knight, chief legal counsel at Old National, said the company is still deciding how it will respond to the ruling. "We're very pleased that the Court of Appeals agreed with us and dismissed four of the five counts. As to the remaining count, we're evaluating what our next steps should be with our counsel, who's been handling the appeal." One option the bank is considering, Knight said, is whether to ask the Indiana Supreme Court to review the appeals court's decision. In the ruling, Appeals Court Judges L. Mark Bailey, John Baker and Margaret Robb concluded that while banks are authorized to charge overdraft fees, they are not authorized to ignore state law. As a result, they ruled, the bank had not shown that the customers' breach of contract claim was invalid. The judges wrote: "We cannot, by examination of the contract and with reference to undisputed facts, conclude that the Deposit Agreement unambiguously and consistently provides for the sums actually charged by the bank. Summary judgment is inappropriate where, as here, a factfinder could infer from the designated materials that the bank breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing." However, the judges also threw out conversion, unconscionability, and unjust enrichment claims that alleged Old National Bank intentionally exerted unauthorized control over deposits, as well as the lawsuit's claim that the bank violated the Indiana Crime Victim Relief Act. "We are aware of no substantive cause of action in Indiana to recover monetary damages for drafting or enforcing an unconscionable contract term," the judges wrote. OLD WORLD: Recalls Roast Beef Products Due to Misbranding --------------------------------------------------------- Old World Meats, a Duluth, Minn. establishment, is recalling approximately 12 pounds of roast beef products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains soy, a known allergen, which is not declared on the product label. The sliced roast beef was produced on April 3 and May 8, 2015. The following product is subject to recall: --- 0.5-lb. packages containing "OLD WORLD MEATS TOP ROUND ROAST BEEF." The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.34448" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The items produced were sold in a retail location in Minnesota. The problem was discovered during a routine label review by FSIS personnel. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and Media with questions about the recall can contact Paul Wrazidlo, owner, at (218) 340-7682. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/h4VQYN PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Complaint Dismissed, Claims Time-Barred ------------------------------------------------------------ Bankruptcy Judge Carol A. Doyle granted the motion filed by the Chapter 7 trustee for Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., to dismiss the complaint in the case captioned Robert Miller, Fargo 500 LLC and Gainesville Coins, Inc., on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ira Bodenstein, not individually but solely as the duly appointed trustee of the estate of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., Defendant, Adv. Proc. No. 14 A 00837 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.). Former customers of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., who traded foreign currencies and over-the-counter metals, filed an adversary proceeding alleging claims against Ira Bodenstein, the chapter 7 trustee of Peregrine, based on the prepetition theft of millions of dollars committed by its founder and former CEO, Russell Wasendorf, Sr. The trustee moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He contended that: (1) the adversary proceeding is really a time-barred proof of claim against the Peregrine bankruptcy estate; (2) the fraud and embezzlement committed by Wasendorf cannot be imputed to the debtor; and (3) the claims are barred by collateral estoppel and law of the case. Judge Doyle granted the trustee's motion. She held that the plaintiffs have chosen the improper procedure of filing an adversary proceeding 2 years after the claims bar date to assert facts and legal theories that should have been alleged in their original proofs of claim. Judge Doyle concluded that all of the claims in the complaint are time barred and must be dismissed. The court no longer addressed the other issues raised in the trustee's motion to dismiss. A copy of the May 13, 2015 memorandum opinion is available at http://is.gd/74qJj1from Leagle.com. About Peregrine Financial Peregrine Financial Group Inc. filed to liquidate under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 12-27488) on July 10, 2012, disclosing between $500 million and $1 billion of assets, and between $100 million and $500 million of liabilities. Earlier that day, at the behest of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a U.S. district judge appointed a receiver and froze the firm's assets. The firm put itself into bankruptcy liquidation in Chicago later the same day. The CFTC had sued Peregrine, saying that more than $200 million of supposedly segregated customer funds had been "misappropriated." The CFTC case is U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Peregrine Financial Group Inc., 12-cv-5383, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). Peregrine's CEO Russell R. Wasendorf Sr. unsuccessfully attempted suicide outside a firm office in Cedar Falls, Iowa, on July 9, 2012. The bankruptcy petition was signed in his place by Russell R. Wasendorf Jr., the firm's chief operating officer. The resolution stated that Wasendorf Jr. was given a power of attorney on July 3 to exercise if Wasendorf Sr. became incapacitated. Peregrine Financial is the regulated unit of the brokerage PFGBest. PIEDMONT REALTY: Georgia Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim ------------------------------------------------------ Andrew G. Simpson, writing for Claims Journal, reports that the Georgia Supreme Court denied an insured's bad faith claim against its insurer for its refusal to pay a settlement because the insured settled on the amount without the consent of the insurer that was required by the policy. A $10 million excess policy issued by XL Specialty Insurance to Piedmont Realty Trust included a "consent to settle" provision requiring the insured to obtain the insurer's consent for any settlement of a securities claim that the insured became "legally obligated" to pay. The insurer's consent "shall not be unreasonably withheld," according to the clause. The policy also contained a "no action" provision barring the insured from suing the insurer unless the insured has been in "full compliance with all of the terms" of the policy. This provision also stated that the amount of the settlement shall have been determined by a judgment after an actual trial or by a written agreement of the insured, the claimant and the insurer. Piedmont Realty Trust held two policies -- a $10 million primary policy issued by Liberty Surplus Insurance Co. and the excess policy from XL Specialty Insurance Co. Piedmont was named a defendant in a securities class action in which the plaintiffs sought more than $150 million in damages. After years of discovery, summary judgment rulings and appeals, then another appeal, the plaintiffs and Piedmont agreed to mediate. By this time Piedmont had exhausted the limits of its primary policy and also had used up $4 million of its $10 million from the XL excess policy. Entering into mediation, Piedmont sought XL's consent to settle the claim for the remaining $6 million on the excess policy. XL agreed to contribute $1 million but no more. Without further notice to XL and without obtaining XL's consent, Piedmont agreed to settle with the plaintiffs for $4.9 million. A district court approved the settlement. Piedmont demanded XL pay the full settlement but XL refused. Piedmont sued XL for breach of contract and bad faith failure to settle. The district court dismissed Piedmont's claim but Piedmont appealed to the 11th Circuit Court. Piedmont, which claimed that XL's refusal to consent was unreasonable, lost again. Its subsequent appeal went before the state's high court. Chief Justice Hugh Thompson wrote the opinion in the 6-0 ruling that had one justice not participating. The decision upheld the ruling by the 11th Circuit Court. Calling the XL policy's consent to settle and no action policy provisions "unambiguous," the Georgia Supreme Court found Piedmont was correctly barred from pursuing its bad faith action against XL because Piedmont had failed to obtain XL's consent before settling on the amount. Piedmont thus failed to fulfill one of the agreed- upon terms of the policy. Piedmont argued that the policy expressly stated that XL could not withhold its consent unreasonably. But the high court said an insurer is required to act reasonably even where there is no such express language in the policy. The court also rejected Piedmont's assertion that because XL denied the claim it was then estopped from insisting that Piedmont needed to obtain its consent prior to settling. The court said XL did not "wholly abandon" Piedmont and did not refuse to pay the underlying claims; on the contrary it provided Piedmont with coverage and a defense throughout the underlying proceedings. Finally, Piedmont maintained that since the district court approved the mediated settlement amount, Piedmont was "legally obligated" to pay it and thus XL must consent. But the court noted that the consent to settle clause precluded Piedmont from entering into a settlement agreement without XL's prior consent in the first place, and the district court's approval could not force XL to pay an amount that only Piedmont approved. "Piedmont could not settle the underlying lawsuit with out XL's consent -- in breach of its insurance contract -- and then, after breaching the contract, claim that the district court's approval of the settlement imposed upon XL a distinct obligation to pay the settlement on Piedmont's behalf," Justice Thompson wrote. PRO OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Medina" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Medina, Agustin Martinez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Pro Oilfield Services, LLC, f/k/a Maxx Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01320 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Pro Oilfield Services, LLC owns and operates oil and gas production facilities in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef Franz Buenker, Esq. 2030 North Loop W, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com QUEENSLAND: Government May Launch Fresh Probe Into Flood -------------------------------------------------------- News.com.au reports that the Queensland's government may launch a fresh inquiry into a deadly flood in which 12 people died. The 12 died when a churning wall of water surged through Grantham, west of Brisbane, washing away homes on January 10, 2011. In March Lockyer Valley Mayor Steve Jones called for an inquiry into whether natural or man-made features along Lockyer Creek affected