/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150612.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 12, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 117 Headlines 2700 ALVINGROOM: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects ADRIANNA'S BANQUETS: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, Suit Claims ALTRIA GROUP: 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending v. PM ALTRIA GROUP: Courts Won't Certify Class in 18 "Lights" Cases ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Begin October 19 in Aspinall Case ALTRIA GROUP: Re-trial to Begin February 2016 in Larsen Case ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Set in Miner Case ALTRIA GROUP: "Carroll" Plaintiffs Moved for Class Certification ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Held in Price Case ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Commence in Q1 2016 in Vassallo Case AMAZON.COM LLC: Removed "Chavez" Class Suit to N.D. California AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Onyx Litigation Set for April 2016 AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Securities Litigation Set for July 2016 APPLIED STORYTELLING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages B & R FENCING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages and OT BANCO DE CHILE: Judgment on Claim Under Judicial Review BANCO DE CHILE: Complaint Submitted by National Corporation BANCOLOMBIA S.A.: Class Action Against Trust in Early Stages BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Peripheral Vascular Patch Products BCP IV: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale BE-THIN INC: "Geismann" Suit Moved From Missouri to S.D. New York BEAVEX INC: "Lopez" Suit Moved From California to N.D. Georgia BEN WELL: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects BENEDETTI FARMS: Recalls Chicken and Turkey Sausage Products BEST CASH: Recalls Green Raisin Products Due to Sulfites BOULDER BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit BRISTOL-MYERS: Pennsylvania Appealed Decision in AWP Litigation BRISTOL-MYERS: Over 5,600 Plavix Claims Filed BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Lawsuits by 3,000 Plaintiffs Over Reglan BRISTOL-MYERS: 460 Product Liability Lawsuits Pending Over Byetta BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Freed" Suit Over Company Merger BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Xu" Suit in Cal. Over Company Merger BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Jew" Suit Over Illegal Company Sale BTI SERVICES: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BURGER KING: Removes "Rodriguez" Suit to Florida District Court BUTLER & HOSCH: Fails to Give 60-Day WARN Act Notice, Suit Claims CACH LLC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Miranda" Suit Says CASTLE ROCK: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects CEMEX S.A.B.: New Hearing Set for July 7 in Israeli Class Action CHARLES E. PHYLE: Faces "Dorr" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CHC GROUP: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit CHURCHILL DOWNS: Faces Cheryl Kater Class Action CHURCHILL DOWNS: Appeals Court Denied Bid for Supervisory Review CIRCLE BAR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Cantu" Suit Claims CLARFIELD OKON: Sued in N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA CLECO CORPORATION: One Claim Set for Trial on June 22 CLECO CORPORATION: Rapides Parish Court Entered Scheduling Order CMS ENERGY: Faces Suit Alleging Age Discrimination in Michigan CREATIVE WOODWORK: Faces "Abiche" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT DEMES GOURMET: Recalls Poultry and Pork Products DOCUMENT STORAGE: "Hayes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages DR PRAEGER'S: Recalls Gluten Free Veggie Burgers Due to Soy ECOPETROL S.A.: Faces Suit Over Crude Oil Pipeline Spill ECOPETROL S.A.: May Still File Answer to BT Energy Case ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS: Entered Into Memorandum of Understanding EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Approved Settlement in "Berk" Case FOUR R'S: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Abuisneineh" Suit Says FRESH DEL MONTE: Dismissal of Former Banana Workers Suit Affirmed FRESH DEL MONTE: 3rd Circuit Court Appeal Still Pending FRESH DEL MONTE: Decision of Hawaii Supreme Court Remains Pending FRESH PROMISE: Bid to Set Aside Entry of Default Judgment Okayed FRONTIERE NATURAL: Recalls Elk Meat Products Due to E. Coli GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces "Levy" Suit Over Defective Microwave Oven GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Injury Suit Resulting From Zofran Use GLOBAL MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Zilveti" Suit Says GRUPO AVAL: Banco de Bogota Faces Constitutional Action GUO'S GARDEN: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HEMISPHERE GROUP: Recalls Vietnamese Cashews Due to Salmonella HOSPIRA INC: Named as Defendant in 5 Class Actions INOGEN INC: Christi and Holford File Securities Class Action INTEL CORP: Nov. 6 Hearing on Amended Class Certification Bid INTEL CORP: July 2015 Final Fairness Hearing in Antitrust Suit INTEL CORP: Filed Opposition to Appeal in Mcafee Shareholder Suit INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Unit INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Medical Monitoring Claims J.C. PENNY: Calif. Court Certifies False Advertising Class Suit JEAN-GEORGES: Faces "Fine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEM: Faces Princima Suit Over Failure to Pay OT JPMORGAN CHASE: "Henry" Suit Moved From New York to California KINDER MORGAN: Class Action Filed by Private Landowners in Calif. KINDER MORGAN: "Allen" Case v. El Paso Now Closed KINDER MORGAN: Dismissal Order Entered in Reorganization Case KINDER MORGAN: To Defend Against Capex Litigation KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Action Stayed Pending Capex Litigation LIFE TIME: Settlement of TCPA Litigation Preliminarily Approved LIFE TIME: Faces Suit by St. Clair Employees' Retirement System LIFE TIME: Faces "Bell" Class Action LIFE TIME: Faces "Lusk" Class Action LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Guinane" Suit Over Flooring Products LVNV FUNDING: Removed "Javan" Suit to New Jersey District Court MATCH.COM LLC: Removes "Graf" Class Suit to C.D. California MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Devi" Suit Over Illegal Company Merger MISSION LINEN: Faces "Fematt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NAT'L MILK PRODUCERS: Bid for Exclusion From Class Due July 14 NY AMSTERDAM NEWS: Fails to Accommodate Under ADA, Suit Claims OAKLAND HOUSING: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects OPENGATE CAPITAL: Faces "Mitra" Suit Over Termination Notice OSI SYSTEMS: Securities Class Action at Early Stage of Litigation PALL CORPORATION: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale PELLA CORPORATION: South Carolina Judge Tosses "Walters" Suit PFIZER INC: Suit Over Side Effects of Parkinson's Drugs Settled PORTLAND GENERAL: Trojan Investment Recovery Class Suits Pending QUINCY STREET: Recalls Pork Sausage Products Due to Contamination RESTAURANTE EL GRAN: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says SANTA BARBARA SMOKEHOUSE: Recalls Smoked Salmon Products SEACOR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Wunstell & Blanchard Action SEACOR HOLDINGS: Defendants & Committee File Joint Report in MDL SEACOR HOLDINGS: Court Approved Settlement in Himmerite Action SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Hassett" Class Action SENTINEL OFFENDER: Faces "Keller" Suit in Georgia District Court SIRIUS XM: Appeals Decisions in Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters SIRIUS XM: Plaintiffs in TCPA Suits Filed Motion to Transfer SMARTLIPO365: Recalls Smart Lipo Capsules Due to Sibutramine SONUS NETWORKS: Shareholder Files Class Action in N.J. SPOKEO INC: Removes "Taylor" Suit to New Jersey District Court SPRINGLEAF HOLDINGS: New Judge in W.Va. Consumer Finance Suit SUNWATER LIMITED: Callide Dam Flood Victims to File Class Suit SUPERVALU INC: To Defend Class Action Against Company, IOS SUPERVALU INC: Filed Petition for Certiorari to Supreme Court SUPERVALU INC: Payments to Class Members Completed in February SUPERVALU INC: Expects Consolidated Complaint Will Be Filed TFORCE ENERGY: "Eld" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TIME WARNER: Entered Into MOU to Settle Comcast Merger Actions TOSHIBA CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports TRANSDEV SERVICES: Removed "Williams" Suit to N.D. California TWO DIMITRIS: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TYSON FRESH: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli UNITED AIRLINES: Removes "Ward" Suit to California District Court US BANK: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation in Ohio US SECURITY: "Stone" Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia VALENTI MID-ATLANTIC: Sued Over Wheelchair Inaccessible Parking VERISK ANALYTICS: Settlement in Interthinx Case Has Final Okay VERISK ANALYTICS: Dismissal of Amended ISO Complaint Affirmed VERISK ANALYTICS: Snyder et. al. v. ACORD Corp. Still Pending VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit VISION HOMES: Sued Over Alleged Home Improvement Contracts YOUKU TUDOU: Faces "Wang" Class Action YUM! BRANDS: Briefing on Plaintiff's Appeal Completed YUM! BRANDS: Court Denied Taco Bell Motion to Dismiss or Strike YUM! BRANDS: Discovery Continues on "Rodriguez" Remaining Claims YUM! BRANDS: Court Approved Settlement in "Smith" Class Action ZUFFA LLC: Transferred "Kingsbury" Suit to Nevada District Court Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Had 65 Pending Suits as of March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $423.2-Mil. Fibro Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Had 700 PI Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 1,333 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Had 255 PI Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 3,229 Fibro Cases at April 3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 2,679 MARDOC Suits at April 3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Has 1,046 New Fibro Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dec. 7 Trial of "Masephol" and "Sydow" Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welch Paper Excluded as Evidence in "Yates" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bare Metal Defense" Wins in " Schwartz" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Meyers" Suit Remanded to La. State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted to ZIC, AIU ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah High Ct. Says Service After 5Yrs. is Timely ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Handy" Suit Remanded to La. State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: GRC Can Present Settlement Evidence at Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Doctor's Opinion in "Byer" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Junk "Bardone" Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens Wins Summary Judgment in "Arendt" Suit ********* 2700 ALVINGROOM: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Garcia, Veroncia Vargas, and Veronica Mandujano v. 2700 AlvingRoom Court, L.P., Alton Management Corporation, E.C. REEMS GARDENS APARTMENTS and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15772289 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to the subject premises. The Defendants operates apartment units in County of Alameda, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1970 Broadway, Ste. 210 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com ADRIANNA'S BANQUETS: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Alaa Abuisneineh, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals v. Adrianna's Banquets, Inc. d/b/a Adrianna's Sportsbar, Case No. 2015-CH-08743 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants practice of sending unauthorized advertisements in the form of text message calls to the cellular telephones of consumers throughout Illinois and the surrounding region. Adrianna's Banquets, Inc. own and operate Adrianna's Sportsbar in Markham, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Myles McGuire, Esq. Evan M. Meyers, Esq. Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com emeyers@mcgpc.com eturin@mcgpc.com ALTRIA GROUP: 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending v. PM ---------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, 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 as of April 20, 2015, a total of 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" cases against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") are pending in various U.S. state courts. Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of April 20, 2015, a total of 12 such cases are pending in various U.S. state courts. ALTRIA GROUP: Courts Won't Certify Class in 18 "Lights" Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, 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 as of April 20, 2015, in addition to the federal district court in the MDL proceeding, 18 courts in 19 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"). Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act. Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified class in the Price case, although plaintiffs are seeking reinstatement of the judgment. See The Price Case below for further discussion. In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class action (Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a trial court decision in Schwab that granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights." In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice both cases in August 2009, but refiled in federal court as the Phillips case. The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with prejudice. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal district court's dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary case. In Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation. In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October 2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation. ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Begin October 19 in Aspinall Case -------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, 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 trial is scheduled to begin October 19, 2015, in the Aspinall case. In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court denied Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review. In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case. In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual damages greater than $25. Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to report its February 2014 ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review, which the trial court denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review of the ruling, which the appellate court denied. Trial is scheduled to begin October 19, 2015. ALTRIA GROUP: Re-trial to Begin February 2016 in Larsen Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Altria Group, 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 re-trial is scheduled to begin on February 22, 2016, in the Larsen case. In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which potential class members can qualify to become part of the class. The class period remains 1995-2003. In June 2010, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010. In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October 2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim. Re-trial is scheduled to begin on February 22, 2016. ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Set in Miner Case --------------------------------------------- Altria Group, 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 no trial date has been set in the Miner case. In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that denied plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants' contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the "federal officer" statute. Following remand, the case was removed again to federal court in Arkansas and transferred to the MDL proceeding. In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In November 2013, the trial court granted class certification. The certified class includes those individuals who, from November 1, 1971 through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights, including Marlboro Ultra Lights, for personal consumption in Arkansas. Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") filed a notice of appeal of the class certification ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court in December 2013. On February 26, 2015, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's class certification order. No trial date has been set. ALTRIA GROUP: "Carroll" Plaintiffs Moved for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, 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 December 2009, the state trial court in Carroll (formerly known as Holmes) (pending in Delaware) denied Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. In January 2011, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting class representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as additional defendants. In February 2013, the trial court approved the parties' stipulation to the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI, leaving PM USA as the sole defendant in the case. On March 9, 2015, plaintiffs moved for class certification. ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Held in Price Case ---------------------------------------------- Altria Group, 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 oral argument was scheduled for May 19, 2015, in the Price case. Trial in Price commenced in state court in Illinois in January 2003 and, in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3.0 billion in punitive damages against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"). In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In November 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison County enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate and dismissed the case with prejudice. In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the judgment entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005 Illinois Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the ground that the United States Supreme Court's December 2008 decision in Good demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was "inaccurate." PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' petition and, in February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's motion on the basis that the petition was not timely filed. In March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois. In February 2011, the intermediate appellate court ruled that the petition was timely filed and reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' petition and, in September 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court declined PM USA's petition for review. As a result, the case was returned to the trial court for proceedings on whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' petition to reopen the prior judgment. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended petition, which PM USA opposed. Subsequently, in responding to PM USA's opposition to the amended petition, plaintiffs asked the trial court to reinstate the original judgment. The trial court denied plaintiffs' petition in December 2012. In January 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial District. In January 2013, PM USA filed a motion asking the Illinois Supreme Court to immediately exercise its jurisdiction over the appeal. In February 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court denied PM USA's motion. Oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal to the Fifth Judicial District was heard in October 2013. In April 2014, the Fifth Judicial District reversed and ordered reinstatement of the original $10.1 billion trial court judgment against PM USA. In May 2014, PM USA filed in the Illinois Supreme Court a petition for a supervisory order and a petition for leave to appeal. The filing of the petition for leave to appeal automatically stayed the Fifth District's mandate pending disposition by the Illinois Supreme Court. Also in May 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking recusal of Justice Karmeier, one of the Illinois Supreme Court justices, which PM USA opposed. In September 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal and took no action on PM USA's motion for a supervisory order. Justice Karmeier denied plaintiffs' motion seeking his recusal. On February 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a new motion seeking recusal or disqualification of Justice Karmeier. On March 11, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' request that it order the disqualification of Justice Karmeier and referred the recusal request to Justice Karmeier to decide. Oral argument was scheduled for May 19, 2015. ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Commence in Q1 2016 in Vassallo Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, 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 UST LLC ("UST") and/or its tobacco subsidiaries has been named in a number of other individual tobacco and health suits over time. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable relief, including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of limitations. USSTC is currently named in one such action in Florida (Vassallo). In December 2014, the court entered a scheduling order setting trial to commence in the first quarter of 2016. AMAZON.COM LLC: Removed "Chavez" Class Suit to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Eric Chavez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Amazon.com LLC, Case No. CGC-15-545157, was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court to the U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-02186-KAW to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Roger Markham, Esq. Janine Renee Menhennet, Esq. Peggy J. Reali, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 750 B Street, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 615-2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com jmenhennet@markham-law.com preali@ck-lawfirm.com - and - James Jason Hill, Esq. Timothy Douglas Cohelan, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: jhill@ckslaw.com tcohelan@ckslaw.com - and - Walter Lewis Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. 5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: admin@uelglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Theresa C. Mak, Esq. Rebecca D. Eisen, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1354 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: tmak@morganlewis.com reisen@morganlewis.com AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Onyx Litigation Set for April 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------- Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the trial date in the class action lawsuit filed in connection with Amgen's acquisition of Onyx has been set for April 28, 2016. AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Securities Litigation Set for July 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the trial date in the federal securities class action has been set for July 12, 2016. APPLIED STORYTELLING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Kruchko v. Applied Storytelling, Inc., Eric La Brecque and Does 1 through 100, Case No. RG15772617 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate a marketing firm with its corporate headquarters located at 201 4th St, #lOlA, Oakland, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin R. Allen, Esq. ALLEN ATTORNEY GROUP 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 290 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 695-4913 Facsimile: (925) 334-7477 E-mail: Kevin@allenattomeygroup.com B & R FENCING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages and OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Mendoza-Valdez v. Roland Villarreal dba B & R Fencing, dba B & R Fencing Company, dba B & R Contractors, dba Hill Country Bluebonnet Ranch, and dba Hill Country Bluebonnet Ranch Headquarters; and Elsa Villarreal dba Hill Country Bluebonnet Home Decor & Imports, and dba Hill Country Bluebonnet Ranch, Case No. 5:15-cv-00423 (W.D. Tex., May 21, 2015) is an action for unpaid minimum wages and overtime, RICO visa fraud, and contract damages, brought by the Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants under the federal H-2A visa guestworker program from 2011 to 2015. Mr. Mendoza-Valdez is a citizen of Mexico, who was lawfully admitted to the United States on a temporary work visa. Defendant Roland Villarreal is a natural person doing business as "B & R Fencing," "B & R Fencing Company," "B & R Contractors," "Hill Country Bluebonnet Ranch," and "Hill Country Bluebonnet Ranch Headquarters," all unregistered business entities with their principal place of business in Kerrville, Texas. Elsa Villarreal is a natural person doing business as "Hill Country Bluebonnet Home Decor & Imports," and "Hill Country Bluebonnet Ranch," both unregistered business entities with their principal place of business in Kerrville. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Wedemeyer, Esq. TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC. 902 E. 11th Street Del Rio, TX 78840 Telephone: (830) 774-8300 Facsimile: (830) 768-0997 E-mail: jwedemeyer@trla.org - and - Lakshmi Ramakrishnan, Esq. TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC. 300 S. Texas Blvd. Weslaco, TX 78596 Telephone: (956) 447-4800 Facsimile: (956) 968-8823 BANCO DE CHILE: Judgment on Claim Under Judicial Review ------------------------------------------------------- Banco De Chile said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the judgment on the Erroneous Electronic Forwarding of Bank Statements Claim was appealed by the plaintiff and currently the claim is under judicial review by the Court of Appeals of Santiago (Corte de Apelaciones de Santiago)." The Company said, "On August, 2012 Corporacion Nacional de Consumidores y Usuarios de Chile (a Chilean consumer association) filed a class action against Banco de Chile pursuant to Law No. 19,496, whereby the plaintiff demanded that we compensate 52,770 of our current account holders who were affected by erroneous electronic forwarding of bank statements that occurred in July 2012. The plaintiff seeks total compensation of CLP$ 80,000 (approx. U.S.$ 170) for each account holder as well as the reimbursement of maintenance fees charged on current accounts. On September 17, 2014 a judgment was rendered rejecting the action. The judgment was appealed by the plaintiff and currently the claim is under judicial review by the Court of Appeals of Santiago (Corte de Apelaciones de Santiago)." "It is not possible to predict the outcome of this proceeding; however, in any case it will not have a material impact on us." BANCO DE CHILE: Complaint Submitted by National Corporation ----------------------------------------------------------- Banco De Chile said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company was notified of a complaint submitted by the National Corporation of Consumers and Users of Chile. The Company said, "On February 21, 2014, Banco de Chile was notified of a complaint filed by the National Consumer Service (Servicio Nacional del Consumidor, or "SERNAC") in the Twelfth Civil Court of Santiago as a collective action pursuant to Law No. 19,496. The legal action challenges certain clauses that exists in the Person Products Unified Agreement ("Contrato Unificado de Productos de Personas") regarding fees on lines of credit for overdrafts and the validity of tacit consent to changes in fees, charges and other conditions in consumer contracts. The Bank has answered the complaint and asked the court to dismiss all charges. With regard to the same matter, on January 16, 2015 Banco de Chile was notified of a complaint submitted by the National Corporation of Consumers and Users of Chile ("Corporacion Nacional de Consumidores y Usuarios de Chile" or "CONADECUS") in the Twenty- Third Civil Court of Santiago as a collective action pursuant to Law No. 19,496. The claims under this action are basically the same as those alleged by SERNAC before the Twelfth Civil Court of Santiago, along with a claim for the outsourcing of certain services related to our clients' current account data." "On December 10, 2014, Banco de Chile was notified of a collective action submitted by the National Organization of Consumers and Users of Chile ("Organizacion de Consumidores y Usuarios de Chile" or "ODECU") in the Fifth Civil Court of Santiago requiring the Court to declare the invalidity of certain provisions of the Person Products Unified Agreement which are alleged to be abusive. These provisions refer to the use of banking cards, ID numbers and passwords in order to execute certain services with us. The plaintiff alleges that, in case of phishing or pharming, the bank and not the client should be responsible for proving the client's diligence in the use of self-service channel services. "At this stage, the potential effects of a judgment in the claims mentioned above cannot be quantified." BANCOLOMBIA S.A.: Class Action Against Trust in Early Stages ------------------------------------------------------------ Bancolombia S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014, there were four legal proceedings against the trusts managed by Fiduciaria Bancolombia, including a class action claim because of the alleged invasion this trust made to public space. As of December 31, 2014, the process is still on its preliminary stages. The claim is for an undetermined amount. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Peripheral Vascular Patch Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. announced it is voluntarily recalling four product codes of its VASCU-GUARD Peripheral Vascular Patch. Baxter received customer complaints of difficulty in distinguishing the smooth from rough surface of the VASCU-GUARD patch as described in the labeled instructions for use. This is due to a deviation in the surface texture of the vascular patch in a new packaging configuration. Incorrect orientation of the patch with the rough side toward the bloodstream may increase the risk of vessel thrombosis and/or embolism. To date, Baxter has received a limited number of adverse event reports, including postoperative thrombosis and stroke, in which the recalled product codes have been used. Baxter is continuing to investigate these reports. There is an inherent risk of thrombosis associated with vascular procedures in this patient population with underlying vascular diseases. At this point, no causal association has been established. Following are the product codes affected by this recall: Product Codes Product Description ------------- ------------------- 1504026 VASCU-GUARD TS 1x6cm 1504028 VASCU-GUARD TS 0.8x8cm 1504030 VASCU-GUARD TS 1x10cm 1504032 VASCU-GUARD TS 2x9cm Baxter's VASCU-GUARD Peripheral Vascular Patch is intended for use in peripheral vascular reconstruction including carotid, renal, iliac, femoral, profunda, and tibial blood vessels and arteriovenous access revisions. Baxter began notifying all U.S. customers on May 2, 2015. Customers have been directed to locate and remove all affected product from their facilities. Recalled products should be returned to Baxter for credit by contacting Baxter Healthcare Center for Service at 1-888-229-0001, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time. Customers can still order this product presented in a plastic jar filled with sterile water and 1% Propylene Oxide; it is unaffected by this recall. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can call Baxter at 1-800-422-9837, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time, or e-mail Baxter at onebaxter@baxter.com. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to using these products. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of these products may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmor call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, cancer, infectious diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute medical conditions. As a global, diversified healthcare company, Baxter applies a unique combination of expertise in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance patient care worldwide. BCP IV: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale ----------------------------------------------------- David Widlewski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Randy Carson, Thomas A. Danjczek, Karen Finerman, Joel L. Hawthorne, David R. Jardini, Nathan Milikowsky, M. Catherine Morris, BCP IV Graftech Holdings LP, and Athena Acquisition Subsidiary Inc., Case No. 11086 (Del. Ch., June 2, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of GrafTech International Ltd. to enjoin the proposed transaction to to sell GrafTech to Athena Acquisition Subsidiary Inc. at an unfair price and on grossly unfair and inadequate consideration. BCP IV Graftech Holdings LP is a Delaware limited partnership that is in the business of manufacturing carbon and graphite products. Athena Acquisition Subsidiary Inc. is a Delaware corporation and direct wholly owned subsidiary of BCP IV Graftech Holdings LP that was created for the purpose of facilitating the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com BE-THIN INC: "Geismann" Suit Moved From Missouri to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Geismann v. Be-Thin, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00615, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03898-VSB to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from alleged unsolicited telephone sales. The Plaintiff is represented by: Max G. Margulis, Esq. MARGULIS LAW GROUP 28 Old Belle Monte Rd. Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: (636) 536-7022 Facsimile: (636) 536-6652 E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Martin L. Daesch, Esq. Jesse B. Rochman, Esq. SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C. 600 Washington Ave., 15th Floor St. Louis, MO 63101-1313 Telephone: (314) 231-3332 Facsimile: (314) 241-7604 E-mail: mdaesch@sandbergphoenix.com jrochman@sandbergphoenix.com BEAVEX INC: "Lopez" Suit Moved From California to N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Lopez v. Beavex Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00550, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01841-ELR-WEJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Defendant Beavex Inc. is represented by: Rod M. Fliegel, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, SF 650 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2693 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 E-mail: rfliegel@littler.com Defendant Lowers Risk Group, LLC is represented by: Pamela Q. Devata, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 E-mail: pdevata@seyfarth.com BEN WELL: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects ----------------------------------------------------------------- Claudia Guzman v. Ben Well, Yoram Peleg, Barbara Peleg, Phat T. Lam, Linda D. Tran, Ingrid Gonzalez and Does 1-30, is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to the subject premises. The Defendants operate apartment units in County of Alameda, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1970 Broadway, Ste. 210 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com BENEDETTI FARMS: Recalls Chicken and Turkey Sausage Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Benedetti Farms, Inc., a Sonoma, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 11,670 pounds of chicken and turkey sausage products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The chicken and turkey sausages were wrapped in hog and sheep casings that were not listed on the labels. Hog and sheep casings may elicit allergic reactions in the rare cases of individuals known to be allergic to pork or sheep proteins. The chicken and turkey sausage items were produced on various dates from December 14, 2014 through June 4, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: [View Labels (PDF Only)] --- 10-lb.case containing 5-lb. clipped bag packages of 1-oz. pieces of "Sierra Sausage Co. Chicken Apple Sausage." --- 10-lb.case containing 5-lb. clipped bag packages of 2-oz. pieces of "Sierra Sausage Co. Chicken Apple Sausage." --- 10-lb.case containing 2.5-lb. clipped bag packages of 3-oz. pieces of "Sierra Sausage Co. Chicken and Basil Sausage." --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie Bird Turkey Chorizo Sausage." --- 10-lb.case containing 2.5-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie Bird Turkey Apple Sausage." --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie Bird Turkey Apple Sausage." --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of 4-oz. pieces of "Willie Bird Turkey Apple Sausage." --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of 1-oz. pieces of "Willie Bird Chicken Apple Sausage." --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie Bird Turkey 'Hot' Italian Sausage." --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie Bird Turkey Cajun Style Sausage." --- 10-lb.case containing 2.5-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie Bird Turkey Basil Sausage." --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie Bird Turkey Breakfast Sausage." --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie Bird Turkey Italian Sausage." --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie Bird Turkey Basil Sausage with Sundried Tomato." --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie Bird Turkey Jalapeno and Garlic Sausage." --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie Bird Turkey Habanero and Garlic Sausage." The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-18216" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were shipped to wholesale and institutional locations in California. The problem was discovered by FSIS in-plant personnel during routine label verification activities. 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 Greg Brodsky, Benedetti Farms, Inc. Manager at (707) 545-3308. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. BEST CASH: Recalls Green Raisin Products Due to Sulfites -------------------------------------------------------- Best Cash & Carry, 56-30 56 Street, Maspeth, NY 11378 is recalling BEST BRAND GREEN RAISIN (SUNDERKHANI) because it may contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious of life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. The recalled BEST BRAND GREEN RAISIN (SUNDERKHANI) comes in an un- coded, 7 oz. plastic bag and was sold in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of BEST BRAND GREEN RAISIN (SUNDERKHANI) which did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. Analysis of the BEST BRAND GREEN RAISIN (SUNDERKHANI) revealed they contained 16.96 milligrams per serving. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased BEST BRAND GREEN RAISIN (SUNDERKHANI) should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-718-492-4288. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm449811.htm BOULDER BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a class (the "Class") of purchasers of the securities of Boulder Brands, Inc. ("Boulder" or the "Company") between December 23, 2013 and October 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until May 31, 2015 to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit. Boulder is a natural consumer packaged food company. The Company's health and wellness platform consists of brands that target specific health trends: the Glutino and Udi's Gluten Free brands for gluten free diets; the Earth Balance brand for plant-based diets; the Level Life brand for diabetic diets; EVOL branded foods for consumers seeking convenient foods made with pure and simple ingredients; and the Smart Balance brand for heart healthier diets. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, by failing to disclose: (1) that the Company was experiencing integration issues related to the acquisition of EVOL and Udi brands; (2) that the Company's Smart Balance product segment was under-performing; (3) that, as a result of this and other issues, the Company's gross margins would be lower than expected; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. After disclosing the issues with its gross margins, internal operational issues, a material impairment charge and a shift in product mix, the Company's shares declined sharply. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than May 31, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at 310-201- 9150, by e-mail toshareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. The firm may be reached at: Lesley Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310-201-9150 Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com BRISTOL-MYERS: Pennsylvania Appealed Decision in AWP Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has appealed a decision in the AWP Litigation to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs, entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs. The Company remains a defendant in two state attorneys general suits pending in state courts in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the defendant in a trial in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court), brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In September 2010, the jury issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the Company was not liable for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court judge issued a decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that did not go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million and enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of inflated AWPs. The Company appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and in June 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the Commonwealth judge's decision and remanded the matter back to the Commonwealth Court. In January 2015, the Commonwealth Court entered judgment in favor of the Company. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has appealed this decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. BRISTOL-MYERS: Over 5,600 Plavix Claims Filed --------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix*. Currently, over 5,600 claims involving injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed in state and federal courts in various states including California, Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware and New York. In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company and Sanofi's motion to establish a multidistrict litigation to coordinate Federal pretrial proceedings in Plavix* product liability and related cases in New Jersey Federal Court. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company. BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Lawsuits by 3,000 Plaintiffs Over Reglan ------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is one of a number of defendants in numerous lawsuits, on behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs, including injury plaintiffs claiming personal injury allegedly sustained after using Reglan* or another brand of the generic drug metoclopramide, a product indicated for gastroesophageal reflux and certain other gastrointestinal disorders, as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries. The Company, through its generic subsidiary, Apothecon, Inc., distributed metoclopramide tablets manufactured by another party between 1996 and 2000. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits. The resolution of these pending lawsuits, however, is not expected to have a material impact on the Company. BRISTOL-MYERS: 460 Product Liability Lawsuits Pending Over Byetta ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Amylin, a former subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Byetta*. To date, there are over 460 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of over 2,200 active plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S. The Company has agreed in principle to resolve over 510 of these claims. The majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta*, primarily pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases are pending in Federal Court in San Diego in a recently established multidistrict litigation, with the next largest contingent of cases pending in a coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in Los Angeles. Amylin has product liability insurance covering a substantial number of claims involving Byetta* and any additional liability to Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared between the Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to reasonably predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding or the potential impact on the Company. BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Freed" Suit Over Company Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Freed, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Broadcom Corporation, et al., Case No. 30-2015- 00790699 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2015), is a class action brought on behalf of the shareholders of Broadcom Corporation to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Broadcom Corporation by Avago Technologies Limited for grossly inadequate consideration and through a flawed sales process. Broadcom Corporation is a California corporation that makes semiconductors that are used in smartphones, wireless networks, streaming video and music and connecting information to the cloud. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Boyarsky, 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: lboyarsky@glancylaw.com - and - Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 126 East 56th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 905-0509 Facsimile: (212) 905-0508 E-mail: jsarnelli@gardylaw.com BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Xu" Suit in Cal. Over Company Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zhemin Xu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Broadcom Corporation, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790689 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2015), is a class action brought on behalf of the shareholders of Broadcom Corporation to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Broadcom Corporation by Avago Technologies Limited for grossly inadequate consideration and through a flawed sales process. Broadcom Corporation is a California corporation that makes semiconductors that are used in smartphones, wireless networks, streaming video and music and connecting information to the cloud. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534- 2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Jew" Suit Over Illegal Company Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Randall Jew, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Broadcom Corporation, et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281353 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 2, 2015), is a class action brought on behalf of the shareholders of Broadcom Corporation to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Broadcom Corporation by Avago Technologies Limited for grossly inadequate consideration and through a flawed sales process. Broadcom Corporation is a California corporation that makes semiconductors that are used in smartphones, wireless networks, streaming video and music and connecting information to the cloud. The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bower, Esq. Barbara A. Rohr, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com brohr@faruqilaw.com BTI SERVICES: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BTI Services, Inc., Warrior Energy Services, Inc., Superior Energy Services, Inc., and Superior Energy Services- North America Services, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01556 (S.D. Tex., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours a week. BTI Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Superior Energy Services, Inc. that provides services to the oilfield industry. Warrior Energy Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Superior Energy Services-North America Services, Inc. that provides production related services to all major US onshore and offshore producing regions. Superior Energy Services-North America Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of oilfield services conglomerate Superior Energy Services, Inc. that, upon information and belief, provides oilfield services in North America. Superior Energy Services, Inc. is an oilfield services conglomerate providing drilling products and services, onshore completion and workover services, production services, and subsea and technical solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com BURGER KING: Removes "Rodriguez" Suit to Florida District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Rodriguez, et al. v. Burger King Corporation, Case No. Case No. 2015-009885 CA 01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21959-JAL to the proceeding. The Complaint asserts one cause of action for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that BKC failed to pay the Plaintiffs their minimum hourly wages. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com apetisco@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Jenna Rinehart Rassif, Esq. Michael S. Kantor, Esq. (90472) JACKSON LEWIS P.C. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131-2374 Telephone: (305) 577-7600 Facsimile: (305) 373-4466 E-mail: jenna.rassif@jacksonlewis.com michael.kantor@jacksonlewis.com BUTLER & HOSCH: Fails to Give 60-Day WARN Act Notice, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Regal and Gianna Hillis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Butler & Hosch, P.A., Case No. 0:15-cv-61081-BB (S.D. Fla., May 21, 2015) seeks to recover back pay and benefits under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant terminated more than 700 employees without proper legal notice as part of a mass layoff on May 14, 2015, in Miami, Florida and the Defendant's other sites. The Plaintiffs add that the Defendant failed to provide these terminated employees with the days advance written notice that is required by the WARN Act. Butler & Hosch is a law firm specializing in the legal needs of the mortgage banking industry. Butler & Hosch practice areas include Foreclosure, Bankruptcy, Litigation, Loss Mitigation, REO, Title, and Eviction. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Farmer, Esq. Steven R. Jaffe, Esq. Mark S. Fistos, Esq. Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: gary@pathtojustice.com steve@pathtojustice.com mark@pathtojustice.com seth@pathtojustice.com CACH LLC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Miranda" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anna L. Miranda, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CACH LLC and Daniels Norelli Scully & Cecere, P.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-00627-LEK-RFT (N.D.N.Y., May 21, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Pietrafesa, Esq. OFFICE OF ANTHONY J. PIETRAFESA 210 Bell Court Schenectady, NY 12303 Telephone: (518) 218-0851 Facsimile: (518) 514-1241 E-mail: ajp@ajp1law.com CASTLE ROCK: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects ------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Frias and Moises Frias v. Ingrid M. Merriwether, Rick Williams, Keith Carroll, Castle Rock Realty and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15772287 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to the subject premises. The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business in the County of Alameda, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1970 Broadway, Ste. 210 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com CEMEX S.A.B.: New Hearing Set for July 7 in Israeli Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a new hearing has been scheduled for July 7, 2015, in the Israeli Class Action Litigation. The Company said, "On June 21, 2012, one of our subsidiaries in Israel was notified about an application for the approval of a class action suit against it. The application was filed by a homeowner who built his house with concrete supplied by our Israeli subsidiary in October 2010 (a same application was filed against three other companies by the same legal representative). According to the application, the plaintiff claims that the concrete supplied to him did not meet with the "Israel Standard for Concrete Strength No. 118" and that, as a result, our Israeli subsidiary acted unlawfully toward all of its customers who requested a specific type of concrete but that received concrete that did not comply with Israeli standard requirements. As per the application, the plaintiff claims that the supply of the alleged non-conforming concrete has caused financial and non-financial damages to those customers, including the plaintiff. We presume that the class action would represent the claim of all the clients who purchased the alleged non-conforming concrete from our Israeli subsidiary during the past 7 years, the limitation period according to applicable laws in Israel. The damages that could be sought amount to approximately 276 million Israeli Shekels (approximately U.S.$69.35 million as of March 31, 2015, based on an exchange rate of 3.980 Israeli Shekels to U.S.$1.00). Our Israeli subsidiary submitted a formal response to the corresponding court. Both parties presented their preliminary arguments. The applicant requested the court to join all claims brought by him against all four companies, including our subsidiary in Israel." "In a hearing held on January 18, 2015, all four companies, including our subsidiary in Israel, opposed the applicants request to join the claims and the court decided to request its general legal counselor for his response to the aforementioned application (a common procedure in these cases). Hearings have taken place and a new hearing has been scheduled for July 7, 2015. "As of March 31, 2015, our subsidiary in Israel is not able to assess the likelihood of the class action application being approved or, if approved, of an adverse result, such as an award for damages in the full amount that could be sought, but if adversely resolved, we do not believe the final resolutions would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition." CHARLES E. PHYLE: Faces "Dorr" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Dorr, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Charles E. Phyle d/b/a Phyle Inventory Control Specialists and Does 1 through 50, Case No. RG15772362 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Phyle Inventory Control Specialists provides inventory gathering, validation, and reporting services. It offers solutions for convenience and petroleum store, grocery store, hardware store, pharmacy and drug store, and apparel and soft lines inventories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com CHC GROUP: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a shareholder class action complaint has been filed against CHC Group Ltd. ("CHC Group" or "the Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 16, 2014 and July 10, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). CHC Group is a one of the world's largest commercial operator of helicopters. According to public filings, the Company's helicopters are "primarily used to facilitate large, long-distance crew changes on offshore production facilities and drilling rigs." On January 16, 2014, CHC Group completed its Initial Public Offering ("IPO") of common stock, selling shares of its common stock to investors at $10.00 per share. The class action complaint alleges that the offering materials filed in connection with the Company's IPO "omitted to disclose that one of CHC's two largest customers, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. ('Petrobras'), had stopped making payments on its contracts with the Company." For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request information about this action online, please visithttp://www.ktmc.com/case/CHCGroup. As detailed in the class action complaint, on July 10, 2014, CHC Group's executive officers revealed that Petrobras had not made payments on contracts to CHC Group since April 2013 -- approximately nine months prior to the Company's IPO. On this news, shares of CHC Group's stock declined $0.99 per share, or 11.5%, to close on July 10, 2014 at $7.63 per share. The closing price of the Company's common stock on July 10, 2014 represented a decline of more than 23% from the price of the stock at the time of CHC Group's IPO less than six months prior. CHC Group shareholders who wish to discuss this notice, the class action lawsuit and/or their rights and legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com. Members of the class may,no later than July 17, 2015, petition the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all CHC Group shareholders in directing the class action litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.ktmc.com The firm may be reached at: Darren J. Check, Esq. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne O. Bell, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (610) 667-7706 Email: dcheck@ktmc.com abell@ktmc.com CHURCHILL DOWNS: Faces Cheryl Kater Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 17, 2015, Cheryl Kater, by and through counsel, filed a Complaint - Class Action styled Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Incorporated. Plaintiff, Cheryl Kater, filed the purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, for the Western District of Washington, in Seattle, alleging, among other claims, that the Company's "Big Fish Casino" violates Washington law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful gambling through its virtual casino games (namely the Company's slots, blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered through Big Fish Casino). This litigation was just filed, and Plaintiff, through counsel, did not specify or claim a specific amount of damages in the Complaint. Therefore, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the magnitude of any settlement or potential damages. As a result, the Company does not, at this time, know the extent to which, if at all, this litigation will have a material impact on its business or financial results. CHURCHILL DOWNS: Appeals Court Denied Bid for Supervisory Review ---------------------------------------------------------------- Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and Damages - Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The petition defines the "alleged plaintiff class" as quarter-horse owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically since 2008. The petition alleges that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, L.L.C. and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, L.L.C. ("Fair Grounds") have collected certain monies through video draw poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse supplements and all of those supplemental purse monies have been paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live thoroughbred horse meets while La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of those supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse horsemen during Fair Grounds' live quarter-horse meets. The petition requests that the Court declare that Fair Grounds violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and mandatory injunction ordering Fair Grounds to pay all future supplements due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S. 27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to reasonably represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff class. On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed purse funds. On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds filed exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary jurisdiction seeking a referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission. By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the Louisiana Racing Commission. On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request for supervisory review of the Judgment. This matter is currently awaiting review by the Louisiana Racing Commission. CIRCLE BAR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Cantu" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Cantu Jr., individually and for others similarly situated v. Circle Bar A, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00468 (W.D. Tex., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours work in excess of 40 hours per week. Circle Bar A, Inc. owns and operates an oil field services company doing business in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CLARFIELD OKON: Sued in N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------- Henry A. Rojas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Law Offices of Clarfield, Okon, Salomone & Pincus, P.L. and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03268 (E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. Gentile, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA 180 West 20th Street, Suite 12b New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 675-6161 Facsimile: (212) 675-4367 E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com CLECO CORPORATION: One Claim Set for Trial on June 22 ----------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that one claim has been remanded to the Court and is set for trial on June 22, 2015. In December 2009, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (the Court) on behalf of eight current employees and four former employees alleging that Cleco discriminated against each of them on the basis of race. Each was seeking various remedies provided under applicable statutes prohibiting racial discrimination in the workplace, and together, the plaintiffs requested monetary compensation exceeding $35.0 million. In July 2010, the plaintiffs moved to add an additional current employee alleging that Cleco had discriminated on the basis of race. The additional plaintiff sought compensation of no less than $2.5 million and became the thirteenth plaintiff. In April 2011, Cleco entered into a settlement with one of the current employees which resulted in a dismissal of one of the thirteen cases with prejudice. In September 2011, the Court ruled on Cleco's summary judgment motions, resulting in eleven of the twelve remaining plaintiffs having at least one claim remaining. In February 2013, the Court ruled on the second motion for summary judgment, filed by Cleco in March 2012, in each of the eleven cases and each such case was dismissed with prejudice. Appeals were filed in ten of the eleven dismissed cases to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the Fifth Circuit). In June 2013, the Fifth Circuit clerk dismissed the appeals of two of the current employees due to their failure to file a brief in support of their respective appeals. On various dates in August through November 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court judgments in favor of Cleco in seven of the eight remaining cases. In April 2014, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Court's summary judgment dismissing the wrongful termination and other discrimination claims of the one remaining plaintiff, a former employee who served as one of Cleco's human resource representatives. Excluded from the ruling was one claim that the former employee alleged was the result of a disciplinary warning Cleco issued to the former employee. This one claim has been remanded to the Court and is set for trial on June 22, 2015. Management does not believe the result of the remaining claim will have a material effect on the Registrants' results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. CLECO CORPORATION: Rapides Parish Court Entered Scheduling Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 17, 2014, by and among Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and Cleco Corporation, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally allege, among other things, that the members of the Cleco Corporation Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalues Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The petitions also allege that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies, including an injunction against the Merger and monetary damages, including attorneys' fees and expenses. The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish are captioned as follows: * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014), * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014), * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014). On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co- lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Petition), which is now the operative petition in the consolidated action. The action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Petition alleges, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement because it does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The Consolidated Petition further alleges that all defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty. Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Petition. The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish are captioned as follows: * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014), * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014- 11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21, 2014). Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, and John Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages, which is now the operative petition in that action. Each petition alleges, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self- dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about the Merger. Each petition further alleges that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of Shareholders scheduled for February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On April 14, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish entered a scheduling order under which the plaintiffs must file a second amended petition by May 14, 2015. Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions. CMS ENERGY: Faces Suit Alleging Age Discrimination in Michigan -------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Williams v. CMS Energy Corporation, and Consumers Energy Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-11866-NGE-APP (E.D. Mich., May 22, 2015) is an age discrimination action brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Pitt, Esq. Andrea J. Johnson, Esq. PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER & RIVERS, P.C. 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 Facsimile: (248) 398-9804 E-mail: mpitt@pittlawpc.com ajohnson@pittlawpc.com CREATIVE WOODWORK: Faces "Abiche" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Rodriguez Abiche, and all others similarly situated v. Creative Woodwork of Miami, Inc. and Luis Sanchez, Case No. 1:15- cv-22135-DPG (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in manufacturing of restaurant booth and dining room furniture, that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM DEMES GOURMET: Recalls Poultry and Pork Products ------------------------------------------------ Demes Gourmet Corp., a Fullerton, Calif., establishment is recalling approximately 29,052 pounds of poultry and pork products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The chicken sausages were wrapped in hog casings that were not listed on the labels. Hog casings may elicit allergic reactions in the rare cases of individuals known to be allergic to pork proteins. The items were produced on various dates between Sept. 17, 2014, and June 1, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 18 lb. cases of 12 oz. tray packs of "Pamana Sweet Chicken Longanisa." The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-2888" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to retail locations in California. The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel conducting a routine food safety assessment of the company's products. The establishment produces their own in-house labels. 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 Ruby Phillips, Demes Gourmet Corp's office manager, at (714) 870- 6040 or at demesgourmetcorp@gmail.com. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. DOCUMENT STORAGE: "Hayes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Lenora R. Hayes, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Document Storage Systems, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv- 80798-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Document Storage Systems, Inc. is engaged in the business of providing software and help desk support to its clients located throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com DR PRAEGER'S: Recalls Gluten Free Veggie Burgers Due to Soy ----------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Praeger's Sensible Foods is recalling 950 retail cases of the Gluten Free California Veggie Burger because it may contain undeclared soy. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. Dr. Praeger's Gluten Free California Veggie Burger has contained soybeans since its introduction in 2007 and is safe for consumption by those who do not have soy allergies. The recalled products were distributed to select distributors in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington, with further distribution to retail stores in nearby states. The product is distinguishable as the California Veggie Burger with a red Gluten Free banner below the word "burger". Each box is marked with UPC code 080868000602, lot code F15BC and an expiration date of 5/12/17. Concern for the safety and satisfaction of its customers is a priority for Dr. Praeger's. This action is being taken out of an abundance of caution to inform consumers with soy allergies to avoid eating this batch of Gluten Free California Veggie Burgers. This is the only item impacted, and there have been no reports of illness or injury. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the soy containing product was packaged in boxes that did not reveal the presence of soy. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's packaging processes, which has been addressed. Consumers who have purchased this product with sensitivities to soy are urged to discard or return to the place of purchase for a full refund. For more information, consumers can call Allison Meyer, Director of Marketing, at (201) 703-1300 between Monday and Friday from 8:00AM - 5:00PM US EST. Dr. Praeger's Sensible Foods was founded in 1994 by two practicing cardiothoracic surgeons. The doctors set out on a simple mission -- to help people see nutritious food in a tasty new way. Today, the family owned and operated Elmwood Park, N.J. company has grown into a leader in the all-natural, vegetarian, vegan, gluten free, and kosher frozen food categories, and is the exclusive veggie burger provider for White Castle. The company's wide ranging line of products includes veggie burgers, home-style veggie pancakes, sustainable seafood items, Kid's Littles, and more. For more information, visit www.drpraegers.com. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm449695.htm ECOPETROL S.A.: Faces Suit Over Crude Oil Pipeline Spill -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecopetrol S.A. related to the Cano Limon-Covenas Crude Oil Pipeline Spill, the Company said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On December 11, 2011, the Cano Limon-Covenas oil pipeline ruptured and caused the spill of approximately 3,267 barrels of crude oil into the Iscala creek, which connects with the Pamplonita River that provides water to the city of C£cuta. The incident did not cause any fatalities or injuries. "We launched an internal investigation and hired a highly renowned international consultant to investigate the causes of this incident. The conclusion of the investigations was that the rupture occurred as a result of an unusual movement of soil and the tensioning of the pipeline," the Company said. A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecopetrol S.A. and against employees of the company, and the First Administrative Court of Cucuta has jurisdiction to conduct the case, which is in the probatory stage. ECOPETROL S.A.: May Still File Answer to BT Energy Case ------------------------------------------------------- Ecopetrol S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the period for Ecopetrol to file the answer to the lawsuit related to the BT Energy Challenger has not yet ended. The Company said, "On October 22, 2014, we were served with a class action suit against us seeking monetary damages of approximately Ps$7.4 trillion related to an incident that occurred on August 21, 2014, during the loading operations of the BT Energy Challenger vessel. The claimants alleged possible damage to the port area of Ecopetrol's terminal in Covenas, as well as of marine and submarine areas and beaches that form the geographical area of the Morrosquillo Gulf. This allegation is currently under investigation by the Harbour Master of Covenas. Ecopetrol filed a motion requesting the judge to require the claimants to amend their claim to more precisely set forth the facts and evidence it believes establishes Ecopetrol's liability. As of the date of this annual report, the judge has not decided on Ecopetrol's motion, so the period for Ecopetrol to file the answer to the lawsuit has not yet ended." ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS: Entered Into Memorandum of Understanding ----------------------------------------------------------------- Entropic Communications, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, the Current Report on Form 8-K in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of February 3, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among MaxLinear, Inc. ("MaxLinear"), Entropic Communications, Inc. ("Entropic"), Excalibur Acquisition Corporation ("Excalibur"), and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC. As previously disclosed in the registration statement on Form S-4 of MaxLinear, that was declared effective on March 30, 2015 (the "registration statement"), and the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus that MaxLinear and Entropic filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015 (the "joint proxy statement/prospectus"), Entropic, the board of directors of Entropic, MaxLinear, Excalibur, and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC have been named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") by stockholders of the Company challenging the proposed merger with MaxLinear (the "Delaware Actions"). The complaints generally allege that, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Entropic by MaxLinear, the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Entropic stockholders by, among other things, purportedly failing to take steps to maximize the value of Entropic to its stockholders and agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protection devices in the merger agreement. The complaints further allege that Entropic, MaxLinear, and/or the merger subsidiaries aided and abetted the individual defendants in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. MaxLinear and Entropic believe that no further disclosure is required to supplement the joint proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws; however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, on April 24, 2015, the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") regarding the settlement of the Delaware Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Delaware Actions. In consideration for such settlement and release, the parties to the Delaware Actions have agreed, among other things, that Entropic will make certain supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus, all of which are set forth. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good faith to agree upon a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the Court for approval as soon as practicable. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including approval by the Court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, or if the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be of no force and effect. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Approved Settlement in "Berk" Case --------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the case, Jason Berk v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc., the parties reached an agreement to settle outstanding claims under the matter, which settlement was approved by the court on April 20, 2015. On April 18, 2014, a complaint was filed by named employee, Jason Berk, a current Pharmacy Benefit Specialist employee, alleging: (1) a collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay wages and overtime; and (2) a class action for breach of contract. On April 15, 2015 the parties reached an agreement to settle outstanding claims under the matter, which settlement was approved by the court on April 20, 2015. Under the terms of the settlement, the case will be dismissed with the Company receiving a release of all claims following administration of the settlement terms. FOUR R'S: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Abuisneineh" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alaa Abuisneineh, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals v. "Four R's" Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Ice Night Club, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-08741 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants practice of sending unauthorized advertisements in the form of text message calls to the cellular telephones of consumers throughout Illinois and the surrounding region. Four R's Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant and bar in Bellwood, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Myles McGuire, Esq. Evan M. Meyers, Esq. Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com emeyers@mcgpc.com eturin@mcgpc.com FRESH DEL MONTE: Dismissal of Former Banana Workers Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that the Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint by former banana cooperative workers from the Philippines. In February 2011, a group of former banana cooperative workers from the Philippines filed a complaint in the Philippines against two of the Company's subsidiaries claiming injury from exposure to dibromochloropropane ("DBCP"). The trial court dismissed the complaint against the Company's subsidiaries on October 3, 2011. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals. On March 9, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint. FRESH DEL MONTE: 3rd Circuit Court Appeal Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that an appeal filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is pending related to eight actions. The Company said, "On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were filed against one of our subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs alleging exposure to DBCP on or near banana farms in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala. We and our subsidiaries have never owned, managed or otherwise been involved with any banana growing operations in Panama and were not involved with any banana growing operations in Ecuador during the period when DBCP was in use. The plaintiffs include claimants who had cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which were dismissed on September 17, 2012. On August 30, 2012, our subsidiary joined a motion to dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first-filed claims pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The motion was granted on March 29, 2013. On September 21, 2012, our subsidiary filed an answer with respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who had not already filed in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the court granted a motion made by a co-defendant and entered summary judgment against all plaintiffs based on the September 19, 2013 affirmance by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the dismissal of related cases by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary joined in a motion for summary judgment as to all plaintiffs on the basis of the court's May 27, 2014 ruling. Plaintiffs agreed that judgment be entered in favor of all defendants for the claims still pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on the basis of the summary judgment granted on May 27, 2014 and the district court entered judgment dismissing all plaintiffs' claims on September 22, 2014. On October 21, 2014, a notice of appeal was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but the notice expressly limited the appeal to the claims of 57 (out of the more than 2,400) plaintiffs." FRESH DEL MONTE: Decision of Hawaii Supreme Court Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that in Hawaii, plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the Hawaii Supreme Court based upon the Hawaii Court of Appeals affirmance in March 2014 of a summary judgment ruling in defendants' favor at the trial court level. The Hawaii Supreme Court accepted the petition and oral argument was held on September 18, 2014 with respect to whether the claims of the six named plaintiffs were properly dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. The decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court remains pending. FRESH PROMISE: Bid to Set Aside Entry of Default Judgment Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Promise Foods Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has granted the Defendants' motion to set aside any entry of default judgment. The Company said, "We, together with certain other parties (collectively, the "Defendants"), are currently involved in litigation against Kyle Gotshalk, Leonard Gotshalk, Clinton Hall, LLC, Richard Maher and Patrick O'Loughlin (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). On April 25, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the District of Nevada alleging claims including securities fraud and breach of contract. The Company believes these claims to be unfounded and the Company is prepared to file an answer with the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, together with counterclaims against the Plaintiffs. The Company is continuing to vigorously defend itself against this lawsuit. On September 9, 2014, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to set aside any entry of default judgment." FRONTIERE NATURAL: Recalls Elk Meat Products Due to E. Coli ----------------------------------------------------------- Frontiere Natural Meats, LLC, a Denver, Colorado establishment, is recalling 1,640 pounds of ground elk meat that may be contaminated with Escherichia coli O157:H7 bacteria (E. Coli O157:H7). E. coli O157:H7 causes a diarrheal illness often with bloody stools. Although most healthy adults can recover completely within a week, some people can develop a form of kidney failure called Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS). HUS is most likely to occur in young children and the elderly. The condition can lead to serious kidney damage and even death. The recalled ground elk was distributed to North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia through retail stores. The recalled ground elk was packed in 205 eight pound cases containing 8 one pound packages; each identified with a label that states "DK Natural Meats All Natural Ground Elk" with a "Use or Freeze By 4-27-15" on the back of each package. Frontiere Natural Meats, LLC has received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of this product to date. The potential contamination was noted after routine testing by the company detected the presence of E. coli O157:H7 in two of four sub lots of bulk ground elk. As all four lots came from the same original batch Frontiere is recalling all lots associated with the original. Consumers who have purchased affected lots of DK Natural Meats All Natural Ground Elk are urged to return the product to the place of purchase for a full refund or to discard the product in a manner that prevents humans or animals from potential consumption. Consumers with questions may contact Frontiere Vice President Josh Viola at 303-466-8826. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces "Levy" Suit Over Defective Microwave Oven ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Levy, David Mequet, and Lauren Harris, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. General Electric Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-00857 (D. Conn., June 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased a GE branded microwave oven model number JEB1095, ZMC1090, and ZMC1095, that are defectively designed and manufactured such that the glass on the doors to these microwave ovens will shatter. General Electric Company is a New York corporation with its principal place of business at 3135 Easton Turnpike, Fairfield, Connecticut 06828. GE is one of the largest technology, media, and financial services companies in the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Izard, Esq. Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Seth R. Klein, Esq. IZARD NOBEL LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6202 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com jnobel@izardnobel.com mkindall@izardnobel.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Anna C. Haac, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com ahaac@tzlegal.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Injury Suit Resulting From Zofran Use ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cory Cox and Jill Cox, each individually and on behalf of Jacob Cox, their minor child v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, (Americas) Inc., Glaxo, Inc., and Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00284-BRW (E.D. Ark., May 21, 2015) arises from alleged injuries resulting from use of Zofran. Zofran is a prescription drug recommended for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, radiation therapy- induced nausea and vomiting and post-operative nausea or vomiting. Cory Cox is the husband of Jill Cox and the father of Jacob Cox. Jill is the wife of Cory and the mother of Jacob. She was prescribed Zofran during the early stages of her pregnancy for the treatment of morning sickness. This is alleged to have caused Jacob's birth defects. Jacob is a minor, who sustained personal injuries and damages as a result of birth defects and other problems associated with the taking of Zofran. He was born on June 1, 2012, with a partial cleft lip. GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware limited liability company. GSK's sole member is GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, (Americas) Inc., which is a Delaware corporation, and which has identified its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. GSK is the successor in interest to Glaxo, Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Hodges, Esq. DAVID HODGES LAW FIRM Centre Place Building 212 Center Street, Fifth Floor Little Rock, AR 72201-2429 Telephone: (501) 374-2400 Facsimile: (501) 374-8926 E-mail: david@hodgeslaw.com GLOBAL MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Zilveti" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Zilveti, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Global Marketing Research Services, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02494-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of making repeated autodialed calls to the cell phones of consumers nationwide without consent and to obtain redress and injunctive relief for all persons injured by the conduct. Global Marketing Research Services, Inc. is a Florida corporation that is in the business of conducting telephone surveys. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. O'Connor, Esq. O'CONNOR LAW 420 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 398-4764 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: matt@oconnorlawsd.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com GRUPO AVAL: Banco de Bogota Faces Constitutional Action ------------------------------------------------------- Grupo Aval Acciones Y Valores S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Banco de Bogota, Banco de Occidente and Banco Popular are subject to two relevant constitutional actions: * A constitutional action filed by certain individuals on behalf of the taxpayers of Cali, claiming that Banco de Bogota, Banco de Occidente and Banco Popular, among other financial institutions, unduly capitalized interest of certain obligations as creditors of the municipality of Cali in connection with credit facilities granted by such institutions, and therefore, are seeking the reimbursement of interest paid by the municipality in excess of the amounts due at June 30, 2009. We believe that the probability of loss in connection with this constitutional action is low (eventual) and, as such, have not recorded any provisions in connection with this constitutional action. * A constitutional action filed by certain individuals on behalf of the Department of Valle del Cauca (Departamento del Valle del Cauca) against several financial institutions, including Banco de Bogota, Banco de Occidente, Banco Popular and Corficolombiana claims that the Department has paid interest in a manner prohibited by law, in connection with a credit facility granted to the Department. In addition, the plaintiffs are claiming that the defendants did not pay the alleged real value of the shares of Sociedad Portuaria de Buenaventura and Empresa de Energ¡a del Pac¡fico, on a sale transaction of said shares. We consider the probability of loss in connection with this constitutional action to be low (eventual) and, therefore, have not recorded any provision. Banco AV Villas is subject to constitutional actions brought against several companies in the financial sector in Colombia in connection with the recalculation of mortgage interests that allegedly damaged several mortgage lenders. Banco AV Villas has a comparatively small mortgage portfolio with respect to its main competitors, and we believe that the probability of loss in connection with these constitutional actions is remote. GUO'S GARDEN: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- De Ming Li, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Guo's Garden Restaurant Inc. d/b/a "Guo's Garden Chinese Restaurant", Wei Gen Guo, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe"# 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-04289-PAC (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1685 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10128. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com HEMISPHERE GROUP: Recalls Vietnamese Cashews Due to Salmonella -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hemisphere Group, Inc. of Smithtown, NY, is recalling 14,000 lbs. of Vietnamese LP Cashews, because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The Vietnamese Cashews were distributed to direct customers in Kalamazoo, Michigan; North Billerica, Massachusetts; Maspeth, New York; plus Quebec and Scarborough, Canada. The direct customers were instructed to notify their accounts if the cashews had been distributed and to return them to The Hemisphere Group. The following product is being recalled: Product: Vietnamese LP Cashew Kernels (shelled) Product: Vietnamese LP Cashew Kernels (shelled) Net Weight: 50 lbs. bulk cartons Packer: Hong Duc Company Limited FDA No.: 16153193186 (on carton) Hemisphere Code No. P95497 The firm has not received any reports of illnesses to date. The recall was initiated as a result of a routine sampling program by the US Food and Drug Administration which revealed that the finished product was contaminated with the bacteria. The company has ceased the distribution of the product as FDA and the company continues their investigation as to what caused the problem. Consumers are urged not to consume the affected lot of Vietnamese Cashew Kernels. Consumers who have purchased the affected lot of Vietnamese Cashew Kernels are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact The Hemisphere Group, Inc. at 1-800-339-8846 extension 32, Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, ET. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm449074.htm HOSPIRA INC: Named as Defendant in 5 Class Actions -------------------------------------------------- Hospira, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Hospira and members of its Board of Directors are named as defendants in five class action lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Merger Agreement. Pfizer and Merger Sub are also named as defendants. The lawsuits, which seek to enjoin the proposed transaction, allege generally that the Merger Agreement resulted from an unfair process and fails to maximize value for Hospira stockholders. The lawsuits were filed by the following named plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated: Robert J. Casey II, Samuel Montini, Charles Zimmerman, Jason Chen, and Patricia Takach. INOGEN INC: Christi and Holford File Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Inogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on March 13 and March 19, 2015, plaintiffs Brad Christi and Roger D. Holford each filed, respectively, a lawsuit against Inogen, Raymond Huggenberger, Inogen's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Alison Bauerlein, Inogen's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities between November 12, 2014 and March 11, 2015. The complaints allege that Inogen, Mr. Huggenberger and Ms. Bauerlein violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Huggenberger and Ms. Bauerlein violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaints allege that during the purported class period our financial statements and disclosures concerning internal controls over financial reporting were materially false and misleading. The complaints seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief as the court deems proper. The deadline for motions for appointment as lead plaintiff was May 12, 2015. "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these allegations. We are currently unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss," the Company said. INTEL CORP: Nov. 6 Hearing on Amended Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the hearing on plaintiffs' amended class certification motion is set for November 6, 2015. At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee state courts. These actions generally repeat the allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against the Company by AMD in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (AMD litigation). The Company said, "Like the AMD litigation, these class-action lawsuits allege that we engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by, among other things: providing discounts and rebates to our manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on exclusive or near-exclusive dealing that allegedly unfairly interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors; interfering with certain AMD product launches; and interfering with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting groups. The class actions allege various consumer injuries, including that consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher prices for computers containing our microprocessors. We dispute these class-action claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously." "All of the federal and state class actions other than the California class actions were transferred by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in Delaware for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL proceedings). The Delaware district court appointed a Special Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by the court. In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a motion for sanctions for our alleged failure to preserve evidence. This motion largely copies a motion previously filed by AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled. The plaintiffs in the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of a class of members who purchased certain personal computers containing products sold by us. In July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (Report) denying the motion to certify a class. The MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master's Report, and a hearing on those objections was held before the district court in July 2013. In July 2014, the district court affirmed the Special Master's ruling and issued an order denying the MDL plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In August 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which the Third Circuit denied in October 2014. In December 2014, Intel filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims of the remaining individual plaintiffs. "All California class actions have been consolidated in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs in the California actions moved for class certification, which we are in the process of opposing. At our request, the court in the California actions agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the Delaware district court ruled on the similar motion in the MDL proceedings. The plaintiffs asked the court for leave to retain a new expert and to amend their previous motion for class certification. The court granted plaintiffs' request in February 2015 and the hearing on plaintiffs' amended class certification motion is set for November 6, 2015. Given the procedural posture and the nature of these cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these matters." INTEL CORP: July 2015 Final Fairness Hearing in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the final fairness hearing is scheduled for July 2015, in the In re High Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation. Between May and July 2011, former employees of Intel, Adobe Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar filed antitrust class action lawsuits in the California Superior Courts alleging that these companies had entered into a conspiracy to suppress the compensation of their employees. The lawsuits were removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and in September 2011 the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, captioned In re High Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs' allegations reference the 2009 and 2010 investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) into employment practices in the technology industry, as well as the DOJ's complaints and subsequent stipulated final judgments with the seven companies named as defendants in the lawsuits. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants entered into certain unlawful agreements not to cold call employees of particular other defendants and that there was an overarching conspiracy among the defendants. Plaintiffs assert one such agreement specific to Intel, namely that Intel and Google entered into an agreement starting in 2005, not to cold call each other's employees. Plaintiffs assert claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act and seek a declaration that the defendants' alleged actions violated the antitrust laws, damages trebled as provided for by law under the Sherman Act or Clayton Act, restitution and disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and costs. In October 2013, the district court certified a class consisting of approximately 65,000 current or former employees of the seven defendants and set the matter for trial in late May 2014. The so- called "technical class" consists of a group of current and former technical, creative, and R&D employees at each of the defendants. In January 2014, Intel filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied in March 2014. In April 2014, Intel, Adobe, Apple, and Google reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit, but in August 2014, the district court denied preliminary approval of the settlement. In September 2014, defendants filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit ordered briefing and scheduled a March 2015 hearing date on the writ petition. Defendants have withdrawn the petition for writ of mandamus in light of the settlement agreement. In January 2015, Intel, Adobe, Apple, and Google reached a second agreement with plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit, which the court preliminarily approved in March 2015; the final fairness hearing is scheduled for July 2015. "We continue to dispute the plaintiffs' claims, but have agreed to settle this lawsuit to avoid the uncertainties, expenses, and diversion of resources from continued litigation. Our operating expenses for 2014 reflect accruals for this proceeding and we believe reasonably possible losses in excess of the accrued amount are not material to our financial statements," the Company said. INTEL CORP: Filed Opposition to Appeal in Mcafee Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that Intel, McAfee, and McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to plaintiff's appeal in December 2014 in the McAfee, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. The Company said, "On August 19, 2010, we announced that we had agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08." "In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in February 2013. In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. Intel, McAfee, and McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to plaintiff's appeal in December 2014. "Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class-action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously." INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Unit ------------------------------------------------------------ International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarter ended March 31, 2015, that in March 2015, a putative class action litigation was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology business. The company and three of its officers are named as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Medical Monitoring Claims ------------------------------------------------------- International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarter ended March 31, 2015, that the company is a defendant in numerous actions filed after January 1, 2008 in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, county of Broome, on behalf of hundreds of plaintiffs. The complaints allege numerous and different causes of action, including for negligence and recklessness, private nuisance and trespass. Plaintiffs in these cases seek medical monitoring and claim damages in unspecified amounts for a variety of personal injuries and property damages allegedly arising out of the presence of groundwater contamination and vapor intrusion of groundwater contaminants into certain structures in which plaintiffs reside or resided, or conducted business, allegedly resulting from the release of chemicals into the environment by the company at its former manufacturing and development facility in Endicott. These complaints also seek punitive damages in an unspecified amount. J.C. PENNY: Calif. Court Certifies False Advertising Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reported that a federal judge certified a class-action lawsuit that accuses J.C. Penney Company Inc. of marking up retail prices on apparel and accessories to trick shoppers into believing they were getting big discounts when the items were advertised on sale. In a decision on, U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin in Los Angeles said it was possible "in one stroke" to determine whether J.C. Penney's advertising practices caused shoppers in California to buy items at discounts that proved illusory. The complaint accused the company of running a "massive, years- long, pervasive campaign" to deceive shoppers about its pricing for private-label brands, and for outside brands such as Liz Claiborne, sold exclusively by the retailer. Lead plaintiff Cynthia Spann said she discovered this after buying three blouses for $17.99 each, a 40 percent discount from the "original" $30 price, only to learn the price was never above $17.99 in the prior three months. By letting shoppers sue as a group, the decision could help them obtain greater compensation at lower cost from the Plano, Texas-based retailer than if they sued individually. "We're thrilled with the decision," said Matthew Zevin, a lawyer for the plaintiff class, which he said could number hundreds of thousands. "Price comparisons are not illegal, but it is deceptive if there is no basis for the original price." J.C. Penney spokeswoman Kate Coultas said the retailer does not discuss pending litigation. Similar lawsuits have been filed against retailers such as Kohls Corp. and Men's Wearhouse Inc.'s Jos. A. Bank unit. Judge Olguin certified a class of plaintiffs who bought private- label or exclusive items from J.C. Penney in California from Nov. 5, 2010 to Jan. 31, 2012 at discounts of 30 percent or more. These shoppers accused the retailer of violating state consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission has said retailers are supposed to sell items at original prices for a "reasonable length of time" before marking them down if they wish later to provide the original prices to consumers who compare prices. J.C. Penney moved away from discounts in 2012, when Chief Executive Officer Ron Johnson adopted a strategy of "fair and square" everyday low pricing. It resumed discounting after sales plunged, a decline that contributed to Johnson's ouster the following year. The case is Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 12-00215. JEAN-GEORGES: Faces "Fine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Joshua Fine, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Jean-Georges of Pound Ridge, LLC d/b/a The Inn at Pound Ridge, and Jean-Georges Vongerichten, Case No. 1:15-cv-04320 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 258 Westchester Avenue, Pound Ridge, NY 10576. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 233 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEM: Faces Princima Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Delem Princima, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. North Shore - Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., Case No. 603534/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor Law. North Shore - Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc. provides rehabilitation care to individuals in New York State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2747 Coney Island Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808-2224 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com JPMORGAN CHASE: "Henry" Suit Moved From New York to California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Ron Henry, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 14-CIV-7176 (AJN), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-03895-BRO-JPR to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have willfully engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful conduct and policies by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs in accordance with federal and state law by failing to: (a) properly record all hours worked by Plaintiffs; (b) maintain accurate records with respect to all hours worked by Plaintiffs; and (c) pay Plaintiffs minimum wages and all overtime compensation owed for hours that the Defendants permitted or suffered the Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael DiChiara, Esq. JOSEPH AND HERZFELD LLP 757 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 E-mail: md@jhllp.com - and - Rhonda H. 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 The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 399-7000 Facsimile: (949) 399-7001 E-mail: cgonell@morganlewis.com KINDER MORGAN: Class Action Filed by Private Landowners in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 23, 2015, a purported class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 01842) by private landowners in California who claim to be the lawful owners of subsurface real property allegedly used or occupied by Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) or SFPP, L.P. The suit, which is brought purportedly as a class action on behalf of all landowners who own land in fee adjacent to and underlying the railroad easement under which the SFPP pipeline is located within the State of California, asserts claims against UPRR, SFPP, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D" for declaratory judgment, trespass, ejectment, quiet title, unjust enrichment, accounting, and alleged unlawful business acts and practices under California law arising from defendants' alleged improper use or occupation of subsurface real property. KINDER MORGAN: "Allen" Case v. El Paso Now Closed ------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a ruling in the case, Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C., et al., has been affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court, and the matter is now closed. In May 2012, a unitholder of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. or EPB filed a purported class action in Delaware Chancery Court, alleging both derivative and non-derivative claims, against EPB, and EPB's general partner and its board. EPB was named in the lawsuit as both a "Class Defendant" and a "Derivative Nominal Defendant." The complaint alleges a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the March 2011 sale to EPB of a 25% ownership interest in SNG. On June 20, 2014, defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the case in its entirety. On February 25, 2015, this ruling was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court, and the matter is now closed. KINDER MORGAN: Dismissal Order Entered in Reorganization Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the Kinder Morgan, Inc. Corporate Reorganization Litigation, the Court has entered an order on the EPB plaintiff and the defendants' stipulation and proposed order of dismissal, agreeing to dismiss all claims brought by the EPB plaintiff with prejudice as to the EPB lead plaintiff and without prejudice to all other members of the putative EPB class. Certain unitholders of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. or KMP and El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. or EPB filed five putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in connection with the Merger Transactions, which the Court consolidated under the caption In re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Corporate Reorganization Litigation (Consolidated Case No. 10093- VCL). The plaintiffs originally sought to enjoin one or more of the proposed Merger Transactions, which relief the Court denied on November 5, 2014. On December 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which purports to assert claims on behalf of both the former EPB unitholders and the former KMP unitholders. The EPB plaintiff alleged that (i) El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C. (EPGP), the general partner of EPB, and the directors of EPGP breached duties under the EPB partnership agreement, including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by entering into the EPB Transaction; (ii) EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI and individual defendants aided and abetted such breaches; and (iii) EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI, and individual defendants tortiously interfered with the EPB partnership agreement by causing EPGP to breach its duties under the EPB partnership agreement. The KMP plaintiffs allege that (i) KMR, KMGP, and individual defendants breached duties under the KMP partnership agreement, including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, by entering into the KMP Transaction and by failing to adequately disclose material facts related to the transaction; (ii) KMI aided and abetted such breach; and (iii) KMI, KMP, KMR, P Merger Sub LLC, and individual defendants tortiously interfered with the rights of the plaintiffs and the putative class under the KMP partnership agreement by causing KMGP to breach its duties under the KMP partnership agreement. The complaint seeks declaratory relief that the transactions were unlawful and unenforceable, reformation, rescission, rescissory or compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. On December 30, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On April 2, 2015, the EPB plaintiff and the defendants submitted a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal, agreeing to dismiss all claims brought by the EPB plaintiff with prejudice as to the EPB lead plaintiff and without prejudice to all other members of the putative EPB class. The Court entered such order on April 2, 2015. The defendants believe the allegations against them lack merit, and they intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits. KINDER MORGAN: To Defend Against Capex Litigation ------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan, Inc. intends to vigorously defend Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Capex Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Putative class action and derivative complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against defendants KMI, KMGP and nominal defendant Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. or KMEP on February 5, 2014 and March 27, 2014 captioned Slotoroff v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al (Case No. 9318) and Burns et al v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al (Case No. 9479) respectively. The cases were consolidated on April 8, 2014 (Consolidated Case No. 9318). The consolidated suit seeks to assert claims both individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders of KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011 through the date of the filing of the complaints. The suit alleges direct and derivative causes of action for breach of the partnership agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting, and tortious interference. Among other things, the suit alleges that defendants made a bad faith allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures for the alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMEP's distributions and growth rate. The suit seeks disgorgement of any distributions to Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or KMGP, Kinder Morgan Inc. or KMI and any related entities, beyond amounts that would have been distributed in accordance with a "good faith" allocation of maintenance capital expenses, together with other unspecified monetary damages including punitive damages and attorney fees. Defendants believe this suit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Action Stayed Pending Capex Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The case Walker v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al. is stayed pending further resolution of the Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Capex Litigation, Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On March 6, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No. 2014-11872 in the 215th Judicial District) against Kinder Morgan Inc. or KMI, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or KMGP, Kinder Morgan Management, LLC or KMR, Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, Ted A. Gardner, Gary L. Hultquist, Perry M. Waughtal and nominal defendant Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. or KMEP. The suit was filed by Kenneth Walker, a purported unit holder of KMEP, and alleges derivative causes of action for alleged violation of duties owed under the partnership agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, "abuse of control" and "gross mismanagement" in connection with the calculation of distributions and allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital expenditures and maintenance capital expenditures. The suit seeks unspecified money damages, interest, punitive damages, attorney and expert fees, costs and expenses, unspecified equitable relief, and demands a trial by jury. Defendants believe this suit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. By agreement of the parties, the case is stayed pending further resolution of the Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Capex Litigation. LIFE TIME: Settlement of TCPA Litigation Preliminarily Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- Life Time Fitness, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties have agreed to a class settlement of the TCPA Litigation which was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 9, 2015. On April 17, 2014, a putative class action was filed against LTF Club Operations Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Life Time Fitness, Inc., in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. On June 13, 2014, LTF Club Operations Company, Inc. removed this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. On April 23, 2014, a second putative class action was filed against Life Time Fitness, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On April 23, 2014, a third putative class action was filed against Life Time Fitness, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On July 1, 2014, a fourth putative class action was filed against Life Time Fitness, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. These actions are collectively referred to as the "TCPA Actions" or "TCPA Litigation." The TCPA Actions have all been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings ("MDL"). (On January 26, 2015, a fifth putative class action was filed against Life Time Fitness, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, but after transfer to the MDL Court the matter was resolved by the parties and dismissed by the Court.) The Company said, "The TCPA Actions allege that we violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") when we, or a third party on our behalf, sent marketing text messages to plaintiffs' cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system without plaintiffs' consent. Each plaintiff seeks certification of the class, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and an award of damages available under the TCPA, which include actual damages and statutory damages of $500 per violation or $1,500 per violation if the violation was willful. We deny the allegations." "The parties have agreed to a class settlement of the TCPA Litigation which was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 9, 2015. In the settlement we agreed to pay all costs of the settlement, including class notice, claims administration, court- awarded plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, court-awarded service awards, and awards to class members. Class members may claim either a cash award of $100 or a membership award that lets them pick either a free three-month single Gold membership or a $250 credit toward any access membership that covers the class member. The total settlement amount, as calculated under the agreement, is subject to a minimum of $10 million and a maximum of $15 million. "Depending on the total number of claims submitted and the amount of attorneys' fees awarded, the amounts of the cash award and membership award may be adjusted up or down to bring the total settlement amount within that range. For purposes of calculating the total settlement amount, every membership award that is timely and validly claimed counts as a payment of $250 (subject to adjustment). "Because our cost to service a membership is less than the membership award, the amount of our reasonably estimable loss does not directly correspond to the amount of the total settlement amount as calculated under the agreement. Further, the amount of attorneys' fees, the claims rate, and the mix of cash and membership awards all remain unknown at this time, and, therefore, we believe our reasonably estimable loss is a range. Based on reasonable estimates of these factors, we recorded a liability in the fourth quarter of 2014 in the amount of $4.7 million, which we believe represents the minimum amount of the range." LIFE TIME: Faces Suit by St. Clair Employees' Retirement System --------------------------------------------------------------- Life Time Fitness, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 30, 2015, a putative class and derivative action was filed by a purported Life Time shareholder in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Minnesota, County of Carver, captioned St. Clair County Employees' Retirement System v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-15-358. On April 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Shareholder Derivative and Direct Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Waste of Corporate Assets, and Abuse of Control. Plaintiff purports to bring the litigation as a class action on behalf of the public shareholders of Life Time Fitness, Inc. ("Life Time"), and as a derivative action