the way the wall of water struck. Grantham residents did not give evidence to the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, which wrapped up in 2012. The flood and loss of life was an absolute tragedy, premier Annastacia Palaszczuk told the Macquarie Radio Network. She said her government was giving "very serious consideration" to a new inquiry. "I've asked for some independent legal advice because I believe that those families do need some closure." Mr. Jones welcomed Ms. Palaszczuk's approach and said he would work with the government to put all the facts on the table. "It needs to also look at how the flooding was originally investigated," Mr. Jones said. Local people believe the flood filled a quarry on a creek bend down-stream from the town of Helidon before bursting through an embankment and surging down Grantham's main street. The previous floods inquiry found the quarry did not contribute to the disaster. Some residents have attended meetings with a Melbourne law firm to discuss a possible class action against Wagner Brothers, which owned the quarry at the time. RITE AID: Indergit Class Action Still Pending --------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, that the Company has been named in a collective and class action lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store managers working in the Company's stores at various locations around the country. The Company said, "The lawsuit alleges that we failed to pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal claims for overtime pay. On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked for us as store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action. Discovery as to certification issues has been completed. On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability only, but denied it as to damages, and denied our motion for decertification of the nationwide collective action claims. We filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014. We subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied in September 2014. Once approved by the Court, notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to liability only will be sent to approximately 1,750 current and former store managers in the state of New York. At this time, we are not able to either predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuit. Our management believes, however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit." RITE AID: To Obtain Approval of Deal in Chase & Scherwin Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, that with respect to cases involving pharmacist meal and rest periods (Chase and Scherwin v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and Kyle v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Sacramento County Superior Court), during the period ended March 1, 2014, the Company recorded a legal accrual with respect to these matters. The Company and the attorneys representing the putative class of pharmacists have agreed to a class wide settlement of the case of $9.0 million subject to final Court approval. The parties are in the process of obtaining Court approval. RITE AID: Proceedings in "Hall" Case Stayed ------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, that in the employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San Diego County Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. "We filed our motion for decertification, which motion was granted in November 2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order which appeal was granted in May 2014. We filed a petition for review of the appellate court's decision with the California Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August 2014. Proceedings in the Hall case are stayed pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in two similar cases. With respect to the California Cases (other than Chase and Scherwin and Kyle), we, at this time, are not able to predict either the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to said lawsuits," the Company said. RIWO INC: "Theodoridis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Hatice Theodoridis, Amides A. Galdamez, and other similarly- situated individuals v. Riwo, Inc. d/b/a Schnitzel Haus Restaurant, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-21853-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Riwo, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ROYAL BANK: Bank Unit Must Pay $1.4 Million in Fines, Finra Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matthias Rieker at The Wall Street Journal reports that Wall Street's self-regulator ordered Royal Bank of Canada's investment- banking and wealth-management unit to pay $1.4 million in fines and restitution for improper sales of structured investment products to more than 200 retail investors. Between January 2008 and December 2010, RBC Capital Markets failed to detect that 99 of its financial advisers sold about 364 reverse convertible securities to about 218 customers who were looking to invest conservatively or didn't have enough income to sustain the risk, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. said Thursday. The clients lost at least $1.1 million combined, according to Finra's enforcement action. Reverse convertible securities are interest-bearing notes tied to the performance of an asset, usually stocks. They are popular with retail investors because they generally offer high yields, but investors can lose money if the value of the underlying stock falls below a certain level. In a general warning to investors in 2010, Finra described them as "complex investments that often involve terms, features and risks that can be difficult for retail investors and registered representatives to evaluate." "Securities firms must ensure that their brokers understand the inherent risks associated with the complex products they are selling, and be able to determine if they are suitable for investors before recommending them to retail customers," Finra enforcement chief Brad Bennett said Thursday. RBC will have to return a total of $434,000 to customers, and pay a $1 million fine. RBC already reimbursed some customers in a class-action lawsuit settlement, and Finra ordered restitution to the remainder of the affected customers, the regulator said. RBC neither admitted nor denied the charges. A spokeswoman for the bank said it fully cooperated with the Finra investigation that led to the enforcement action. "Beginning in early 2013, we have made process improvements as well as policy and procedure changes regarding reverse convertible notes to ensure proper supervision and controls," she said. Between 2008 and 2010, RBC offered at least 3,000 different reverse convertible products to its customers and executed more than 100,000 reverse convertible transactions in at least 5,000 customer accounts without the appropriate procedures to follow securities regulations, Finra said. ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Unable to Estimate Impact of Arbitration Bids -------------------------------------------------------------- Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is unable to estimate the possible impact of the demands for arbitration submitted by crew members. "A class action complaint was filed in June 2011 against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a purported class of stateroom attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean International cruise vessels," the Company said. "The complaint alleged that the stateroom attendants were required to pay other crew members to help with their duties and that certain stateroom attendants were required to work back of house assignments without the ability to earn gratuities, in each case in violation of the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act." "In May 2012, the district court granted our motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the applicable collective bargaining agreement requires any such claims to be arbitrated. The United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, affirmed the district court's dismissal and denied the plaintiffs' petition for re- hearing and re-hearing en banc. In October 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' request to review the order compelling arbitration. "Subsequently, approximately 575 crew members submitted demands for arbitration. The demands make substantially the same allegations as in the federal court complaint and are similarly seeking damages, wage penalties and interest in an indeterminate amount. Unlike the federal court complaint, the demands for arbitration are being brought individually by each of the crew members and not on behalf of a purported class of stateroom attendants. At this time, we are unable to estimate the possible impact of this matter on us. However, we believe the underlying claims made against us are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against them." RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 30 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Rubicon Technology, Inc. common stock in the Company's public offering on or about March 19, 2014. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from April 30, 2015. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld 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/rubicon/ 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 Rubicon, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of the Offering with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Rubicon is a vertically integrated, advanced electronic materials provider specializing in monocrystalline sapphire, which is commonly used as a substrate (i.e., base layer) in light emitting diode (or LED) lighting technology. On December 6, 2013, Rubicon filed with the SEC an amended shelf registration statement, which included a form of prospectus authorizing the Company and to-be-identified "selling stockholders" to sell up to $100,000,000 worth of shares of Rubicon common stock, at any time, in one or more offerings. On March 19, 2014, Rubicon filed with the SEC a prospectus supplement, offering to register for sale at $13.00 per share 2.5 million shares of Rubicon common stock (not including an overallotment of 375,000 shares) by selling shareholder Cross Atlantic Funds (a group of funds controlled by one of Rubicon's directors). The Offering was sold pursuant to the Form S-3A, the Prospectus and the Prospectus Supplement. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the Registration Statement negligently failed to disclose material trends, events and uncertainties known to management that were reasonably expected to have a material impact on the Company's income from continuing operations, including the reversal of its trend of shrinking losses, higher-than-expected development costs and inventory write-offs due to Rubicon's inability to sell certain of its wafers during its 2014 first quarter at prices greater than their cost to manufacture, causing such inventory to be impaired under applicable accounting rules and regulations. Then on May 1, 2014, the Company issued a press release and hosted a conference call regarding its first quarter of 2014. The Company reported disappointing financial results and revealed, among other things, that the trend of shrinking gross losses, operating losses, and losses per share from the prior quarters had dramatically reversed in the first quarter of 2014, reporting substantial increases in gross losses of $7.5 million, losses from operations of $10.9 million, and losses per share of $0.43. After the earnings call on May 1, 2014, the price of Rubicon common stock declined by 16%, from about $10 per share to $8.51 per share, and declined another almost 6% to $8.01 per share on May 5, 2014. The stock currently trades at below $4.00 per share, a 70% decline from the Offering price. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Rubicon common stock in the Company's public offering on or about March 19, 2014. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action judgment. SHIVA YOGA: School to Be Wound Up; Ex-Leader Facing Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Platt, writing for Mornington Peninsula News, reports that the final winding up of the financial affairs of the organization behind the Shiva School of Meditation and Yoga, Mt Eliza, could depend on "litigation flowing" from allegations against its former spiritual leader, Russell Kruckman, also known as Swami Shankarananda and Swamiji. Paul Burness and Con Kokkinos of Worrells Solvency & Forensic Accountants were appointed voluntary liquidators of the troubled Shiva Yoga Inc. Mr. Burness said the timing of the winding up of the organization would be determined by the "litigation flowing" and contingent liabilities. Once finalized, the liquidation will see the end of an organization that has been a significant part of the Mt Eliza community for the past 25 years. As well as running a cafe in the village its Saturday night gatherings, or satsangs, were regularly attended by more than 350 people, including residents of the ashram. The decision to wind up the organization behind the ashram at 27 Tower Rd follows last December's announcement by the school that Mr. Kruckman "has had secret sexual relations with a number of women from the ashram community" and that police are investigating allegations of sexual assault and a class action announced by St. Kilda lawyer Angela Sdrinis. Mr. Burness said Shiva Yoga owned three properties near the ashram, two in Petrel Ave and one in Clendon Close. They are collectively valued at just under $3 million, although one has a mortgage. The most valuable property connected to the yoga school, the ashram in Tower Rd, is owned by Swami Shankarananda and is not subject to the liquidation. Financial statements of the tax-exempt Shiva Yoga Inc. for the year ended June 2014 show $1.38 million has been spent improving the ashram building and lists Swami Shankarananda as having loaned the organization $373,508. The statements show "retained earnings" of $2.9 million. Mr. Burness said Swami Shankarananda had placed caveats dated April 22, 2015 on the titles on one of Shiva Yoga's Petrel Ave properties in and the one in Clarendon Close. A further caveat had been lodged on the title of the Tower Rd property by Shiva Meditation Inc. in 2005. Mr. Burness said his appointment by members of Shiva Yoga was preceded by a Declaration of Solvency lodged with Consumer Affairs Victoria outlining that the association was in a position to pay all creditors in full within 12 months of the winding up. "There was no doubt that it was a very difficult decision to make for the members and that they had been proactive in putting the organization into the hands of independent party, so as to maximize any surplus assets being available from the association," Mr. Burness said in a news release dated April 23. "I am cognizant of the allegations against the ashram and would be dealing with all potential claims as part of the liquidation process." SIRIUS XM: 2nd Circuit to Weigh in on Broadcaster Dispute --------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that on April 15, 2015, the Second Circuit granted digital broadcaster Sirius XM Radio, Inc.'s (Sirius XM) petition for interlocutory appeal of U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon's November 2014 ruling that New York state law provides copyright owners of pre-1972 sound recordings an exclusive right of public performance. The Second Circuit's consideration of this significant and ongoing issue of copyright law will be the first from any U.S. Court of Appeals. The ruling is expected to have far-reaching impact not only on pending litigations, but also on the possible negotiation and/or legislation of licensing and royalty rates for pre-1972 sound recordings transmitted over satellite and other digital mediums. The District Court Case In 2013, Flo & Eddie, Inc. (Flo & Eddie), founded by members of the 1960's musical groupThe Turtles, initiated a series of class action lawsuits in California, New York, and Florida against satellite radio provider Sirius XM. Each lawsuit alleged that in failing to license or otherwise pay royalties for the right to perform (digitally broadcast) pre-1972 sound recordings, Sirius XM infringed Flo & Eddie's exclusive public performance right in violation of relevant state copyright and misappropriation laws. [1] Sirius XM denied that the respective state statutes provided for, or otherwise permitted the inference of, a public performance right in pre-1972 sound recordings. On November 14, 2014, Judge McMahon (sitting in the Southern District of New York) denied Sirius XM's motion for summary judgment and ruled that Flo & Eddie, as the owners of a variety of pre-1972 sound recordings, had the right to exclusively perform those works. The Petition for Interlocutory Appeal On December 12, 2014, Judge McMahon denied Sirius XM's motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling. However, on February 10, 2015, the court granted Sirius XM's unopposed motion to certify an interlocutory (immediate or mid-case) appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (b). Judge McMahon granted the motion after finding that the summary judgment order involved a controlling question of law -- namely, whether "holders of common law copyrights in pre-1972 sound recordings," such as Flo & Eddie, have an exclusive right of public performance under New York law. The court declined to find that Sirius XM's additional basis for interlocutory appeal -- that applying the New York statute violated the U.S. Commerce Clause -- constituted a controlling question of law.[2] With respect to the summary judgment order, the court explained, reversal of that ruling would mean that "significant portions of [the] lawsuit -- including the public performance copyright infringement and unfair competition claims -- will have to be dismissed." On the other hand, affirmation of the summary judgment order would require the parties to "turn their attention to the thorny but ultimately soluble issue of how to license and compensate public performances of [pre-1972] recordings" -- an act which the court believed "will never proceed until there is a definitive ruling on this question of first impression." Judge McMahon stayed the action pending a decision by the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit Appeal On February 20, 2015, Sirius XM petitioned the Second Circuit for permission to take an interlocutory appeal on the following two issues: Under New York law, do the holders of common law copyrights in pre-1972 sound recordings have, as part of the bundle of rights attendant to their copyright, the right of exclusive public performance? Does the Dormant Commerce Clause prohibit the State of New York from enforcing a property right that it recognizes at common law? On April 15, 2015, Circuit Judges John M. Walker, Jr., Guido Calbresi, and Reena Raggi granted the petition. The first issue (right of public performance) goes directly to the question addressed by Judge McMahon on summary judgment, and answered in Flo & Eddie's favor. On appeal, Flo & Eddie likely will reassert the arguments made on summary judgment in this and prior/pending cases in California and Florida, most notably, the state legislature's opportunity and failure to exclude a public performance right from the relevant statute. In contrast, Sirius XM's arguments likely will focus on the lack of case law on this issue and the fact that, historically, satellite and digital broadcasters -- similar to terrestrial (analog) radio, restaurants and bars -- have been able to broadcast pre-1972 sound recordings as a matter of course. The second issue (Commerce Clause) concerns Judge McMahon's conclusion that there was no substantial ground for difference of opinion on whether New York's statute is a "regulation" subject to Commerce Clause scrutiny (she concluded that it was not). On appeal, as previewed in its petition to the Second Circuit, Sirius XM will argue that the FCC requires it to broadcast uniformly, yet the "practical effect of applying a New York performance right . . . would . . . require [it] to comply with New York law nationwide, which would per se violate the Commerce Clause." What Happens Next While presently there is no timetable for the Second Circuit argument and ruling, the possibility of clarity and precedent (at least for district courts under the Second Circuit's authority) on these important issues will be closely watched by industry experts on both sides of the dispute. Interestingly, the appellate court's grant of Sirius XM's petition comes just days after bi- partisan introduction of the "Fair Pay Fair Play Act," which aims to implement a "performance royalty" to compensate recording artists for each radio broadcast of their sound recordings, and establish a federal right of public performance for pre-1972 sound recordings. SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Policyholders Urged to Join Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Grant Cameron Lawyers on April 29 disclosed that a new class action launched by a Christchurch lawyer against Government-owned Southern Response has brought an international litigation funding heavyweight to the potential $1 billion class action case. Class action specialist Grant Cameron is inviting over 3000 unsettled Southern Response policyholders to join in a united effort to force Southern Response to meet its contractual obligations. "Southern Response is only meeting 40 to 50 percent of the amounts claimed based on its own inadequate building reports. This is not an organization concerned with its policyholders. This is an organization concerned with limiting its own financial exposure," he said. Mr. Cameron says many Cantabrians are under too much financial stress to fund court action on an individual basis and a no win -- no fee alternative is the only way to take action without any risk. The action against Southern Response is being underwritten by Litigation Lending Services, an international consortium that specializes in class actions. "Our litigation funder can get independent experts to tell you the real value of Cantabrians' claims, and fight for damages including anxiety, stress, relocation, rent, storage and any other cost because of payout delay." Mr. Cameron says LLS is a very substantial company and it only funds actions where its lawyers consider there is a high likelihood of success. This gives the funder the confidence to go ahead on a "no win no fee" basis. "That means, in the unlikely event of the action being unsuccessful, LLS would meet any court costs. It won't cost individual policyholders in the action a dollar." Mr. Cameron says the earthquakes were in 2010 and 2011 and, over four years later, Southern Response policyholders are still waiting for their claims to be resolved fairly. "That is four years of hardship, worry, and stress". "Individuals tell me they feel powerless dealing with Southern Response. It's easy for organizations to delay payouts when they are dealing with individuals. A class action empowers individual policy holders and will force Southern Response into action." Mr. Cameron has taken several successful class actions including against the Government on behalf of the families of the 14 victims of Cave Creek disaster when Department of Conservation viewing platform collapsed in the West Coast's Paparoa National Park in April 1995. In April 2001, he was successful in achieving redress for former patients abused at Lake Alice psychiatric hospital, and recently he achieved success in the Supreme Court for the Quake Outcasts group over Christchurch red zone issues. Mr. Cameron said his legal practice had negotiated a fee with the underwriters. "If the action is successful, LLS and GCA fees will not exceed 20 percent of the claim and in some circumstances, the amount will be significantly less. Put simply, if the policyholder does nothing, they are likely to only get 40-50 percent of their claim value met by Southern Response. If a policyholder spends no more than 20 percent of their claim value, they are in line to recover 100 percent of their claim." As required, the funder will also pay for expert reports for policyholders, so the true damage and remedial options will be known. He said court action was not inevitable. "Southern Response may recognize that it is now in a very vulnerable position and it may decide it's prudent to reach a negotiated resolution with us. Obviously, that would be the sensible way to resolve matters," he said. Mr. Cameron said Southern Response policyholders could join the class action through a special website www.srca.co.nz or by contacting GCA Lawyers directly on contact@srca.co.nz or (03) 365 1347. "There's a great deal of truth in the old union saying, 'unity is strength'," he said. "Joining together gives policyholders the strength to impose change on Southern Response, and to put power back in their hands. I'm sure many will find it an extremely satisfying experience," he said. SP WHOLESALE: Recalls Pork & Chicken Sausages Due to Misbranding ---------------------------------------------------------------- SP Wholesale Meats, a Portland, Ore., establishment, is recalling approximately 1,729 pounds of raw pork and chicken sausage products due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains wheat, a known allergen which is not declared on the product label. The following products are subject to recall: --- 10-pound boxes with 4 oz. and 2 oz. links of CASCADE FARMS "Chicken Apple Sausage" with a lot number of 079. --- 1-pound packages with 4 oz. links and bulk of DON FELIPE'S TOLUCAN BRAND "Chorizo Verde" with a lot number of 084, 097, 104, 111, 113 and 118. --- 1-pound packages with 4 oz. links and bulk of DON FELIPE'S TOLUCAN BRAND "Chorizo Rojo" with a lot number of 104, 111, 113 and 118. --- 1-pound packages with 4 oz. links and bulk of DON FELIPE'S TOLUCAN BRAND "Chicken Chorizo" with a lot number of 079, 098, 112 and 119. The products bear the establishment numbers "EST. P-2886" and "EST. 2886" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to restaurants in Oregon and Washington. The problem was discovered when SP Wholesale Meats received an e- mail notice of an FDA recall involving Oregon Spice Co. due to the presence of wheat/gluten. The oregano was recalled due to the presence of wheat that was formulated into the sausage products. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Charlie Ryan, President, or Jim Register, General Manager, at 503- 234-0579. SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Police Dep't Targets Latino, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ CBSNewYork reports that Suffolk County police officers systematically targeted Latinos for unfounded traffic stops, a new lawsuit alleges. The federal class-action suit charges that at least 21 Latinos were stopped and some were robbed of money, WCBS 880 Long Island Bureau Chief Mike Xirinachs reported. "Suffolk County police officers, for at least a decade, have been conducting a regular pattern of crime, mostly robberies, against Latino victims," said attorney Foster Maer, who represents the plaintiffs. Retired Sgt. Scott Greene was arrested last year after he was caught on camera by undercover officers taking money from a Latino driver. When Sgt. Greene was arrested, authorities portrayed him as acting alone, 1010 WINS' Mona Rivera reported. "We're aware of a number of officers who were playing different roles in this criminal behavior," Mr. Maer said. "But the problem is that the Suffolk County police and the district attorney aren't looking into the involvement of the other officers, other than to take their word that they weren't involved." The suit seeks unspecified damages. The Suffolk County Police Department released a statement saying that efforts have been made in recent years to improve the agency's relatinoship with the Latino community, including minority recruitment, community outreach and cultural sensitivity training. "While we do not comment on pending litigation, it is important to note Sgt. Greene's arrest was a result of an investigation conducted by the Suffolk County Police Department and the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office," the Police Department said. "We believe his actions to be violative of his oath of public office, the public trust and the law and are not representative of the members of the Suffolk County Police Department." SUNNYSLOPE CEMETERY: Faces Class Action Over Grave Desecration -------------------------------------------------------------- The Press Enterprise reports that relatives of the deceased buried at Sunnyslope Cemetery's potter's field have filed a class-action lawsuit requesting $5 million in compensation, claiming management of the nonprofit cemetery recklessly regraded the area last year and removed markers to conceal existing gravesites "for the purpose of selling plots of land" to unsuspecting buyers, according to a copy of the complaint submitted to Riverside County Superior Court. Amador Corona, the Corona-based attorney representing the families, met with 15 plaintiffs in his office on April 29. The family members stood in a semi-circle, listening as Corona pointed to an old photograph taped to a display board: 3-year-old Bill Cervantes grasping his brother's white cross headstone in one hand, a bouquet of flowers in the other. "This is Mr. Cervantes," Mr. Corona said, redirecting his pointed finger to an 88-year-old man with white hair and light blue eyes seated nearby. " His little brother was buried there, now this site is gone. . . . It was just bulldozed over and discarded." ONGOING ISSUE It's not the first time the potter's field has been investigated for alleged grave desecration. In 1994, a geophysical survey of the area was ordered by state and county officials after several families claimed their relatives were buried under land developed in the 1980s. The report, prepared by Peterson & Associates and shared by attorney Corona, stated the fenced-in area east of the pepper tree contained human remains. Results for Area A, the fenced-in area west of the tree, were inconclusive. The state Cemetery Board suspended the search of two more parcels after running out of funding. Last year, Area A was sold to the Islamic Society of Corona-Norco. There are currently 17 gravesites, but the area will hold up to 400 plots. Attorney Scott Schutzman, who is working alongside attorney Corona in this case, said the class-action suit will also seek compensation for the families of those recently buried in the Muslim cemetery. Ron Mowry manages Sunnyslope. He said that in 1992, he took photos and videos of the property to document current conditions. He contends there were only five remaining tombstones -- all east of the potter's field pepper tree. "The final determination (of the study) was that they didn't find any proof of remains there," Mr. Mowry said of the present-day Muslim burial ground. "I don't believe anyone is buried other than in the current area of potter's field." Mr. Mowry says his records show 258 people were buried in the potter's field, but the log book lists only name and date of burial -- not specific coordinates. Mr. Corona said library records revealed nearly 600 indigent burials in the potter's field, though he could not provide exact locations. "We're concerned that the new burials are within the potter's field area," Mr. Corona said. "If they have plot maps to indicate where (past) burials were done, we'd like to see that. . . . We want to find locations for all known burials in potter's field." SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Settles Class Action for $500 Million -------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that SunTrust Mortgage Inc. has agreed to pay $500 million as part of a class action settlement with the federal government and the attorneys general in 49 states and the District of Columbia related to SunTrust's alleged misconduct regarding its mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices. If you were a SunTrust borrower who was foreclosed upon between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2013, you may be eligible for benefits from the SunTrust settlement. SunTrust was accused of signing foreclosure documents without confirming the facts were correct. The mortgage company was also accused of signing the documents without having a notary present. The SunTrust settlement will provide approximately $500 million in various forms of relief to eligible borrowers. Under the terms of the SunTrust settlement, approximately $40 million in direct payments will be distributed to foreclosed borrowers. The SunTrust mortgage settlement was reached in June 2014 and took effect in September 2014. The SunTrust settlement administrator mailed Claim Forms to approximately 45,000 Class Members earlier in April. If you did not receive notice of the SunTrust settlement but believe you may qualify for benefits, contact the settlement administrator at 1- 866-590-8532. Who's Eligible Borrowers must meet certain minimum criteria to be eligible for payment from the SunTrust settlement: The loan must have been serviced by SunTrust at the time of the foreclosure sale; The loan went into foreclosure sale