on behalf of nominal defendant Life Time. The Amended St. Clair Complaint names as defendants the individual members of the Board of Directors ("Board"); LTF Holdings Inc. ("Parent"); LTF Merger Sub., Inc. ("Merger Sub"); Leonard Green & Partners, L.P. ("Leonard Green"); TPG Capital, L.P. ("TPG"); and LNK Partners ("LNK"). The Amended St. Clair Complaint names Life Time as a nominal defendant. The Amended St. Clair Complaint generally alleges that the Board breached its fiduciary duties to Life Time shareholders in connection with the merger because, among other reasons, the Board failed to fully inform itself of the market value of Life Time; the Board failed to maximize shareholder value; the Board failed to promptly form a committee of disinterested directors under Minnesota Statute section 302A.673; certain individual defendants are interested in the merger; and certain provisions in the merger agreement unfairly preclude a third party from making an offer for Life Time. The Amended St. Clair Complaint alleges that Defendants Bahram Akradi, Leonard Green, TPG and LNK aided and abetted the Board's alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Amended St. Clair Complaint also alleges that Life Time and the Board failed to disclose material information to stockholders in connection with the merger. In particular, among other things, the Amended St. Clair Complaint alleges that Life Time and the Board failed to disclose material information in the Preliminary Proxy regarding the background of the merger and financial information that shareholders need to fully consider the merits of the merger. The Amended St. Clair Complaint seeks, among other things, equitable relief under Minnesota Statute section 302A.467, including to enjoin the closing of the merger, to direct disclosure of all material information concerning the merger prior to the shareholder vote, and to award plaintiff's costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees. Life Time and the Board believe that the action is without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against all claims asserted. LIFE TIME: Faces "Bell" Class Action ------------------------------------ Life Time Fitness, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 8, 2015, a second putative class action was filed by a purported Life Time shareholder in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Minnesota, County of Carver, captioned Bell v. Akradi, et al., Case No. 10-CV-15-392. Plaintiff purports to bring the litigation as a class action on behalf of the public shareholders of Life Time. The complaint names as defendants Life Time, the members of the Board, Parent, Merger Sub, Leonard Green, TPG and LNK. The complaint generally alleges that the Board breached its fiduciary duties to Life Time shareholders in connection with the merger because, among other reasons, the terms of the merger are not entirely fair to Life Time shareholders in terms of price or process; the Board retained conflicted financial advisors in connection with the merger; certain individual defendants are interested in the merger; and certain provisions in the merger agreement unfairly preclude a third party from making an offer for Life Time. The complaint also alleges that Life Time and the Board failed to disclose material information to stockholders in connection with the merger. In particular, among other things, the complaint alleges that Life Time and the Board failed to disclose material information in the Preliminary Proxy regarding the background of the merger and financial information that shareholders need to fully consider the merits of the merger. The complaint also alleges that Parent, Merger Sub, Leonard Green, TPG and LNK aided and abetted the Board's alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint further alleges violations of Minnesota Business Corporation Act sections 302A.467 and 302A.255, as well as violations of the Minnesota Securities Act section 80A.68, section 80A.69, and section 80A.76. The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the closing of the merger, to award unspecified damages, and to award plaintiff's costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees. Life Time and the Board believe that the action is without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against all claims asserted. LIFE TIME: Faces "Lusk" Class Action ------------------------------------ Life Time Fitness, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 10, 2015, a third putative class action was filed by a purported Life Time shareholder in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, captioned Lusk v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-01911. Plaintiff purports to bring the litigation as a class action on behalf of the shareholders of Life Time. The complaint names as defendants Life Time and the members of the Board. The complaint alleges that Life Time and the Board violated Section 14(a) of Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and that the Board violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the Preliminary Proxy is allegedly false and materially misleading. In particular, the complaint alleges that Life Time and the Board failed to disclose material information in the Preliminary Proxy regarding the background of the merger and financial information that shareholders need to fully consider the merits of the merger. The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the closing of the merger, unspecified damages, and to award plaintiff's costs, including attorneys' fees. Life Time and the Board believe that the action is without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against all claims asserted. The Shareholder Actions are in their early stages, and thus the Company is unable to reasonably estimate any potential material loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome in one or more of these actions. While they could impact consummation of the merger, Life Time and the Board intend to vigorously defend the Actions, denying any and all violations of state or federal law alleged therein. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Guinane" Suit Over Flooring Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Guinane, David Guinane, Nicole Alonso and Miguel Alonso, individually and o/b/o their respective minor children and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., Lumber Liquidators, Inc., and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-01235-SCB-TGW (M.D. Fla., May 21, 2015) alleges that the Defendants has been selling composite laminate flooring products that emit formaldehyde that exceeded the California Air Resources Board limits for formaldehyde emissions. The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq. Clay H. Barnett, III, Esq. Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq. Andrew E. Brashier, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street PO Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com - and - Anthony J. Garcia, Esq. AG LAW, INC. 742 South Village Circle Tampa, FL 33606-2563 Telephone: (813) 259-9555 Facsimile: (813) 254-9555 E-mail: anthony@aglawinc.com LVNV FUNDING: Removed "Javan" Suit to New Jersey District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled John Javan, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc., and Frank Salvini, Case No. MID-L-001841-15 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-03347-PGS-LHG to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. McGinn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MCGINN 75 Raritan Ave., Suite 220 NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ 08904 Telephone: (732) 937-9400 Facsimile: (800) 931-2408 E-mail: mcginn.chris@gmail.com - and - Daniel Ivan Rubin, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 E-mail: drubin@wolflawfirm.net The Defendant is represented by: Joann Needleman, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC One Commerce Square 2005 Market Street, Suite 1000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 640-8536 Facsimile: (215) 640-8501 E-mail: jneedleman@clarkhill.com MATCH.COM LLC: Removes "Graf" Class Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Graf v. Match.com, LLC, Case No. 15CV-0216, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Luis Obispo to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv- 03911 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts fraud-related claims. The Defendant is represented by: Robert H. Platt, Esq. MANATT PHELPS AND PHILLIPS LLP 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 E-mail: rplatt@manatt.com MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Devi" Suit Over Illegal Company Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Syama Devi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Meru Networks, Inc., Bami Bastani, Barry Cox, Stephen Domenix, John Kurtzweil, Sudhakar Ramakrishna, Fortinet, Inc., & Malbrouck Acquisition Corp., Case No. 1-15-CV-281298 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2015), is a class action brought on behalf of the shareholders of Meru Networks, Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Meru by Fortinet, Inc. Limited for grossly inadequate consideration and through a flawed sales process. Meru Networks, Inc.is a company engaged in the supply and service of wireless local area networks. Fortinet, Inc. is an American multinational corporation that sells high performance network security products and services including their flagship integrated network security solution, the FortiGate firewall. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534- 2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com MISSION LINEN: Faces "Fematt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Fematt, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Mission Linen Supply and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. RG15772522 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Mission Linen Supply owns and operates trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles, and industrial work sites in Alameda County, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San DDiego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 NAT'L MILK PRODUCERS: Bid for Exclusion From Class Due July 14 -------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP regarding the Fresh Milk Antitrust Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Matthew Edwards v. National Milk Producers Federation, Case No. 11-cv- 04766 TO: CONSUMERS OF MILK AND OTHER FRESH MILK PRODUCTS Your rights may be affected by a class action lawsuit regarding your purchase(s) of milk and certain other fresh milk products. The lawsuit is pending before Judge Jeffrey S. White in federal court in Oakland, California ("Court"). This Notice is not an expression by the Court of any opinion as to the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted by either side in this lawsuit. What is this about? This is an antitrust lawsuit alleging a nationwide conspiracy to limit the production of raw farm milk, thus artificially inflating the price of milk and other fresh milk products. In a class action, one or more individuals, called Plaintiffs, file suit on behalf of others with similar claims, called "the Class" or "Class Members." The Court has certified plaintiff classes as described in the section below. Plaintiffs allege that defendants National Milk Producers Federation, aka Cooperatives Working Together ("CWT"), Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Land O'Lakes, Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc., and Agri-Mark, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") and its members have engaged in a nationwide conspiracy to limit the production of raw farm milk, through "early herd retirements," and thus increased the price of raw milk. Plaintiffs allege that this conspiracy artificially inflated, and continues to artificially inflate, the price of milk and other fresh milk products as listed below. Defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability for the claims alleged. Who is a class member? You are a class member if you are a consumer who, from 2003 through 2012, as a resident of Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee,Vermont, West Virginia, or Wisconsin, indirectly purchased milk and/or other fresh milk products (including cream, half & half, yogurt, cottage cheese, cream cheese, and/or sour cream) for your own use and not for resale. To be a class member, you must have purchased the milk indirectly, for example, through a grocery store or retailer. How do I participate in this class action? If you fall within the definition of one of the classes set forth above, you are a class member. IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN A CLASS MEMBER, YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. As a class member, you will be bound by any judgment or settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, in this lawsuit. Thus, you may participate in any monetary settlement or judgment that is favorable to the classes, and you may submit a Proof of Claim following such a settlement or judgment. No judgment or settlement has occurred at this time. You will also be bound by any unfavorable judgment which may be rendered in favor of Defendants. You may not have the right to seek exclusion from the class at the time of settlement or judgment. The Court has appointed the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300, Seattle, Washington98101 to represent the Class ("Class Counsel"). You will not be charged separately for these lawyers. Any class member who does not request exclusion from being a class member may also enter an appearance through their own counsel at their own expense. How do I exclude myself from the classes? To be excluded, you must send a written request for exclusion from class membership to Fresh Milk Products Antitrust Litigation Exclusions c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 6002 Larkspur, CA 94977-6002 Your request must be received by July 14, 2015. After that date, you will not have the right to be excluded from class membership. In order to be valid, your request for exclusion must (i) set forth the name and address of the person or entity requesting exclusion, (ii) state that such person or entity requests exclusion from the classes in this lawsuit, and (iii) be signed and dated by such person or entity. IF YOU CHOOSE TO BE EXCLUDED: (1) you will NOT be entitled to share in any recovery from any settlement or judgment that may be paid to class members as a result of trial or other resolution of this lawsuit; (2) you will NOT be bound by any judgment or release entered in this lawsuit; and (3) at your own expense, you MAY pursue any claims that you have by filing litigation. How can I get more information? This Notice does not fully describe all of the claims and contentions of the parties. Further information, including the operative complaint and court documents related to the certification of the class, is available at the Notice Administrator's website,www.freshmilkpricefixing.com or by calling toll-free 1-877-417-4561. You may also contact Class Counsel by calling 1-206-623-7292 or visiting www.hbsslaw.com. Please do not contact the Court for information about this lawsuit. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300, Seattle, WA 98101 Tel(213) 330-7150 Fax(213) 330-7152 http://www.hbsslaw.com/ NY AMSTERDAM NEWS: Fails to Accommodate Under ADA, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Del Toro v. New York Amsterdam News, Penda Howell, and Elinor Tatum, Case No. 1:15-cv-03978 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2015) alleges, among other things, failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State and the New York City Human Rights Laws. Amsterdam News is a weekly newspaper with a principal place of business in New York City. The Individual Defendants are employees or agents of Amsterdam News. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Seltzer, Esq. Paul J. Sagar, Esq. YUEN ROCCANOV A SELTZER P.C. 11 Hanover Square, 13th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 608-1178 Facsimile: (212) 608-2913 E-mail: sseltzer@yrsslaw.com psagar@yrsslaw.com OAKLAND HOUSING: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Nelson v. Oakland Housing Authority and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15772557 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 2, 2015, is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to the subject premises. The Defendants operate apartment units in County of Alameda, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1970 Broadway, Ste. 210 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com OPENGATE CAPITAL: Faces "Mitra" Suit Over Termination Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ Malloy Mitra, Brenda Manos, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Opengate Capital LLC, Opengate Capital Group LLC, Opengate Capital Management LLC, and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 30-2015-00790797 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide any written notice of the impending facility closure and terminations and failure to pay employees all wages due and owing at the time of discharge. The Defendants operate PennySaver publication, providing advertising services to advertisers and consumers throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. David C. Leimbach, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com OSI SYSTEMS: Securities Class Action at Early Stage of Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- The securities class action against OSI Systems, Inc. is at the early stage of litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On December 12, 2013, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") captioned Roberti v. OSI Systems, Inc., et al. (the "Securities Class Action"). The Amended Complaint in the Securities Class Action, filed on May 20, 2014, alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting or failing to disclose facts concerning the status of the Security division's efforts to develop automated threat recognition software and the alleged use of unapproved parts in its baggage scanning systems in violation of its contract with the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (the "TSA"). The Amended Complaint also asserts that the individual defendants allegedly sold stock based on material non-public information. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, costs, and other unspecified relief. Two shareholder derivative complaints (the "Derivative Actions") have also been filed in the Court purportedly on behalf of the Company against the members of the Company's Board of Directors (as individual defendants). One, filed on April 15, 2014, is captioned Hagan v. Chopra, et al., and the other, filed on December 29, 2014, is captioned City of Irving Benefit Plan, Derivatively on Behalf of OSI Systems, Inc. v. Deepak Chopra, et al. The Derivative Actions generally assert the same factual allegations as those at issue in the related Securities Class Action and purport to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment against the individual defendants on behalf of the Company. Plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions seek unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys' and experts' fees, costs, expenses, and other unspecified relief. While the Company believes that the Securities Class Action and the Derivative Actions are without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously, it expects to incur costs associated with defending the Securities Class Action and the Derivative Actions. At this early stage of litigation, the ultimate outcomes of the Securities Class Action and the Derivative Actions are uncertain and the Company cannot reasonably predict the timing or outcomes, or estimate the amount of loss, if any, or their effect, if any, on its financial statements. PALL CORPORATION: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Esther Scheiner as custodian for Benjamin Scheiner and Hannah Scheiner, and Baruch Halberstam as custodian for Malka Halberstam and Hannah Halberstam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pall Corporation, et al., Case No. 603517/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 2, 2015), is bright on behalf of all the public stockholders of the common stock of Pall Corporation against Pall's Board of Directors fir breaches of their fiduciary duties in connection with the Board's agreement to sell the Company to Danaher Corporation and Pentagon Merger Sub, Inc. for inadequate consideration and unfair price. Pall Corporation is a New York corporation with its principal executive offices located at 25 Harbor Park Drive, Port Washington, NY. Pall manufactures and markets filtration, separation and purification products, and integrated systems, worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com mrogovin@weisslawllp.com kkeenan@weisslawllp.com PELLA CORPORATION: South Carolina Judge Tosses "Walters" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge David C. Norton of the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case BRIAN WALTERS and MIRTA BIEL-WALTERS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PELLA CORPORATION, Defendant, NOS. 2:14-MN-00001-DCN, 2:14-CV-03491-DCN (D.S.C.) Plaintiff Andrew Pohutsky purchased Pella Architect and Designer Series windows to install in his home when it was constructed in 2000. The windows were purchased directly from K.C. Company, Inc. (KC), one of the largest Pella retailers in the country, and shipped directly to Pohutsky. Plaintiff noticing signs of water leaks in his windows in 2005, 2008 and 2013 respectively. Plaintiff contacted KC and KC only applied caulk and indicated the problems were resolved. Pohutsky alleges that the windows suffer from various design deficiencies, including a defect in the glazing pocket, the aluminum cladding, the crank hardware and the frame to sash joint. Pohutsky alleges that these defects cause leaks and allow water to be trapped between the aluminum and the operable wood frame causing damage to the windows and other property within the home. Pohutsky alleges that Pella was or should have been aware that its windows were defective and that Pella concealed its knowledge of repeated product defects. On August 13, 2014, Pohutsky filed a class action complaint against Pella in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Maryland, alleging jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The complaint alleges four causes of action: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) violation of the Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act (MMWA); and (4) declaratory relief. On August 29, 2014, the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the case to the present court as part of the consolidated multidistrict litigation. Pella filed a motion to dismiss. Judge Norton granted defendant's motion and dismisses without prejudice all of plaintiff's causes of action against Pella. A copy of Judge Norton's order dated May 19, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/dclEEjfrom Leagle.com. Andrew Pohutsky, Plaintiff, represented by Gary E Mason -- at Mason Law Firm; Scott A George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- at Seeger Weiss; Matthew E Lee -- matt@wbmllp.com -- at Whitfield Bryson and Mason; Joel R Rhine at Rhine Law Firm PC Pella Corporation, Defendant, represented by John P. Mandler -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- Kevin L Morrow -- kevin.morrow@FaegreBD.com -- Mark J Winebrenner -- joe.winebrenner@FaegreBD.com -- Shane A Anderson -- shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels PFIZER INC: Suit Over Side Effects of Parkinson's Drugs Settled --------------------------------------------------------------- Rob Wipond, writing for Mad in America, reported that an Australian class action lawsuit about Pfizer Parkinson's drugs that caused severe gambling and sex addictions in 172 people has been settled, but delayed by a judge concerned that the plaintiffs were not fully informed of their rights, reported Financial Review.AboutLawsuits.com reported that the antipsychotic Abilify could become a target for similar lawsuits. "Many claimed to have gambled away hundreds of thousands of dollars, amounting to their entire life savings, after taking the drugs despite having no pre-existing gambling problems," reported Financial Review. As many as 18% of people taking dopamine agonists for Parkinson's could become victims of compulsive behavioral side effects, stated AboutLawsuits.com. "There are six FDA-approved dopamine agonists currently on the market in the United States. The Parkinson's disease drugs Mirapex and Requip were most strongly linked to incidents of impulse control problems among the dopamine receptor agonists, leading to gambling addictions and hypersexuality, and even compulsive shopping. However, a safety signal was also seen for Abilify gambling and impulse control problems, with at least 37 reports found specifically involving this one medication." PORTLAND GENERAL: Trojan Investment Recovery Class Suits Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Trojan Investment Recovery Class Actions remain pending. In 1993, PGE closed the Trojan nuclear power plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon. In 1995, the OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining investment in Trojan. Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In 2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the OPUC for reconsideration. In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to provide refunds of $33 million, including interest, which were completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in February 2013 and by the Oregon Supreme Court in October 2014. In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in Marion County Circuit Court against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers. The class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan. In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices. The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part. The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded OPUC proceedings. The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court. The October 2014 Oregon Supreme Court decision expressly noted that the plaintiffs in the class action must address any request to lift the abatement with the Marion County Circuit Court. PGE is evaluating how to proceed with respect to the class actions. PGE believes that the October 2, 2014 Oregon Supreme Court decision has reduced the risk of a loss to the Company in excess of the amounts previously recorded and discussed above. However, because the class actions remain pending, management believes that it is reasonably possible that such a loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to determine the amount of any such loss. QUINCY STREET: Recalls Pork Sausage Products Due to Contamination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Quincy Street, Inc., a Holland, Mich. establishment, is recalling approximately 49,308 pounds of pork sausage products that may be contaminated with foreign materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The pork sausage items were produced on April 22, 2015 through April 23, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 10-lb. packages containing 2-oz. pieces of "Skin On Sausage Links" with reorder number 466301. --- 10-lb. packages containing 2-oz. pieces of "Pork Sausage Patties" with reorder number 313963. --- 10-lb. packages containing 1.8-oz. pieces of "Skin On Sausage Links" with reorder number 505361. --- 12-lb. packages containing 1.5-oz. pieces of fully cooked "Quincy Street Soy Patties" with item number 012010. --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Skin On Sausage Links" with reorder number 245852. --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Skin On Buffet Style Links" with reorder numbers 266876. --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Skin On Buffet Style Links" with reorder numbers 161100. --- 10-lb. packages containing 0.8-oz. pieces of fully cooked "Blackstone Skin On Breakfast Links with Sage" with item number 55571. --- 10-lb. packages containing 1.8-oz. pieces of fully cooked "Blackstone Mild Skin On Sausage Links" with item number 55545. --- 10-lb. packages containing 0.8-oz. pieces of fully cooked "Blackstone Mild Skin On Sausage Links" with item number 55522. --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of fully cooked "Skin On Pork Sausage Links with Sage" with item number 55521. --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of fully cooked "Quincy Street Skin On Pork Sausage Links" with item number 12008. --- 10-lb. packages containing 1.5-oz. pieces of fully cooked "Blackstone Breakfast Patties with Sage" with item number 55544. --- 10-lb. packages containing 2-oz. pieces of fully cooked "Blackstone Breakfast Patties with Sage" with item number 55572. --- 10-lb. packages containing 0.8-oz. pieces of fully cooked "Blackstone Skin On Pork Sausage Links with Sage" with item number 55517. --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street Skin On Breakfast Links" with item number 010716. --- 10-lb. packages containing 5.3-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street Bold n' Spicy Sausage Patties" with item number 010749. --- 10-lb. packages containing "Quincy Street Bold n' Spicy Bulk Pork Sausage" with item number 010745. --- 10-lb. packages containing 2-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street Pork Sausage Patties" with item number 010706. --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street Russ' Own Special Blend Pork Sausage Links" with item number R10702. --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street Skin On Breakfast Links" with item number 010716. --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street Skin On Pork Sausage Links" with item number 010702. --- 10-lb. packages containing 1.8-oz. pieces of fully cooked "Quincy Street Skin On Pork Sausage Links" with item number 010781. --- 10-lb. packages containing 5.3-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street Bold n' Spicy Sausage Patties" with item number 010749. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 18963" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to institutions nationwide. The problem was discovered by the establishment during routine verification activities. 