between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2013; The borrower made at least three payments on the loan; The home was, or was intended to be, the borrowers' primary residence at the time the mortgage loan was obtained; The borrower had a mortgage loan secured by a one-to-four unit residential property; and The unpaid principal balance of the first-lien mortgage loan did not exceed $729,750 for a one-unit property; $934,200 for a two-unit property; $1,129,250 for a three-unit property; or $1,403,400 for a four-unit property. Borrowers who received a payment from the National Mortgage Settlement (involving Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo, and GMAC/Ally) or the National Ocwen Settlement (involving Ocwen Loan Servicing, Litton Loan Servicing, and American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. aka Homeward Residential) are ineligible to receive a payment from the National SunTrust Settlement. Note: Borrowers from Oklahoma are not eligible for direct payments because Oklahoma did not join the SunTrust settlement. Potential Award Varies. The Notice Package, which was mailed earlier in March 2015, will contain a letter containing the minimum payment you are eligible to receive and instructions on how to file a claim. According to the SunTrust settlement website, eligible loans will receive a minimum payment of approximately $850. If you did not receive a Notice Package but believe you may be eligible for benefits from the SunTrust settlement, contact the settlement administrator at 1-866-590-8532. Claim Form Deadline 6/4/2015 Case Name United States of America, et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01028-RMC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Settlement Website www.NationalSunTrustSettlement.com Claims Administrator National SunTrust Settlement Administrator 1-866-590-8532 SettlementAdministrator@NationalSunTrustSettlement.com SUNWATER: Breached Own Manual with Callide Dam Release ------------------------------------------------------ Matt Wordsworth, writing for ABC News, reports that the operator of central Queensland's Callide Dam appears to have breached its own flood operation manual when it unleashed millions of tonnes of water due to Tropical Cyclone Marcia in February. The emergency release contributed to the flooding of hundreds of homes around Biloela and Jambin, and left downstream residents wondering why there was not a better warning system in place. The ABC revealed on April 29 that despite the pleas of locals, dam operator Sunwater allowed Callide Dam to fill to 89 per cent before Cyclone Marcia hit. Documents obtained under Right to Information show they were also unable to accurately predict when the dam would reach 100 per cent capacity and needed to spill. Regardless, at 8:18pm on February 20, a failsafe mechanism kicked in and the gates opened automatically. But it was not until 8:39 p.m. that Sunwater began warning downstream residents through text messages and phone calls. Queensland Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg said locals faced a similar flood after Cyclone Oswald in 2013. "There are some significant concerns about this which were raised going back a couple of years ago," Mr. Springborg said. "We have a couple of reviews and we'll wait and see the outcome but I think this information which has been released gives further cause for concern." Manual confirms advance warning of a spill must be given Sunwater's logbooks showed that when one resident was called by the dam operator, she complained it was not enough warning. She appears to have been right. Sunwater's own flood operation manual confirms there should be advance warning of a spill. Section A.5 states "before a spillway release is made, the dam operator must make sure that . . . downstream residents . . . have been given notice of the impending release". Damien Scattini, a principal and class action specialist at law firm Maurice Blackburn, said it was Sunwater's duty to notify people before they do that release. "They didn't do so -- they left it 20 minutes or so and thank God no-one was killed as a result," he said. The flood manual indicates an advance warning to residents should be made when the reservoir level hit 215 metres in height, if it was raining heavily, and major inflows were expected. Sunwater's dam level records showed a 215-metre height was reached shortly after 7:15pm on the night of Cyclone Marcia -- more than an hour before the warning actually went out. Class action being investigated Brendan Prendergast, a partner with Maddens Lawyers, is investigating a class action for residents whose homes and businesses were flooded. "The by-products of successful litigation are often that the defendant -- in this instance SunWater -- if this class action is successful, may modify the way it controls and operates the Callide Dam so that we don't have February 2013 and the events of 2015 reoccurring every time there's a cyclonic rainfall pattern in the area," he said. Sunwater declined to be interviewed but a spokeswoman said all of the information would inform the inquiry that had been ordered by the State Government and that Sunwater did not want to pre-empt the review's findings. Queensland Treasurer Curtis Pitt said he was eagerly awaiting the report. "Clearly local residents have expressed concerns and that's why the inquiry is in place and that's why we're asking the questions," he said. "We'll be as keen as the resident to find out what the results of that inquiry are." The report was scheduled to be handed over to Emergency Services Minister Jo-Ann Miller by May 22, but the Government extended the deadline to June 5. TEMPUR-PEDIC: Faces Class Action Over Memory Foam Mattress Odor --------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Kath, writing for CBS Boston, reports that claims that smell came from his newly delivered mattress, a $3,200 Tempur-Pedic memory foam mattress. He claims the mattress made him feel ill, with a significantly elevated pulse rate and respiration. His girlfriend had similar complaints. "I just get heaviness in my lungs," she said. "It definitely impacts my breathing." There are dozens of similar complaints online including one from a woman named Cherrie from Attleboro. "After spending ten minutes in the room, I became extremely nauseous and dizzy," she posted. Another consumer said, "I had a severe allergic reaction to my new Tempur-Pedic mattress and ended up in the hospital." Those are just a sample of the complaints cited in a class action lawsuit filed in California. The suit suggests the company is well aware of the issue. It states: "Tempur-Pedic omits telling its potential and actual customers that numerous past customers have complained about the odor." The suit also states: "Numerous past customers have reported allergic symptoms." The I-Team took hidden cameras inside a number of mattress stores to find out exactly what consumers are told about the issue. In one store we asked if the Tempur-Pedic mattresses were hypo- allergenic. The salesperson didn't know right away, but left the showroom to ask. When he returned he insisted they were hypo- allergenic. When we asked about the smell the salesperson said, "For the first four or five days you can smell them, but after that, it's gone." That's exactly what the company told us. In a written statement a spokesperson said, "For those who notice an odor, they usually find that it dissipates in a week or so." But many customers complain the smell and the health effects last for months. So what's in these mattresses that cause that odor? "We don't know, that's the problem," explained Elizabeth Saunders, an environmentalist with Clean Water Action. Manufacturers are not legally required to disclose the chemicals in many products, including mattresses. But lawyers in the class action suit claim testing of Tempur-Pedic products consistently shows the mattresses contain harmful chemicals, including formaldehyde. "Formaldehyde is a major concern. It's a carcinogen," Ms. Saunders said. "It's also used for preserving specimens, or embalming. It doesn't sound like anything you want to have in your body." After four months of pleading with the manufacturer, the consumer said the company finally agreed to take the mattress back and refund his money. Tempur-Pedic claims that less than one percent of their customers have complaints about the smell. Now the courts will decide if the company withheld information from consumers. TFORCE ENERGY: Faces "Esterline" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Esterline Jr. v. TForce Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01039 (D. Colo., May 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. TForce Energy Services, Inc. operates an oil rigging mobilization company in North Dakota and throughout several other States, with its principal place of business and corporate headquarters in Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerry Clyde Bonnett, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 304 Peak Trail Durango, CO 81303 Telephone: (970) 247-9413 Facsimile: (970) 247-9560 E-mail: jbonnett@bffb.com TOP RANK: Faces "Mendez" Over Nondisclosure of Pacquiao Injury -------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Mendez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03693-DSF-AS (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015. Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events. The Plaintiff is represented by: Byron T. Ball, Esq. THE BALL LAW FIRM LLP 644 S Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 446-6148 Facsimile: (310) 441-5386 E-mail: btb@balllawllp.com TOP RANK: Faces "Thrailkill" Suit in D.S.C. Over Pacquiao Injury ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Thrailkill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:15-cv-02028-TMC (D.S.C., May 15, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015. Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Joseph Hodge, Esq. Timothy Ryan Langley, Esq. HODGE LAW OFFICE PO Box 2765 Spartanburg, SC 29304 Telephone: (864) 585-3873 E-mail: chodge@hodgelawfirm.com rlangley@hodgelawfirm.com TOTAL PACKAGING: Recalls Turkey & Cheese Lunch Kits --------------------------------------------------- Total Packaging of KY, Inc., an Owensboro, Ky., establishment, is recalling approximately 18,000 pounds of Anytime Foods Turkey and Cheese Lunch Kits due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains egg, a known allergen, which is not declared on the product label. The turkey and cheese product was produced on May 4, 5, 12 and 18. The following product is subject to recall: --- 4 compartment plastic tray packages labeled "ANYTIME FOODS TURKEY & CHEESE LUNCH KIT." The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "P6734A" inside the USDA mark of inspection. This product was shipped for institutional use only. The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel while performing an operational sanitation task. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Matt Steele, Quality Assurance Director, at (270) 684-9223. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/5bR1Iw TUK TUK: Faces "Cano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Onecimo Cano, Vincente Bautista, and Alberto Bautista, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Tuk Tuk NY, Inc., and Pentip Mulkern, Case No. 1:15-cv-02849 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant located at 49-06 Vernon Boulevard, Long Island City, New York 11101. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Nate Quarry Surprised by Backlash to Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Shaun Al-Shatti, writing for MMAFighting.com, reports that when Nate Quarry signed on to be one of the original three plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit filed against the UFC, he knew some sort of backlash was inevitable. Quarry, along with UFC veterans Jon Fitch and Cung Le, filed a complaint last December alleging that the UFC had engaged in unlawful antitrust practices. That lawsuit has since broadened into five separate lawsuits from a total of 11 past or present UFC fighters. As the case marches forward to the gradual beat of the legal drum, Quarry has found himself surprised by the increasing frequency of criticism he hears from fight fans who view the suit as nothing more than a cash grab from a handful of disgruntled fighters. "What we're trying to do is we're trying to shape MMA for future generations so these up-and-coming kids have a legitimate shot of having a career and following their dreams. But we can't do that when we have one company that's completely dictating the terms of the entire sport," Quarry told MMAFighting.com. "It always shocks me when people say, 'oh, these athletes are just spoiled athletes.' Really? So the guys who trained for 10 or 15 years, not just for free, but paying for their lessons at the gyms, and then started fighting for free on the amateur circuit, turned pro and fought for a couple hundred bucks here and there, whose dream is just to be a fighter that loves this experience, they're the greedy ones compared to the billionaire owners of the corporation? "[The same people who are] standing here saying, 'nope, all of this money is ours. You're just greedy. Oh, by the way, you can't have anymore sponsors unless we say you can. Oh, by the way, you have to fight here. You have to fight then. You have to fight who.' It's just ridiculous, and we're seeing a big change in climate." The next step for Quarry and the rest of the plaintiffs comes in May, when a California judge rules on Zuffa's motions to not only relocate the suit from San Jose to Las Vegas federal courts, but also to outright dismiss the complaints entirely. The plaintiffs allege that the UFC has created a monopoly over the professional mixed martial arts market, one which limits fighters' earning potential through a variety of anti-competitive practices. Quarry has long been a critic of the UFC's business practices since exiting the promotion with a 7-3 record in 2010, writing extensively on the subject on MMA forum The Underground. The TUF 1 veteran fought for six years in the UFC, challenged for the middleweight title in 2005 for a purse of $10,000, and was one of many fighters to sign his likeness over in perpetuity for a nominal fee. He warns young fighters that the fight game "isn't a charity, it's a business," and acknowledges that in the early stages of his career, such practices may have been necessary to help a struggling company to stay afloat. But those days are over, Quarry says, and with many of the fighters of his era trickling out of the sport "broke and broken," he's stunned by some of the vitriol he's received from the same fans who reveled in the blood and sweat he and his comrades sacrificed over their fighting careers. "Everyone is so forgetful of the journey that everyone has gone through," Quarry said. "It used to be there were no requirements for smoke alarms or fire exits. This was brought along because of the labor union. Back in the day with the baseball players, the NBA, the football players, they had no rights whatsoever. They'd go to work in the offseason while they're living their dream of being a professional football player, then they'd go work at a gas station in the offseason, while the owners are making millions and billions of dollars and telling the fans out there, 'These guys are just so ungrateful. Wouldn't you love to be a professional football player too?' "The fans don't know any better, they just want to see a good fight. The other fighters, they aren't going to say anything because they'll be blacklisted, they'll be put on the undercard, now they're not ranked as high, or whatever it may be. There's a million ways that the UFC can completely screw with your career without outrightly saying you're fired and cut." Quarry knows change won't come overnight, so regardless of which way the May ruling swings, he acknowledges that this case "is going to be a really long process," one which could stretch over the span of several years. In addition to the complaint filed by he, Fitch, and Le, UFC veterans Brandon Vera, Dennis Hallman, Mac Danzig, Kyle Kingsbury, Darren Uyenoyama, Javier Vazquez, Pablo Garza, and Gabe Ruediger have joined their name to separate but largely identical suits, and Quarry believes that over time, the final tally may approach anywhere from 500 to 1,000 fighters. "It's time for everyone to band together," Quarry said. "We're just the ones who are in a position who can come out and do so. I get messages from fighters constantly saying, 'as soon as my career is over and I'm no longer dependent on that paycheck, I'll be right there with you.' I say, I understand you can't say anything now because you have a family to feed and this is your dream, and you're going to try and make it work as long as you possibly can. But they know at the end they're going to be left with nothing, so they've gotta do what they can to make what they can right now." UNION PACIFIC: No New Hearing Date on Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Judge Paul Friedman has not yet set a new date to hear oral arguments on plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company said, "20 rail shippers (many of whom are represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against us and four other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently, UPRR and three other Class I railroads are the named defendants in the lawsuit. The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007. The number of complaints reached a total of 30. These suits allege that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic. "In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail transportation services, a few of the suits involved plaintiffs alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation and sought to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers of rail transportation services that paid fuel surcharges. These complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Following numerous hearings and rulings, Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers, which the indirect purchasers appealed. On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various state laws. "With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude evidence of interline communications. On April 7, 2011, Judge Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Wal-Mart employment discrimination case. "On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision, which certified a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff representatives. The decision included in the class all shippers that paid a rate-based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through December 31, 2008. This was a procedural ruling, which did not affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not affect the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove the allegations made by the plaintiffs. On July 5, 2012, the defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court review the class certification ruling. On August 28, 2012, a panel of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia referred the petition to a merits panel of the court to address the issues in the petition and to address whether the district court properly granted class certification. The Circuit Court heard oral arguments on May 3, 2013. On August 9, 2013, the Circuit Court vacated the class certification decision and remanded the case to the district court to reconsider the class certification decision in light of a recent Supreme Court case and incomplete consideration of errors in the expert report of the plaintiffs. On October 31, 2013, Judge Friedman approved a schedule agreed to by all parties for consideration of the class certification issue on remand. "On October 2, 2014, the plaintiffs informed Judge Friedman that their economic expert had a previously undisclosed conflict of interest. Judge Friedman ruled on November 26, 2014, that the plaintiffs had until April 1, 2015 to file a supplemental expert report to support their motion for class certification. The defendant railroads are currently in the process of responding to the plaintiffs' supplemental report. Judge Friedman has not yet set a new date to hear oral arguments on plaintiffs' motion for class certification." UNITIL CORPORATION: Oral Arguments Conducted on Motion to Certify ----------------------------------------------------------------- Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that oral arguments on motion to certify a class and a motion for summary judgment are scheduled for June 5, 2015. In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 ice storm. Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case as a class action. On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the "SJC"), and the SJC has now upheld the lower Court's order. The Company does not have any information at this time as to whether the plaintiffs will proceed with their lawsuit on an individual basis in light of the decision by the SJC. Plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion to certify a class under a different theory than previously argued. The Company has filed its opposition to this motion and has also filed a motion for summary judgment. Oral arguments on both motions are scheduled for June 5, 2015. The Town of Lunenburg has also filed a separate action in the Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Court accepted the parties' joint schedule with discovery continuing into 2016 and trial likely in late 2016. The Company continues to believe these suits are without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously. US PENSION: Sued in D.N.J. Over Alleged Imprudent Plan Investment ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph D. Forte, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. Pension Committee, Administrative Committee, Investment Committee, Richard Johnson and Edgar Grass, Case No. 3:15-cv-03386 (D.N.J., May 15, 2015), s an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, specifically by continuing to permit the Stock Fund to be an investment option for Plan participants despite knowing that it had become an imprudent investment. The Defendants are named fiduciaries of the Plan for Sanofi- Aventis U.S. LLC. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Sauerwald, Esq. Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq. Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq. ZAMANSKY LLC 50 Broadway, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 742-1414 Facsimile: (212) 742-1177 E-mail: jake@zamansky.com USG CORPORATION: July 15 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- USG Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the hearing on final approval of the settlements in the Wallboard Pricing Class Action Lawsuits is currently scheduled for July 15, 2015. In late 2012, USG Corporation and United States Gypsum Company were named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits alleging that since at least September 2011, U.S. wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix and raise the price of gypsum wallboard sold in the United States and to effectuate the alleged conspiracy by ending the practice of providing job quotes on wallboard. These lawsuits are consolidated for pretrial proceedings in multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under the title In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437. One group of plaintiffs brings their claims on behalf of a class of entities that purchased gypsum wallboard in the United States directly from any of the defendants or their affiliates from January 1, 2012 to the present. The second group of plaintiffs brings their claims on behalf of indirect purchasers of gypsum wallboard who from January 1, 2012 through the present indirectly purchased wallboard in the United States from the defendants or their affiliates for end use and not for resale. In the fall of 2013, similar lawsuits were filed in Quebec and Ontario courts on behalf of purchasers of wallboard in Canada. These Canadian lawsuits also name as defendants CGC Inc., our Canadian operating subsidiary, as well as other Canadian and U.S. wallboard manufacturers. USG has denied the allegations made in these wallboard pricing lawsuits, believes these cases are without merit, and that USG's pricing and selling policies were and are made independently and in full compliance with the law. Class action antitrust litigation in the United States, however, is expensive, protracted, and carries the risk of triple damages and joint and several liability. "To avoid the expense, risk and further distraction of management, in October 2014, we entered into settlement agreements in principle with the attorneys representing the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiff classes in the U.S. wallboard pricing lawsuits, for which USG recorded a $48 million charge in the third quarter of 2014," the Company said. "In February 2015, we entered into settlement agreements among the parties that memorialized the October 2014 agreements in principle. Of the $48 million settlement amount, $39.25 million is allocated to the direct purchaser class settlement fund and $8.75 million is allocated to the indirect purchaser class settlement fund. The settlement agreements, in which we deny all wrongdoing, also include releases by participating class members of USG, and its subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related parties, for all conduct concerning any of the matters alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the lawsuits for the time period prior to and including November 30, 2014. Additionally, the settlement agreements grant us the right to terminate the settlement agreements or reduce the settlement amount in the event an agreed percentage of potential class members (determined by their relevant wallboard purchases) opts out of, or elects not to participate in, the settlements. In the first quarter of 2015, the final versions of the settlement agreements were preliminarily approved by the Court presiding over the multi-district class action litigation. As a result of the Court's preliminary approval of the class action settlements, we deposited $39.25 million in March 2015 and $8.75 million in April 2015 into settlement fund escrow accounts. In the second quarter of 2015, notice of the settlements will be provided to potential class members who will be given the opportunity to participate in the settlements, or, alternatively, opt out of the settlements by the deadlines specified in the Court's preliminary approval orders. Persons who opt out of the settlements are not bound by the settlements, and may separately pursue their claims. After the opt out deadlines have passed, the Court will then determine whether to enter final approval of the settlements. The hearing on final approval of the settlements is currently scheduled for July 15, 2015. Assuming the Court enters final approval of the settlements and the settlement agreements have not been terminated due to the number of opt outs exceeding the agreed percentage, USG will have paid a maximum of $48 million to resolve the currently pending U.S. direct and indirect purchaser class action cases. If we are unable to settle the U.S. wallboard class action litigation under the terms set forth in the settlement agreements, or at all, there can be no assurance that the outcome of these lawsuits will not have a material effect on our business, financial condition, operating results or cash flows." USG CORPORATION: Canadian Suits Not Part of US Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- USG Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the settlement of the U.S. class action lawsuits does not include the Canadian lawsuits. In the first quarter of 2015, USG and seven other wallboard manufacturers were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in federal court in California by twelve homebuilders asserting individual claims similar to the claims asserted in the U.S. class action lawsuits. The homebuilders' lawsuit has been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that is presiding over the U.S. class action lawsuits. The filing of this lawsuit indicates that the plaintiffs intend to opt out of the class action settlements preliminarily approved by the Court. Based on the complaint, it appears that the majority of the homebuilders are asserting claims as indirect, not direct, purchasers. Indirect purchaser antitrust claims typically are resolved for less than direct purchaser claims. It also appears from the complaint that the homebuilder plaintiffs account for approximately 5% or less of total U.S. wallboard purchases during the relevant time period. "We believe that the cost, if any, of resolving these homebuilders' claims will not materially increase our exposure from the $48 million agreed to in the class action settlements," the Company said. The settlement of the U.S. class action lawsuits does not include the Canadian lawsuits. "At this stage of the Canadian lawsuits, we are not able to estimate the amount, if any, of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses. We believe, however, that these Canadian lawsuits will not have a material effect on our business, financial condition, operating results or cash flows," the Company said. VICTORY KITCHENS: Recalls Chicken Noodle Soup Products ------------------------------------------------------ Victory Kitchens, a Toronto, Ontario, Canada firm, is recalling approximately 4,672 pounds of chicken noodle soup products that contain chicken from a country that is not eligible to send product to the U.S., the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The poultry ingredients were sourced from Thailand, and were formulated using poultry ingredients that were not produced under equivalent inspection. The frozen chicken noodle soup items were produced on February 5, 2014, April 1, 2014, and September 11, 2014. The following products are subject to recall: --- Boxes of "Chicken Noodle Soup" product code VK-HALCHX (four units per box). The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "I- 422" inside the USDA FSIS mark of inspection on the outside box and the establishment number "Est. 711" inside the CFIA mark of inspection on the immediate container. These products were exported to Sharjah, United Arab Emirates and were not distributed in the U.S. The problem was discovered when a FSIS import inspector observed a shipment certified by CFIA as formulated with poultry ingredients sourced from Thailand while verifying new foreign inspection certification requirements for source country and establishment. This shipment was refused entry by FSIS. A subsequent FSIS investigation into previous shipments from the producer, Victory Kitchen Ltd. (Canada Est. 711), revealed that Victory Kitchen formulated this product using poultry ingredients that were not produced under equivalent inspection. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Allan Kliger, President of Victory Foods Ltd., (416) 766-5848. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/oqMYX8 WACOAL AMERICA: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $1.3MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Coren, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a $1.3 million class action settlement was reached in a false advertising complaint brought against Wacoal by the Federal Trade Commission, alleging that its iPant products were marketed with misleading claims. If you purchased Wacoal iPant products after January 2011, you may be eligible for benefits from this class action settlement. The FTC filed this false advertising lawsuit against Wacoal America Inc. for claiming that its caffeinated "shapewear" undergarments are able to slim and reshape the body of its customers. The iPants lawsuit alleges that Wacoal's claim that its iPant products are able to reduce cellulite and reduce a person's thigh measurements are false and unsubstantiated. Wacoal has been ordered by the federal agency to pay $1.3 million that will be used to refund customers who purchased its shapewear products. Wacoal is also banned from making claims in the future that a piece of clothing is able to contribute to weight loss or reduce the size of a person's body. The FTC's lawsuit was an "administrative complaint," which it files when there is "reason to believe" there has been a violation of the law and it believes it is the public's interest to file such a complaint. Wacoal and Maidenform Brands Inc. were hit with a class action lawsuit in 2013 by customers claiming that its shapewear products are not able to change a person's body as the companies claim. The FTC announced the settlement agreement on Sept. 29, 2014. Who's Eligible A refund is available to anyone who purchased Wacoal iPant products after January 2011. Potential Award Varies, depending on the type and number of products purchased. Claim Form Deadline 05/19/2015 Case Name The U.S. Federal Trade Commission in the Matter of Wacoal America, Inc., Docket No. C-132 30095. Settlement Website www.FTC.gov/Wacoal Claims Administrator FTC v Wacoal P.O. Box 2222 Faribault, MN 55021-1622 1-866-783-5868 WALKER'S FOODS: Recalls Pork with Sauce Products Due to Allergen ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walker's Foods, a Carrollton, Ga., establishment, is recalling approximately 46,612 pounds of pork with sauce products due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain soy, a known allergen, which is not declared on the product label. The below products subject to recall were produced between May 1, 2014 and May 7, 2015. --- 38,462.5 lbs. (in 5-lb. tubs) of "WALKER'S PIT COOKED BARBEQUED PORK WITH SAUCE" bearing packing codes "50115 to 50716." --- 8,150 lbs. (in 24 oz. tubs) of "WALKER'S PIT COOKED BARBEQUED PORK WITH SAUCE" bearing packing codes "50115 to 50716." The products bear the establishment numbers "EST. 9062" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped for institutional distribution and to retail stores in Alabama and Georgia. The problem was discovered by an FSIS inspector while conducting a routine verification check. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Walker's Foods Public Relations Manager Nicole Walker at (770) 834-8171 or via email at Nicole@walkermeats.com. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Zfy7DP WARREN COUNTY, NY: Court Denies Bid for Bed Tax Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Don Lehman, writing for PostStar.com, reports that concerned Warren County is losing tens of thousands of dollars in occupancy tax revenue annually, county officials are revisiting a law to target online room resellers who do not pay the county's 4 percent bed tax. Room resellers, also known as room "remarketers," buy hotel or motel rooms for discounted rates, then sell them for a profit. Travelocity, Orbitz and Expedia are among the most well known. They do not pay the municipal occupancy tax on the difference between room rates, officials said. Collecting sales tax and bed tax from the dozens of online resellers has proved difficult for the state and counties, and the issue is being litigated in state Supreme Court downstate. Warren County had looked into enacting a law in 2013 that would impose financial penalties on resellers that don't pay occupancy tax, but the law was put on hold because of the litigation. The county sought to be included as part of a "class action" in that lawsuit, but a state appeals court recently denied a request for class action status. The lawsuit filed in Nassau County is continuing, but other counties will not be a part of it. The court action prompted county Attorney Martin Auffredou to put together a new draft local law for county supervisors that would seek to force resellers to pay and impose 5 percent penalties and interest for nonpayment. The county Board of Supervisors Occupancy Tax Coordination Committee did not take action on the proposal, pending further review. County Treasurer Michael Swan estimated the county could be losing out on $20,000 to $30,000 in bed tax from remarketers. Kathy Muncil, chief executive officer of the Fort William Henry Hotel and vice chairman of the New York State Hospitality & Tourism Association, said many of the resellers are charging occupancy tax to those who reserve rooms. "They collect the money and keep it," she told county supervisors. Saratoga County passed a similar law in 2012. If Warren County enacts the law, the county will have to figure out how it will go about tracking and trying to get what it is owed, Mr. Auffredou said. "It's one thing to pass a local law. It's another to have the software and personnel to collect this," he said. WEST BANCORPORATION: No Date Yet for Oral Argument in Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ West Bancorporation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that West Bank's appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court has not yet been assigned a date for oral argument. On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a class action lawsuit that, as amended, asserts nonsufficient funds fees charged by West Bank to Iowa resident customers on debit card transactions are usurious under the Iowa Consumer Credit Code, rather than allowable fees, and that the sequence in which West Bank formerly posted debit card transactions for payment violated various alleged duties of good faith and ordinary care. Plaintiffs are seeking alternative remedies that include injunctive relief, damages (including treble damages), punitive damages, refund of fees and attorney fees. The case is currently being brought by Darla and Jason T. Legg, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, in the Iowa District court for Polk County, Iowa. West Bank believes it has substantial defenses and is vigorously defending the action. The trial court entered orders on preliminary motions on March 4, 2014. It dismissed one of the Plaintiffs' claims and found that factual disputes precluded summary judgment in West Bank's favor on the remaining claims. In addition, the court certified two classes for further proceedings. West Bank appealed the adverse rulings to the Iowa Supreme Court. The appeals have not yet been assigned a date for oral argument. The amount of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated now because of the unresolved legal issues and because, among other things, the multiple alternative claims involve different time periods, burdens of proof, defenses and potential remedies. WOODBURY COUNTRY CLUB: Man Sues for Receiving 2 Unsolicited Faxes ----------------------------------------------------------------- The New York Post reports that Steven Kirtman has legally lashed out at a Long Island country club for sending him not one, but two, unsolicited faxes. The Woodmere, LI, man says he isn't a member or customer of the Woodbury Country Club, yet he received faxes for club events, according to a lawsuit. The unwanted ads are an "unreasonable invasion of privacy," eat up his paper, ink and toner, and clog his fax machine, Kirtman claims in a class- action Brooklyn federal court lawsuit. He wants unspecified damages. ZYK ENTERPRISES: Recalls Veal Products Due to E. Coli ----------------------------------------------------- ZYK Enterprises, Inc. a Duvall, WA establishment, is recalling 2,522 pounds of boneless veal trim and whole veal muscle cut products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The following boneless veal trim and whole veal muscle cuts produced from January 2-23, 2015, are subject to recall: --- 60 lb. bulk boxes of boneless veal trim with a package produced date of January 5, 2015. --- 60 lb. bulk boxes of boneless veal trim with a package produced date of January 20, 2015. --- Various size bulk boxes ranging from 22 to 63 lb. of boneless veal trim and whole muscle cuts with multiple package dates from January 2-8 through January 23, 2015. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 9325" inside the USDA mark of inspection on the boxes. The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel while reviewing records following a positive test for E. coli O157:H7 on May 15, 2015. A subsequent review of test records indicated that the company failed to report positive tests on January 6, 2015 and January 20, 2015. Product from these lots was shipped for further processing to wholesale establishments in California, Massachusetts, and Washington state. E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4 days, on average) after exposure the organism. While most people recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can occur among persons of any age but is most common in children under 5-years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising, pallor, and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately. FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of this product. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef that has been cooked to a temperature of 160 degrees F. The only way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ. Consumers or media with questions regarding the recall can call Zeeshan Qazi at (425) 788-1128. * Accounting Allegations Hike Securities Suits, Cornerstone Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- FEI reports that according to analysis by Cornerstone Research, the numbers of class action securities suits with accounting- related allegations increased from 47 in 2013 to 65 last year -- a 47 percent increase. As a percentage of securities lawsuits, the 69 actions alleging accounting issues represented 41 percent (69 of 170), compared with 28 percent in 2013 (47 of 166) and 30 percent in 2012 (45 of 151). Under Cornerstone's criteria, an "accounting-related" class action includes allegations related to GAAP or auditing violations, or weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting. Although the overall number of actions has remained relatively consistent, the SEC's expanded emphasis on accounting fraud seems to have played a role in increasing accounting-related class actions. Last year, 18 accounting case filings referred to an SEC inquiry or action, compared with five in 2013. "The surge in accounting-related securities class actions is particularly notable given the lack of change in the overall level of securities class action filings in the past year," said Elaine Harwood, a vice president of Cornerstone Research and head of the firm's accounting practice, in a statement. "The increase appears to be, at least in part, a result of the SEC's heightened focus on accounting-related fraud as demonstrated by the substantial growth in accounting case filings that refer to inquiries or actions by the SEC." Cornerstone said there were 63 securities class actions settled last year, down slightly from 66 in 2013. Among the cases settled last year, 44 involved accounting allegations, the same number as the year before. Restatements Attracting Attention The Cornerstone analysis also indicated a slightly stronger link between accounting-related class actions and restatements. In their findings, 29 class actions (or 42 percent) cited restatements, compared with 19 (or 40 percent) in 2014. The increase matches findings by Audit Analytics () that the number of restatements by accelerated filers reached 309 last year, compared with 290 in 2013 and 284 in 2012. Internal Controls Allegations Nearly two-thirds (60 percent) of the 2014 cases included allegations of internal controls weaknesses. Those 41 actions compared with 34 in 2013 and 29 in 2012. Of the 29 cases in 2014 that included a restatement, two in three also included allegations of weaknesses in internal controls. * U.S. House of Representatives Reviews Class Action Bill --------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that recently introduced legislation that aims to limit class-action certification to groups whose members suffered the same injuries received a chilly reception from Democrats during a hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives. Several Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice said on April 29 at a hearing that H.R. 1927, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2015, was so broad it could crush class actions for consumers, as well as civil-rights and antitrust claims. ********* 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 * * *