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 with questions about the recall can contact Ron Potts, Quincy Street, Inc. Director of Food Safety/Quality, at (616) 738- 5303. Media with questions about the recall can contact Jeff Feirick, Quincy Street, Inc. Vice President Corporate Planning, at (765) 564-7278. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. RESTAURANTE EL GRAN: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Veronica Cardona, On Behalf Of Herself And All Others Similarly Situated v. Restaurante El Gran Conquistador Inc. d/b/a El Conquistador Restaurant and Silvio Mendia a/k/a Silvio Memdia, Case No. 7:15-cv-03943-CS (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Wage and Hour Laws. Restaurante El Gran Conquistador Inc. is a New York business corporation headquartered in Peekskill, New York. Silvio Mendia is the chief executive officer of the Company. The Defendants own, operate or control two restaurants located in Peekskill and in Danbury, Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Sidney Almonrode, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com SANTA BARBARA SMOKEHOUSE: Recalls Smoked Salmon Products -------------------------------------------------------- Santa Barbara Smokehouse of Santa Barbara, CA is voluntarily recalling all smoked salmon EXCLUDING HOT SMOKED SALMON from March 1st to April 8th 2015, because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Cold Smoked Salmon was distributed within the United States through retail stores and food wholesaler. The following brands affected in the VOLUNTARY RECALL: Cambridge House, Coastal Harbor, Harbor Point, North Shore S.F. Specialty, Channel Islands and Santa Barbara. Along with the following batch range of 1015 - 3949. No illnesses have been reported to date for this VOLUNTARY RECALL. The safety of Santa Barbara Smokehouse product is the primary concern to them, therefore Santa Barbara Smokehouse has tested and received certificates of analysis showing negative results for products in question during that time period. All fresh product has a use by dates of April 29th to May 6th 2015. The company is recommending as a precautionary measure to pull frozen product produced on or before April 8, 2015. Even though Santa Barbara Smokehouse has positive releases on these products they are taking proactive steps to ensure the safety of their products. Just to clarify this is just a precautionary step. The company has corrected the above reference issue and continues their rigorous sanitation programs and Food Safety Programs and positive release of products. If any of the products listed above are still in possession do not consume and contact Santa Barbara Smokehouse for pick up. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-805-966- 9796. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm449916.htm SEACOR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Wunstell & Blanchard Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- SEACOR Holdings Inc. will continue to vigorously defend the action, John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the "Wunstell Action"), in which they assert, among other theories, that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the provision of remediation, containment and response services by ORM during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The action now is part of the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("MDL"). The complaint also seeks to establish a "class-wide court-supervised medical monitoring program" for all individuals "participating in BP's Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon Response Program" who allegedly experienced injuries similar to those of Mr. Wunstell. The Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and will continue to vigorously defend the action and pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM in connection with the Wunstell Action and claims asserted in the MDL, discussed further below. Although the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the Company does not expect it will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. SEACOR HOLDINGS: Defendants & Committee File Joint Report in MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Clean-Up Responder Defendants and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the MDL submitted a joint report to the Court regarding claimants' compliance with the pretrial order. On December 15, 2010, NRC, a subsidiary of the Company prior to the SES Business Transaction, and ORM were named as defendants in one of the several consolidated "master complaints" that have been filed in the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("MDL"). The "B3" master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts various claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally, and the use of dispersants specifically. By court order, the Wunstell Action has been stayed as a result of the filing of the referenced master complaint. The Company believes that the claims asserted against ORM and NRC in the master complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011, ORM and NRC moved to dismiss all claims against them in the master complaint on legal grounds. On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss that ORM and NRC had filed (an amended decision was issued on October 4, 2011 that corrected several grammatical errors and non-substantive oversights in the original order). Although the Court refused to dismiss the referenced master complaint in its entirety at that time, the Court did recognize the validity of the "derivative immunity" and "implied preemption" arguments that ORM and NRC advanced and directed ORM and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery to develop evidence to support those arguments and (ii) then re-assert the arguments. The Court did, however, dismiss all state-law claims and certain other claims that had been asserted in the referenced master complaint, and dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs that have failed to allege a legally-sufficient injury. A schedule for limited discovery and motion practice was established by the Court and, in accordance with that schedule, ORM and NRC filed for summary judgment re-asserting their derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on May 18, 2012. Those motions were argued on July 13, 2012 and are still pending decision. On July 17, 2014, the Court issued a pretrial order that established a protocol for disclosures clarifying the basis for the "B3" claims asserted against the Clean-Up Responder Defendants, including ORM and NRC, in the MDL. Under this protocol, Plaintiffs who satisfy certain criteria and believe they have specific evidence in support of their claims, including that any Clean-Up Responder Defendant(s) failed to act pursuant to the authority and direction of the federal government in conducting Deepwater Horizon oil spill remediation and clean-up operations, must submit a sworn statement or face dismissal. Plaintiffs' deadline to serve such sworn statements in support of their claims was September 22, 2014, with the exception of several Plaintiffs who were granted an extension until October 10, 2014. On November 14, 2014, the Clean-Up Responder Defendants and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the MDL submitted a joint report to the Court regarding claimants' compliance with the pretrial order. In this joint report, the parties (i) explained how they complied with the notice requirements of Court's July 17, 2014 pretrial order, (ii) noted that they had received 102 sworn statements in connection with this pretrial order, and (iii) provided the Court with an assessment of the sworn statements received. An additional sworn statement was received after the joint report was submitted. Procedures and next steps in connection with the "B3" claims will now be addressed by the Court. In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM, pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection with these claims in the MDL. Although the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the Company does not expect it will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. SEACOR HOLDINGS: Court Approved Settlement in Himmerite Action -------------------------------------------------------------- SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that ORM recently settled three collective action lawsuits that asserted failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who provided service on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). These cases: Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv- 01533) (the "Himmerite Action"); Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the "Prejean Action"); and Baylor Singleton et. al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et. al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv- 01716) (the "Singleton Action") were brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of certain individuals who worked on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. In the Singleton action, on February 13, 2014, the parties reached a full and final settlement agreement with respect to all of the Plaintiffs' individual claims for an undisclosed immaterial amount. On April 11, 2014, the Court approved the parties' settlement and dismissed the Singleton Action with prejudice in its entirety, which extinguished the tolling of claims that had been in place for absent putative plaintiffs. In the Prejean action, the parties reached a full and final settlement agreement on November 6, 2014 with respect to all of the Plaintiffs' individual and collective action claims for an undisclosed immaterial amount. The Court approved the settlement and dismissed the Prejean Action with prejudice in its entirety on November 19, 2014. In the Himmerite action, the parties reached a full and final settlement agreement on February 19, 2015 with respect to all of the Plaintiffs' claims for an undisclosed immaterial amount. The Court approved the settlement and dismissed the Himmerite Action with prejudice in its entirety on March 25, 2015, which also extinguished the tolling of claims which had been in place for absent putative plaintiffs. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shabnam Vafaee, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Securus Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03926 (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2015) alleges violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Babak Semnar, Esq. Jared M. Hartman, Esq. SEMNAR AND HARTMAN LLP 400 South Melrose Drive, Suite 209 Vista, CA 92081 Telephone: (951) 293-4187 Facsimile: (888) 819-8230 E-mail: bob@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Hassett" Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Sensata Technologies Holding N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 19, 2015, two named plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Chrysler and Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., styled Hassett v. FCA US, LLC et al., case number 2:2015cv11030 (E.D. Michigan). "Process was served on our agent on March 25, 2015 and received by us on March 27, 2015," the Company said. "The lawsuit alleges that faulty valve stems were used in Schrader TPMS installed on Chrysler vehicles model years 2007 through 2014. It alleges breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Michigan consumer protection act and the federal Magnuson-Moss warranty act, and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Both the size of the class and the damages sought are unspecified." "We have received an extension for filing an answer, which is now due May 15, 2015. We do not believe a loss is probable, and accordingly, as of March 31, 2015, we have not recorded an accrual related to this matter," the Company said. SENTINEL OFFENDER: Faces "Keller" Suit in Georgia District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chester L. Keller, III, Shellie K. Reaves a/k/a Shellie Keller, and Wyndel Herndon, Jr., and all other persons similarly situated v. Sentinel Offender Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00060-LGW-RSB (S.D. Ga., May 21, 2015) alleges civil rights violation. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Randall Clark, Esq. JASON CLARK, PC 2225 Gloucester Street Brunswick, GA 31520 Telephone: (912) 264-1999 Facsimile: (912) 262-0285 E-mail: jason@jasonclarkpc.com - and - John C. Bell, Jr., Esq. BELL & BRIGHAM 457 Greene Street Augusta, GA 30901 Telephone: (706) 722-2014 Facsimile: (706) 722-7552 E-mail: john@bellbrigham.com - and - John B. Long, Esq. TUCKER, LONG, PC P.O. Box 2426 Augusta, GA 30903 Telephone: (706) 722-0771 Facsimile: (706) 722-7028 E-mail: jlong@tuckerlong.com - and - John Ryd Bush Long, Esq. JOHN R.B. LONG, PC P.O. Box 3928 Augusta, GA 30914 Telephone: (706) 868-8011 Facsimile: (706) 868-8041 E-mail: jlongattorney@aol.com SIRIUS XM: Appeals Decisions in Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sirius Xm Holdings Inc. is appealing the decisions issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, in the Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company said, "We are a defendant in three class action suits and one additional suit, which were commenced in August and September 2013 and challenge our use and public performance via satellite radio and the Internet of sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972 under California, New York and/or Florida law. The plaintiffs in each of these suits purport to seek in excess of $100,000,000 in compensatory damages along with unspecified punitive damages and injunctive relief. Accordingly, at this point we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, which could be incurred if the plaintiffs were to prevail in the allegations, but we believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted. We are defending these actions vigorously." "In September 2014, the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the grant of "exclusive ownership" to the owner of a sound recording under California's copyright statute included the exclusive right to control public performances of the sound recording. The court further found that the unauthorized public performance of sound recordings violated California laws on unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion. In October 2014, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles adopted the Central District Court's interpretation of "exclusive ownership" under California's copyright statute. That Court did not find that the unauthorized public performance of sound recordings violated California laws on unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion. In November 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 were entitled under various theories of New York common law to the benefits of a public performances right. We are appealing the decisions issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and intend to appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. "These cases are titled Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-5693-PSG-RZ (C.D. Cal.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-23182-DPG (S.D. Fla.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv- 5784-CM (S.D.N.Y.), and Capitol Records LLC et al. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. BC-520981 (Super. Ct. L.A. County). Additional information concerning each of these actions is publicly available in court filings under their docket numbers. "In addition, in August 2013, SoundExchange, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that we underpaid royalties for statutory licenses during the 2007-2012 rate period in violation of the regulations established by the Copyright Royalty Board for that period. SoundExchange principally alleges that we improperly reduced our calculation of gross revenues, on which the royalty payments are based, by deducting non-recognized revenue attributable to pre-1972 recordings and Premier package revenue that is not "separately charged" as required by the regulations. SoundExchange is seeking compensatory damages of not less than $50,000,000 and up to $100,000,000 or more, payment of late fees and interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. "In August 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted our motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice on the grounds that the case properly should be pursued before the Copyright Royalty Board rather than the district court. In December 2014, SoundExchange filed a petition with the Copyright Royalty Board requesting an order interpreting the applicable regulations. At this point we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, which could be incurred if the plaintiffs were to prevail in the allegations, but we believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted. We intend to defend these actions vigorously. "This matter is titled SoundExchange, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.. No.13-cv-1290-RJL (D.D.C.), and Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services, United States Copyright Royalty Board, No. 2006-1 CRB DSTRA. Additional information concerning each of these actions is publicly available in filings under their docket numbers. SIRIUS XM: Plaintiffs in TCPA Suits Filed Motion to Transfer ------------------------------------------------------------ Sirius Xm Holdings Inc. Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiffs in certain of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Suits have filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer these purported class actions, and other allegedly related cases, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. "We are a defendant in several purported class action suits, which were commenced in February 2012, January 2013, January 2015 and April 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that allege that we, or certain call center vendors acting on our behalf, made numerous calls which violate provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"),the Company said. |The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that we called mobile phones using an automatic telephone dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or, alternatively, after the consumer revoked their prior consent and, in one of the actions, that we violated the TCPA's call time restrictions. The plaintiffs in these suits are seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages of five-hundred dollars for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to fifteen-hundred dollars for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA, as well as payment of interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and certain injunctive relief prohibiting violations of the TCPA in the future. Plaintiffs in certain of these suits have filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer these purported class actions, and other allegedly related cases, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in these actions, and we intend to defend them vigorously." "We have notified certain of our call center vendors of these actions and requested that they defend and indemnify us against these claims pursuant to the provisions of their existing or former agreements with us. We believe we have valid contractual claims against certain call center vendors in connection with these claims and intend to preserve and pursue our rights to recover from these entities." These purported class action cases are titled Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.), Brian Trenz v. Sirius XM Holdings, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 15-cv-0044L-BLM (S.D. Cal) and Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.). Additional information concerning each of these actions is publicly available in court filings under their docket numbers. SMARTLIPO365: Recalls Smart Lipo Capsules Due to Sibutramine ------------------------------------------------------------ SmartLipo365 is voluntarily recalling 122 lots of Smart Lipo (800, 900, 950 mg) capsules, to the consumer level. FDA received samples of 800 and 900mg capsules of Smart Lipo and the lab results found the Smart Lipo products to contain undeclared sibutramine, desmethylsibutramine, and phenolphthalein. Sibutramine is an appetite suppressant that was withdrawn from the U.S. market in October 2010. Sibutramine is known to substantially increase blood pressure and/or pulse rate in some patients and may present a significant risk for patients with a history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias or stroke. Phenolphthalein is an ingredient previously used in over-the- counter laxatives, but because of concerns of carcinogenicity, it is not currently approved for marketing in the United States. Health risks associated with phenolphthalein could include potentially serious gastrointestinal disturbances, irregular heartbeat, and cancer with long-term use. These undeclared ingredients make these products unapproved new drugs for which safety and efficacy have not been established. These products may also interact in life-threatening ways with other medications a consumer may be taking. Smart Lipo is marketed as a dietary supplement and is packaged in bottles of 30 capsules, with 22 bottles of 800mg, 77 bottles of 900mg, and 23 bottles of 950mg.The affected Smart Lipo products include the following expiration dates: 800mg capsules - 9/15/2017, 900mg capsules - 7/30/2017, 950mg capsules - 7/30/2017 & 7/30/2018. Smart Lipo was sold in stores, Centro Naturista in Richardson, TX, SmartLipo365 in Arlington, TX, as well as distributed nationwide via the Internet, SmartLipo365.comdisclaimer icon SmartLipo365 is notifying its distributors and customers by e-mail and letter and will not continue the distribution of Smart Lipo. Consumers, distributors, retailers that have Smart Lipo which is being recalled should stop using the recalled product and asked to please dispose it. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact SmartLipo365 by 1-(800)-547-6365 or info@smartlipo365.com on Monday through Friday from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. (Central time). Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. SONUS NETWORKS: Shareholder Files Class Action in N.J. ------------------------------------------------------ Sonus Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that on April 6, 2015, Ming Huang, a purported shareholder of the Company (the "Plaintiff"), filed a Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Civil Action No. 3:15- 02407), against Sonus and two of its officers, Raymond P. Dolan, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark Greenquist, the Company's Chief Financial Officer (the "Defendants"). The Plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from October 23, 2014 to March 24, 2015 and seeks unspecified damages. The principal allegation contained in the Complaint is the claim that the Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning the Company's fiscal first quarter 2015 financial performance. The Company believes that the Defendants have meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the Complaint and does not expect the results of this suit to have a material effect on its business or consolidated financial statements. SPOKEO INC: Removes "Taylor" Suit to New Jersey District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Taylor v. Spokeo, Inc., Case No. BER-L-3121-15, was removed from the Superior Court of Bergen County, New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-03490-CCC-JBC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative "nationwide class" "of all persons residing in the United States of America who, and all business entities located in the United States of America which, expended money for the purchase of a reverse search report from Spokeo under circumstances identical or substantially similar to those described" in the complaint, "within six years prior to the date of filing" of the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Bronster, Esq. JEFFREY A. BRONSTER, P.C. 17 Wendell Place Fairview, NJ 07022 Telephone: (201) 945-2566 Facsimile: (201) 945-2688 E-mail: jbronster@bronsterlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael Martinez, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506-2514 E-mail: michael.martinez@mayerbrown.com SPRINGLEAF HOLDINGS: New Judge in W.Va. Consumer Finance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Springleaf Holdings, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, that the class action complaint by Paul Lightner has been remanded back to the trial court, where a new judge has been assigned. In 2006, Paul Lightner filed a counter-claim class action complaint seeking recovery under West Virginia's Consumer Credit and Protection Act against CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV) for selling insurance with allegedly inflated premiums and for allegedly taking impermissible security interests in household goods. In 2008, the trial court certified a class under both claims and denied CitiFinancial, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on both claims. CitiFinancial, Inc. appealed the denial of summary judgment on the insurance claim, and in 2009 the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed the trial court, and held that appropriateness of insurance rates was a matter to be decided by the West Virginia Insurance Commissioner. In 2010, the West Virginia Insurance Commissioner ruled in CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV)'s favor, and plaintiffs appealed this decision. In June 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled in CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV)'s favor, and affirmed the decision of the Insurance Commissioner. The matter has been remanded back to the trial court, where a new judge has been assigned to the matter. CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV) is subject to the prior judge's 2008 certification order, and is seeking to have the remaining claim for taking impermissible security interests in household goods decertified. Additional information concerning this matter is publicly available in court filings under Lightner v. CitiFinancial, Inc., Case No. 02-C0723 (Cir. Ct. Marshall Co. WV). SUNWATER LIMITED: Callide Dam Flood Victims to File Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reported that more than 200 homeowners whose properties were damaged when the Callide Dam overflowed have banded together to launch a class action. Maddens Lawyers, which recovered millions in compensation for Black Saturday bushfire victims, issued proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court against SunWater Limited. Torrential rain from Cyclone Marcia boosted the dam's level to the point which triggered its automatic gates to open. A massive volume flowed downstream through the Biloela and Jambin communities, damaging almost 400 homes and farming properties downstream, Maddens Lawyers said in a statement. The evidence suggests that SunWater was more than negligent in the operation of the facility, it was gross negligence. Class action principal Brendan Pendergast said the damage caused by the uncontrolled release could have been avoided and affected residents had a right to compensation. SunWater could have undertaken precautionary releases before the deluge. The ABC revealed in April that despite the pleas of locals, Sunwater allowed the dam to fill to 89 per cent before Cyclone Marcia hit. "We know SunWater was aware of the pending weather conditions in the lead-up to 20 February and that the Callide Dam was already close to capacity," Mr. Pendergast said. "But despite this knowledge, no precautionary releases were authorised until it was too late. The law firm was yet to put a dollar figure on the losses suffered and how much they would be seeking. "For example, there are several farming properties in the Jambin area that were affected; it could be years before these property owners know the full extent of the economic impact this flood had on their operations," Mr Pendergast said. "The nature of the damage suffered means it's tough to evaluate the true, collective cost of this flood right now, in these early days." The class action would also seek compensation for time spent by residents cleaning up from the flood, and the physical inconvenience suffered by people who were displaced from their homes. SunWater issued a statement saying it stands by its management of the Callide Dam and it's staff who operated the dam in line with the established and approved operating procedures. Gross negligence, dam expert alleges Ken Pearce, who helped design Wivenhoe Dam and was principal engineer at Seqwater, was critical of SunWater's decision not to release water before Cyclone Marcia. "The evidence suggests that Sunwater was more than negligent in the operation of the facility -- it was gross negligence," he said. "It is understandable that the irrigators and property owners downstream are so upset. "This sort of thing has been going on for a long time in the water industry. There has to be some accountability." SUPERVALU INC: To Defend Class Action Against Company, IOS ---------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, that in September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company that allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit; however, all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. SUPERVALU INC: Filed Petition for Certiorari to Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. has filed a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court seeking to appeal certain aspects of the 8th Circuit decision in a class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2015. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S that were located in New England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non- compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non- arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the 8th Circuit denied the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation, which was not successful in resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Company and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution center and potentially other distribution centers. On August 19, 2014, the 8th Circuit denied the Company's petition for en banc review by the 8th Circuit on the reversal of the summary judgment decision and specific issues raised thereunder. The case is now remanded to the District Court for further proceedings to be determined by the District Court. On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court seeking to appeal certain aspects of the 8th Circuit decision. SUPERVALU INC: Payments to Class Members Completed in February -------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, that payments to class members began in mid-November 2014 and were completed in February 2015. In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A- Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week method of pay ("FWW") in the United States District Court in the District of Connecticut. FWW is a method of compensation whereby employees are paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during a week plus additional compensation at one-half the regular rate for overtime hours. Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful or, if lawful, that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method of pay, including in situations involving paid time off, holiday pay and bonus payments. In March 2013, the United States District Court granted conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue of whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot's motion for summary judgment on the same issue. This FWW practice is permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in the case. The same plaintiffs' attorneys representing Kiefer filed two additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU. Shortly before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases filed by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011, the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot determining FWW was a legal practice in Connecticut. In March 2013, another Save-A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano) filed an FWW class claim against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania state law in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas relating to overtime payment. In all three cases, which the Company was defending vigorously, plaintiffs were seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees. On August 20, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the matters on a nationwide basis in a settlement that will cap the Company's aggregate obligation, including with respect to settlement funds, plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs and settlement administration costs. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 13, 2014 and final approval on July 30, 2014. Payments to class members began in mid-November 2014 and were completed in February 2015. The Company recorded a litigation settlement charge of $5 million before tax ($3 million after tax) in the second quarter of fiscal 2014 in connection with the expected settlement of this matter. The Company funded $5 million into a qualified settlement fund on February 28, 2014. SUPERVALU INC: Expects Consolidated Complaint Will Be Filed ----------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, that in August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into its computer network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the "Criminal Intrusion"). On September 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking an order transferring, coordinating and consolidating the cases to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. On December 16, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the cases consolidated as In Re: Supervalu Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation and transferred the cases to the District Court in Minnesota. The Company expects a consolidated complaint will be filed within the next several months. TFORCE ENERGY: "Eld" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colin H. Eld, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. TForce Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00738- CB (W.D. Pa., June 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. TForce Energy Services, Inc. provides rig moving, rig mobilization, oilfield heavy hauling, and long haul services to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com TIME WARNER: Entered Into MOU to Settle Comcast Merger Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that following the announcement of the Comcast merger in February 2014, various putative stockholder derivative actions and stockholder class actions were filed against, among others the Company and its directors. As described in the 2014 Form 10-K, the complaints in these actions alleged breaches of fiduciary duty to the Company's stockholders and disclosure failures in the Company's registration statement related to the Comcast merger, among other things, and sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the stockholder vote on the Comcast merger, unspecified declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and costs and fees. On July 22, 2014, the parties to the litigation entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the court and certain other conditions, to settle all of this litigation. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the lawsuits are without merit and, if the settlement does not receive final court approval or otherwise is not consummated, intends to defend against the litigation vigorously. The Company is obligated to indemnify its officers and directors under certain circumstances to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law. The Company has purchased insurance that covers its directors and officers for liabilities incurred by them in their capacities as directors and officers of the Company and its subsidiaries. Under this insurance program, the Company is reimbursed for payments made to directors or officers as required or permitted by the indemnification provisions of the Company's By-laws, Certificate of Incorporation and Delaware law. This insurance also provides coverage under certain circumstances to individual directors and officers if they are not indemnified by the Company. In connection with the Company's indemnification obligations, the Company or its insurer advanced certain attorneys' fees and expenses incurred on behalf of the independent directors in connection with the litigation described. The independent directors were represented as a group by separate counsel in these matters as well as by counsel for the Company. TOSHIBA CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Stoyas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toshiba Corporation, Norio Sasaki, and Hisao Tanaka, Case No. 2:15-cv-04194-DDP-JC (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2015), alleges that the Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted to state material facts that rendered their affirmative statements misleading as they related to the Company's financial performance, business prospects, and true financial condition. Toshiba Corporation is a Japanese corporation that engages in the research and development, manufacture, and sale of electronic and energy products worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com TRANSDEV SERVICES: Removed "Williams" Suit to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Shauntae Williams, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Transdev Services, Inc. and Veolia Transportation Services, Inc., Case No. C-15-006, was removed from the Contra Costa Superior Court to the U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv- 02180-KAW to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Kyle Roald Nordrehaug, Esq. BLUMENTHA, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 x127 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com aj@bamlawlj.com kyle@bamlawlj.com The Defendant is represented by: Brandyn E. Stedfield, Esq. Janet Sylvia Yavrouian, Esq. Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq. GLEASON & FAVAROTE LLP 835 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 452-0510 Facsimile: (213) 452-0514 E-mail: bstedfield@gleasonfavarote.com jyavrouian@gleasonfavarote.com tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com TWO DIMITRIS: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Echeverria Flores and Stephanie D. Camargo, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Two Dimitris Corp., d/b/a Gyro World and Dimitris Petridis, Case No. 705656/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 194-21 Northern Blvd., Flushing, New York 11358. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 TYSON FRESH: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli -------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Fresh Meats, a Dakota City, Neb., establishment, is recalling approximately 16,000 pounds of ground beef 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 ground beef items were produced on May 16, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 5 lb. chubs of "80% Lean Ground Beef." The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 245C" inside the USDA mark of inspection and a "best before or freeze by" date of June 5, 2015. These products were shipped to one distribution location in New York. FSIS discovered the problem during a routine sampling program. Neither FSIS nor the company received any reports of illnesses associated with consumption of this product. FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may have been sold and stored in consumers' refrigerators or freezers. 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 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 product that has been cooked to a temperature of 160ø 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. Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Worth Sparkman, at (479) 290-6358 or worth.sparkman@tyson.com. Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact the consumer hotline, at (866) 328-3156. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. UNITED AIRLINES: Removes "Ward" Suit to California District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545178, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv- 02309 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. The Defendant is represented by: Adam P. Koh Sweeney, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com US BANK: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- Mikita Peoples v. U.S. Bank National Association, d/b/a U.S. Bank, and US Bancorp, Case No. 1:15-cv-01041 (N.D. Ohio, May 24, 2015) is brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the Ohio Revised Code for hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation. Ms. Peoples is a resident of Maple Heights, Ohio. She was employed by the Defendants or one of them, most recently as a Mortgage Associate 2, until she was constructively discharged on December 28, 2012. U.S. Bank and US Bancorp are engaged in the business of banking and employed the Plaintiff at all material times at their location at in Bedford, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dale A. Bernard, Esq. THE BERNARD LAW FIRM Crown Centre 5005 Rockside Road, Suite 600 Cleveland, OH 44131-6808 Telephone: (440) 546-7500 Facsimile: (440) 546-7501 E-mail: dbernard@bernardlawfirm.com US SECURITY: "Stone" Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Stone v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00235, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01842-ODE-JSA to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Defendant is represented by: Rod M. Fliegel, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, SF 650 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2693 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 E-mail: rfliegel@littler.com VALENTI MID-ATLANTIC: Sued Over Wheelchair Inaccessible Parking --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Amelio Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Valenti Mid-Atlantic Management, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-03122-EGS (E.D. Pa., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure design and construct parking lot that is accessible to, and independently usable by individual who use wheelchairs. Valenti Mid-Atlantic Management, LLC owns and operates a restaurant located at 15 Jetson Drive, Hamburg, PA. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 115 Federal Plaza Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com VERISK ANALYTICS: Settlement in Interthinx Case Has Final Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court issued its Order granting Final Approval of the Settlement on April 22, 2015, in the Interthinx, Inc. Litigation. On May 13, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class action titled Celeste Shaw v. Interthinx, Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc. and Jeffrey Moyer. The plaintiff is a current employee of the Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. based in Colorado, who filed the class action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all fraud detection employees who have worked for Interthinx for the last three years nationwide and who were classified as exempt employees. The class complaint claims that the fraud detection employees were misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they were properly classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads three causes of action against defendants: (1) Collective Action under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime (nationwide class); (2) A Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under the Colorado Wage Act and Wage Order for unpaid overtime and (3) A Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under Colorado Wage Act for unpaid commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses (Colorado class). The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are associated with the various statutes, declaratory and injunctive relief interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On July 2, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class action titled Shabnam Shelia Dehdashtian v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff, Shabnam Shelia Dehdashtian, a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the class action on behalf of all persons who have been employed by Interthinx as auditors, mortgage compliance underwriters and mortgage auditors nationwide at any time (i) within 3 years prior to the filing of this action until trial for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class and (ii) within four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint until trial for the California collective action. The class complaint claims that the defendants failed to pay overtime compensation, to provide rest and meal periods, waiting time penalties and to provide accurate wage statements to the plaintiffs as required by federal and California law. It pleads seven causes of action against defendants: (1) Failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA for unpaid overtime (nationwide class); (2) Failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 510, 1194 and 1198 and IWC Wage Order No. 4; (3) Failure to pay waiting time penalties in violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 201-203; (4) Failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 226 and IWC Order No. 4; (5) Failure to provide and or authorize meal and rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 226.7 and IWC Order No. 4; (6) Violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq; and (7) a Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) Public enforcement claim, Cal. Lab. Code section 2699 (California class). The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are associated with the various statutes, equitable and injunctive relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On October 14, 2013, the Company received notice of a claim titled Dejan Nagl v. Interthinx Services, Inc. filed in the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The claimant, Dejan Nagl, a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the claim on behalf of himself and all current and former individuals employed in California as auditors by Interthinx, Inc. for violations of the California Labor Code and Wage Order. The claimant alleges on behalf of himself and other auditors the following causes of action: (1) Failure to provide rest breaks and meal periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 226.7, 514 and 1198; (2) Failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 510 and 1194; (3) Failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 226; (4) Failure to timely pay wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 204; and (5) Failures to timely pay wages for violations of Cal. Lab. Code sections 201- 203. The claim seeks compensatory damages and penalties that are associated with the various statutes, costs and attorneys' fees. On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of Interthinx. Pursuant to the terms of the sale agreement, the Company is responsible for the resolution of these matters. In October 2014, the parties agreed to a Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release resolving the Shaw, Dehdashtian and Nagl matters which provides for a payment of $6,000, the majority of which is to be paid by insurance. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted Preliminary Approval of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release on November 21, 2014 and issued its Order granting Final Approval of the Settlement on April 22, 2015. VERISK ANALYTICS: Dismissal of Amended ISO Complaint Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court of Appeals has affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Amended Complaint in the Insurance Services Office, Inc. Litigation. In October 2013, the Company was served with a summons and complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in an action titled Laurence J. Skelly and Ellen Burke v. Insurance Services Office, Inc. and the Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations. The plaintiffs, former employees of the Company's subsidiary Insurance Services Office, Inc. ("ISO"), bring the action on their own behalf as participants in the Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations and on the behalf of similarly situated participants of the pension plan and ask the court to declare that a certain amendment to the pension plan as of December 31, 2001, which terminated their right to calculate and define the value of their retirement benefit under the pension plan based on their compensation levels as of immediately prior to their "retirement" (the "Unlawful Amendment"), violated the anti- cutback provisions and equitable principles of ERISA. The First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") alleges that (1) the Unlawful Amendment of the pension plan violated Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA as well as the anti-cutback rules of ERISA Section 204(g) and Section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) ISO's failure to provide an ERISA 204(h) notice in a manner calculated to be understood by the average pension plan participant was a violation of Sections 204(h) and 102(a) of ERISA; and (3) the Living Pension Right was a contract right under ERISA common law and that by terminating that right through the Unlawful Amendment ISO violated plaintiffs' common law contract rights under ERISA. The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief enjoining the enforcement of the Unlawful Amendment and ordering the pension plan and ISO retroactive to the date of the Unlawful Amendment to recalculate the accrued benefits of all class members, indemnification from ISO to the pension plan for costs and contribution requirements related to voiding the Unlawful Amendment, bonuses to the class representatives, costs and attorney's fees. On September 12, 2014, the District Court granted ISO's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint finding that ISO provided ample, clear and sufficient notice of the 2002 Amendment to the Plan and that plaintiffs' claims were time barred. Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal on October 14, 2014. After oral argument was held on April 21, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Amended Complaint by Order dated April 27, 2015. VERISK ANALYTICS: Snyder et. al. v. ACORD Corp. Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on August 1, 2014 the Company was served with an Amended Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. The action is brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class, against more than 120 defendants, including the Company and its subsidiary, Insurance Services Office, Inc. ("ISO"). Except for the Company, ISO and the defendant Acord Corporation, which provides standard forms to assist in insurance transactions, most of the other defendants are property and casualty insurance companies that plaintiffs claim conspired to underpay property damage claims. Plaintiffs claim that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state common law. On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a new complaint. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint that continues to allege that the defendants conspired to underpay property damage claims, but does not specifically allege what role the Company or ISO played in the alleged conspiracy. The Second Amended Complaint similarly alleges that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state common law, and seeks all available relief including, injunctive, statutory, actual and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter. VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Vipshop Holdings Limited ("Vipshop" or the "Company") (NYSE:VIPS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-3870, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Vipshop securities between February 17, 2015 and May 11, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Vipshop securities during the Class Period, you have until July 20, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained atwww.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Vipshop Holdings Limited, through its subsidiaries, operates as an online discount retailer for various brands in the People's Republic of China. It offers a range of branded products, including women's apparel, such as casual wear, jeans, dresses, outerwear, swimsuits, lingerie, pajamas, and maternity clothes; men's apparel comprising casual and smart-casual T-shirts, polo shirts, jackets, pants, and underwear; women and men shoes for casual and formal occasions; and accessories consisting of belts, jewelry, watches, and glasses for women and men. The Complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Vipshop manipulated and overstated sales, receivables, profit, cash flows, and asset accounts including inventory and investments; (2) Vipshop's financial statements contain GAAP violations by reporting revenue on a 'gross' basis, despite the fact that the vast majority of the company's sales are under a consignment arrangement; (3) Vipshop's internal controls over financial reporting were ineffective; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Vipshop's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 12, 2015, Mithra Forensic Research published a report on Vipshop (the "Mithra Report") asserting, among other things, that: (1) forensic models suggest Vipshop manipulated sales, receivables, profit and other asset accounts; and (2) Vipshop's financial statements have been contradicted by management's own disclosures in several instances. As a result of this news, shares of Vipshop fell $1.54 per share, or over 5%, to close at $25.78 per share May 12, 2015. On May 14, 2015, during the Company's earnings conference call, it was revealed that Vipshop was the subject of another shortseller report issued by J Capital Research (the "J Capital Report"). According to an article published later that day by TheStreet.com, the J Capital Report presented research "[c]iting discrepancies in the company's accounting" and stating that the Company's "financial filings in China are vastly different than the filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, leading to concerns that the company's results are not accurate." As a result of this news, shares of Vipshop fell $1.45 per share, or over 5.4%, to close at $25.21 per share May 14, 2015. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. The firm may be reached at: Robert S. Willoughby Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Ave. New York NY 10016 Phone: 212-661-1100 Fax: 212-661-8665 Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com VISION HOMES: Sued Over Alleged Home Improvement Contracts ---------------------------------------------------------- Mary Ann Immerso & Michael Immerso, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vision Homes Of New York, Inc. and John Geiger, Case No. 603508/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 2, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' breach of home improvement contracts, specifically by failing to pay a subcontractor for at least three weeks before the Plaintiffs justifiably terminated its contract, which resulted in a subcontractor's mechanics' lien foreclosure action. The Defendants own and operate a construction firm, having a principal place of business at 7 Port Washington Road, Sound Beach, NY 11789. The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Godman, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 - and - Jonathan Fox, Esq. Telephone: (212) 613-5095 Facsimile: (212) 714-6633 E-mail: jfox@nylag.org YOUKU TUDOU: Faces "Wang" Class Action -------------------------------------- Youku Tudou Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on March 25, 2015, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Wang v. Youku Tudou Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 15 CV 2258 (S.D.N.Y.), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and its chief executive officer and former chief financial officer. Shortly afterwards, two other putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: Martindale v. Youku Tudou Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 15 CV 2246 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on March 26, 2015); and Jahm v. Youku Tudou, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 15 CV 2875 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on April 14, 2015). The Company said, "The complaints in the putative shareholder class action lawsuits allege that various press releases, financial statements, and other related disclosures made by our company during the respective alleged class periods contained material misstatements and omissions, in violation of the federal securities laws, and that such press releases, financial statements and other related disclosures artificially inflated the value of our company's ADSs." "These actions remain at their preliminary stages. We believe the cases are without merit and intend to defend the actions vigorously." YUM! BRANDS: Briefing on Plaintiff's Appeal Completed ----------------------------------------------------- Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 21, 2015, that briefing on plaintiff's appeal in a class action complaint was scheduled to be complete by the end of April 2015. In early 2013, four putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain executive officers alleging claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future business and financial condition. The four complaints were subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. On August 5, 2013, lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment GmbH, filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company's stock between February 6, 2012 and February 4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint no longer includes allegations relating to misstatements regarding the Company's business or financial condition and instead alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants purportedly omitted information about the Company's supply chain in China, thereby inflating the prices at which the Company's securities traded. On October 4, 2013, the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On December 24, 2014, the District Court granted that motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice. On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit. Briefing on plaintiff's appeal was scheduled to be complete by the end of April 2015. The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in the Amended Complaint. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. YUM! BRANDS: Court Denied Taco Bell Motion to Dismiss or Strike --------------------------------------------------------------- Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 21, 2015, that the court has denied a motion by Taco Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class. Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200. Some plaintiffs also seek penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory "waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees. These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members, and the class notice and opportunity to opt out of the litigation were mailed on January 21, 2014. Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one of the California Private Attorney General Act claims. On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the operative complaint and a motion to amend the class certification order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both motions, rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal period class but certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. "We have provided for a reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of those currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of that currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements cannot be made at this time," the Company said. YUM! BRANDS: Discovery Continues on "Rodriguez" Remaining Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 21, 2015, that discovery will continue as to plaintiff's remaining claims in the putative class action filed by Bernardina Rodriguez. On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various violations of California labor laws including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200. This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the action in light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied on October 30, 2013. In April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of plaintiff's legal theory as to her discount meal break claim before conducting full discovery. A hearing on the parties' cross-summary judgment motions was held on October 22, 2014, and on October 23, 2014, the court granted Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment on the discount meal break claim and denied plaintiff's motion. Discovery will continue as to plaintiff's remaining claims. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. YUM! BRANDS: Court Approved Settlement in "Smith" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 21, 2015, that the court has approved the settlement in the class action filed by Mark Smith. In July 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law. In January 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery drivers. However, in March 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted state-law class action claims under the laws of sixteen different states. Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time. In August 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend. Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In July 2011, the court granted Pizza Hut's motion with respect to plaintiffs' state law claims but allowed the FLSA claims to go forward. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification in August 2011, and the court granted plaintiffs' motion in April 2012. The opt-in period closed on August 23, 2012, and 6,049 individuals opted in. On February 28, 2014, Pizza Hut filed a motion to decertify the collective action, along with a motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order from the court that the FLSA does not require Pizza Hut to reimburse certain fixed costs that delivery drivers would have incurred regardless of their employment with Pizza Hut. On September 24, 2014, the parties entered into a Term Sheet setting forth the terms upon which the parties had agreed to settle this matter. Pursuant to the parties' original agreement, one issue, the mileage of an average round trip, remained outstanding and was to be submitted for arbitration. The parties have instead negotiated a final settlement, inclusive of that issue and without any contingencies. The court approved the settlement on March 26, 2015. "The proposed settlement amount has been accrued in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, and the associated cash payments will not be material," the Company said. ZUFFA LLC: Transferred "Kingsbury" Suit to Nevada District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Kyle Kingsbury and Darren Uyenoyama v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01324, was transferred from the Circuit Court of California Northern to the United States District Court District of Nevada (Las Vegas). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01046-RCJ-NJK to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleged violation of anti-trust laws. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: William A. Isaacson, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Ave NW Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com - and - John F. Cove Jr., Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 874-1000 Facsimile: (510) 874-1460 E-mail: jcove@bsfllp.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Had 65 Pending Suits as of March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- There were a total of 65 pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Ameren, Ameren Missouri, and Ameren Illinois have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure at our present or former energy centers. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. The total number of defendants named in each case varies, with 77 as the average number of parties as of March 31, 2015. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded at trial, typically would be shared among the various defendants. There were a total of 65 pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Ameren Companies as of March 31, 2015. As of March 31, 2015, Ameren, Ameren Missouri, and Ameren Illinois had liabilities of $12 million, $5 million, and $7 million, respectively, recorded to represent their best estimate of their obligations related to asbestos claims. Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of IP asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following terms: 90% of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included in base electric rates are to be recovered from a trust fund that was established when Ameren acquired IP. At March 31, 2015, the trust fund balance was $22 million, including accumulated interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference to the trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider. The rider will permit recovery from customers within IP's historical service territory. Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company (Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois). The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate- regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois. AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren Energy Generating Company (Genco), Ameren Energy Resources Generating Company (AERG), Ameren Energy Resources Company and Ameren Energy Marketing Company (Marketing Company). Ameren's portfolio of natural gas supply resources includes firm transportation capacity and firm no-notice storage capacity leased from interstate pipelines. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $423.2-Mil. Fibro Reserves ---------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group, Ltd., had gross asbestos loss reserves of $423.2 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Asbestos and Environmental Exposures (A&E) exposures represent a separate exposure group for monitoring and evaluating reserve adequacy. At March 31, 2015, the Company had $425.6 million A&E net reserves. With respect to asbestos only, at March 31, 2015, the Company had gross asbestos loss reserves of $423.2 million, or 95.7%, of total A&E reserves, of which $319.8 million was for assumed business and $103.4 million was for direct business. Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. The Company believes that its A&E reserves represent its best estimate of the ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a significant amount. Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence, the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, the Company's net three year asbestos survival ratio was 7.2 years at March 31, 2015. These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be indicative of the timing of future payments. Everest Re Group, Ltd. (Group), through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in the United States, Bermuda and international markets. The Company underwrites reinsurance both through brokers and directly with ceding companies, giving it the flexibility to pursue business based on the ceding company's preferred reinsurance purchasing method. The Company underwrites insurance principally through general agent relationships, brokers and surplus lines brokers. The subsidiaries of the Company are: Bermuda Re, Everest International Reinsurance, Ltd., Mt. Logan Re, Ireland Re, Everest Re, Everest Insurance Company of Canada, Everest National Insurance Company, Everest Indemnity Insurance Company, Everest Security Insurance Company, Heartland Crop Insurance, Inc. The Company's segments include U.S. Reinsurance segment, International segment, Bermuda segment, Insurance segment and Mt. Logan Re segment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Had 700 PI Suits at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- MeadWestvaco Corporation had 700 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate defendants. As of March 31, 2015, the costs resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant. As of March 31, 2015, there were about 700 lawsuits. Management believes that the Company has substantial indemnification protection and insurance coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims. The Company has valid defenses to these claims and intends to continue to defend them vigorously. Additionally, based on its historical experience in asbestos cases and an analysis of the current cases, the company believes that it has adequate amounts accrued for potential settlements and judgments in asbestos- related litigation. At March 31, 2015, the Company had recorded litigation liabilities of approximately $22 million, a significant portion of which relates to asbestos. Should the volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible that the Company could incur significant costs resolving these cases. After consulting with legal counsel and after considering established liabilities, it is our judgment that the resolution of pending litigation and proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material effect on the results of operations. MeadWestvaco Corporation, is a packaging company. The Company operates in segments including: Food & Beverage; Home, Health & Beauty; Industrial; Specialty Chemicals, and Community Development and Land Management. Food & Beverage, produces packaging materials, and designs and produces packaging solutions for the global food, food service, beverage, dairy and tobacco end markets as well as paperboard for commercial printing. Home, Health & Beauty, designs and produces packaging solutions for personal care, fragrance, home care, lawn and garden, prescription drug and healthcare end markets. Industrial, designs and produces corrugated packaging solutions, primarily for produce, meat, consumer products and bulk goods. Specialty Chemicals, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty chemicals derived from sawdust and other byproducts of the papermaking process. Community Development and Land Management, responsible for land development. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 1,333 Fibro Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s subsidiary, BNS Sub, has been named defendant in 1,333 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. BNS Sub has been named as a defendant in 1,333 and 1,326 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of March 31, 2015, and December 31, 2014, respectively. The claims were filed over a period beginning 1994 through March 31, 2015. In many cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the claims filed, 1,150 and 1,108 were dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and closed as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. Of the claims settled, the average settlement was less than $3,000. There remained 184 and 218 pending asbestos claims as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims. BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate coverage limits of $183,000,000, with $2,102,000 at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 in estimated remaining self-insurance retention (deductible). There is secondary evidence of coverage from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that the insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related to asbestos. Under certain circumstances, some of the settled claims may be reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic- tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. In addition, there can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims, and that BNS Sub will not need to increase significantly its estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of March 31, 2015, and December 31, 2014, BNS Sub has accrued $1,422,000 relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of the likely costs to defend against or settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond the amounts accrued by the insurance carriers and previously funded, through the retroactive billings by BNS Sub. However, there can be no assurance that BNS Sub will not need to take additional charges in connection with the defense, settlement or judgment of these existing claims or that the costs of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date relating to existing claims. These claims are now being managed by the BNS Liquidating Trust. Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (SPH) is a global diversified holding Company. The Company is engaged in multiple businesses, including diversified industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain management and logistics, banking, food products and services, oilfield services, sports, training, education and the entertainment, and lifestyle industries. The Company operates business through four segments, which include diversified industrial, energy, financial services, and corporate and other. SPLP's energy segment consists of its consolidated subsidiaries Steel Excel, which provides drilling and production services to the oil and gas industry. The Company's financial services segment consists of its consolidated and wholly-owned subsidiary, WebFinancial Holding Corporation. The diversified industrial segment consists of Handy & Harman Ltd. The corporate and other segment consists of several consolidated subsidiaries, as well as various investments, and cash and cash equivalents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Had 255 PI Cases at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. was a co-defendant in approximately 255 personal injury asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. As of March 31, 2015, the Company was a co-defendant in approximately 255 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 614 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. In every asbestos case in which the Company was named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 26 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages. In each of the seven cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the sixth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $10.0 million for five separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million for each cause of action. In the remaining case, the plaintiffs have alleged against each named defendant compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $50.0 million, for four separate causes of action. Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of the Company's subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. The Company intends to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believes it will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although the Company's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) the Company's historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, the Company does not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. (Holdings) is a holding Company. The Company operates primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. The Company operates in three segments: Supply Technologies, Assembly Components and Engineered Products. Supply Technologies provides its customers with Total Supply Management services for a range of high-volume, specialty production components. Assembly Components manufactures cast and machined aluminum components, automotive and industrial rubber and thermoplastic products, fuel filler and hydraulic assemblies for automotive, agricultural equipment, construction equipment, heavy-duty truck and marine equipment industries. Engineered Products operates a diverse group of niche manufacturing businesses that design and manufacture a range of high quality products engineered for specific customer applications.Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 3,229 Fibro Cases at April 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation was a defendant in 3,229 asbestos- related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2015. The Company states: "We have been a defendant in asbestos litigation for the past 27 years. Our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by us. As of April 3, 2015, we were a defendant in approximately 3,229 cases brought in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In the three months ended April 3, 2015, 30 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the calendar year 2014, 104 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the last 27 years, we have had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product identification. As of April 3, 2015, 47,939 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the three months ended April 3, 2015, 52 asbestos cases were dismissed. As of December 31, 2014, 47,887 cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 3,229 remaining pending cases, we are aggressively defending these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to whether we manufactured asbestos- containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of our product." General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy, industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets. The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and Rest of World (ROW). The Company's product portfolio includes more than 100,000 products. The Company operated 56 manufacturing facilities, which included four facilities owned by companies in which the Company has an equity investment, in 25 countries with regional distribution centers across the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 2,679 MARDOC Suits at April 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation had 2,679 pending MARDOC asbestos- related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2015. As of April 3, 2015, 2,679 pending lawsuits were brought on behalf of plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm ("MARDOC") and seek unspecified damages. Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases generally allege that they formerly worked in the maritime industry and sustained asbestos-related injuries from products that General Cable ceased manufacturing in the mid-1970s. The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("District Court") by reason of a transfer by the judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"). In September 2014, upon receipt from the MDL Court of a current statistical report listing numbers of outstanding cases as well as a list identifying outstanding Maritime/MARDOC cases by plaintiff name, General Cable recorded a dismissal of 25,759 cases reducing its number of pending Maritime/MARDOC cases to 2,679. In the MARDOC cases in the MDL, the District Court in May 1996 dismissed all pending cases filed without prejudice and placed them on an inactive administrative docket. To reinstate a MARDOC case from the inactive docket, plaintiffs' counsel must show that the plaintiff not only suffered from a recognized asbestos related injury, but also must produce specific product identification evidence to proceed against an individual defendant. During 2010, the MDL Court ordered Plaintiffs to identify the defendants against whom they intended to proceed in the Maritime cases. General Cable was not named as a defendant against whom the plaintiffs intended to proceed. As such it is now anticipated that General Cable will be dismissed from all Maritime related lawsuits. For cases outside the MDL as of April 3, 2015, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 258 cases. In 127 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $446 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In the 130 other cases pending in state and federal district courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek approximately $473 million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In one case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of $10 million. In addition, in relation to these 258 cases, there are claims of $325 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of April 3, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $4.5 million and $4.7 million, respectively, and as of April 3, 2015 and December 31, 2014, had recovered approximately $0.5 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. The net amount of $4.0 million and $4.2 million, as of April 3, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively, represents the Company's best estimate in order to cover resolution of current and future asbestos-related claims. The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are: (1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims that may be filed in the future. Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos accrual is relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from the plaintiff's counsel. As of April 3, 2015 and December 31, 2014, aggregate settlement costs were $9.6 million and $9.5 million, respectively. For the three months ended April 3, 2015 and March 28, 2014, settlement costs totaled $0.1 million. As of April 3, 2015 and December 31, 2014, aggregate litigation costs were $25.1 million and $24.7 million, respectively. For the three months ended April 3, 2015 and March 28, 2014, litigation costs were $0.4 million. The Company states: "In January 1994, we entered into a settlement agreement with certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for the costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of the asbestos litigation. Subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, the insurers were responsible for a substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the defense or resolution of this litigation. However, one of the insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible for a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings and another became insolvent. As a result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and we have had to bear substantially most of the costs relating to these lawsuits." General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy, industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets. The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and Rest of World (ROW). The Company's product portfolio includes more than 100,000 products. The Company operated 56 manufacturing facilities, which included four facilities owned by companies in which the Company has an equity investment, in 25 countries with regional distribution centers across the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Magnetek, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015. The Company has been named, along with multiple other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned. During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these claims, the Company believes that it has no such liability. For such claims, the Company is uninsured and either contractually indemnified against liability, or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former Magnetek business operations. The Company aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings. Management does not believe the asbestos proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. Given the nature of the issues, uncertainty of the ultimate outcome, and inability to estimate the potential loss, no amounts have been reserved for these matters. Magnetek, Inc., (Magnetek) is a provider of digital power control systems. The Company's systems used to control motion and power primarily in material handling, elevator and mining applications. Magnetek is a provider of power control and delivery systems and solutions for overhead material handling applications used in a number of industries, including aerospace, automotive, steel, aluminum, paper, logging, mining, ship loading, nuclear power plants, and heavy movable structures. Its material handling products include alternating current and direct current drive systems, radio remote controls, push-button pendant stations, brakes, and collision avoidance and power delivery subsystems. Magnetek's products are marketed to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for incorporation into their products, to system integrators and value-added resellers for assembly and incorporation into end-user systems, to distributors for resale, and to end users for repair and replacement purposes. ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- IntriCon Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos- related lawsuits relating to its discontinued heat technologies segment, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company is a defendant along with a number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the non- informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the Company. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company believes afford coverage for later years. Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to investigate further. Because settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess insurance policies. However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects that its litigation costs will increase in the future. Further, many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for asbestos-related lawsuits. The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits, and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. IntriCon Corporation (IntriCon) is an international company engaged in designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing body-worn devices. The Company serves the body-worn device market by designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing micro- miniature products, microelectronics, micro-mechanical assemblies and complete assemblies, for bio-telemetry devices, hearing instruments and professional audio communication devices. The Company operates in the body-worn device segment. The Company's core technologies are focused on three main markets: medical bio- telemetry, value hearing health and professional audio communications. The Company has investments in the development of four core technologies: Ultra-Low-Power (ULP) Digital Signal Processing (DSP), Ultra-Low-Power Wireless, Microminiaturization, and Miniature Transducers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Has 1,046 New Fibro Claims at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 1,046 new asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances. Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 4,636 asbestos-related claims in 2014. During the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 1,046 and 1,366 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year. The ability of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company when exposure to asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts. The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known by management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company's financial position. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's recorded asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims already asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, including claims settled but not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, but which Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant assumptions underlying Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through March 31, 2015. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dec. 7 Trial of "Masephol" and "Sydow" Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, in an order dated June 3, 2015, rescheduled for Dec. 7, 2015, the trial dates of the asbestos- related personal injury lawsuits filed by Richard Masephol, No. 14-cv-186, and Wesley F. Sydow, No. 14-cv-219. The cases are MILTON BOYER and KATHY BOYER, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OWEN-ILLINOIS, CO., Defendants. RICHARD MASEPHOL, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. JANET PECHER, individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Urban Pecher, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. VIRGINIA PRUST, individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. ROGER SEEHAFER and JANICE SEEHAFER, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY and OWENS- ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. WESLEY F. SYDOW and THERESA SYDOW, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. BRIAN HECKEL, Individually and as Special Administrator for the purposes of this lawsuit on behalf of Sharon Heckel, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, CBS CORP., GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants. DIANNE JACOBS, individually and as Special Administrator for the purposes of this lawsuit on behalf of Rita Treutel, Plaintiff, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION, and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants, RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION, Cross-claimant, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS INC. and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Cross-Defendants, Nos. 14-cv-286-wmc, 14-cv- 186-wmc, 14-cv-147-wmc, 14-cv-143-wmc, 14-cv-161-wmc, 14-cv-219- wmc, 13-cv-459-wmc, 12-cv-899-wmc (W.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision is available at http://is.gd/nx7hpH from Leagle.com. Janice Seehafer, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.. Roger Seehafer, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.. Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, represented by Tanya D. Ellis, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Joshua J. Metcalf, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Mark S. DesRochers, DesRochers Law Offices, LLC & Ruth F. Maron, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP. Owens-Illinois, Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Jennifer Marie Studebaker, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, Matthew John Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP & Rachel Allison Remke, Schiff Hardin LLP. Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Godfrey & Kahn S.C. & Sherry Dawn Coley, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welch Paper Excluded as Evidence in "Yates" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled GRAHAM YATES and BECKY YATES, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, No. 5:12-CV-752-FL (E.D.N.C.), issued the following rulings in light of motions in limine filed by defendants Honeywell International, Inc., and Ford Motor Company: A. Defendant Honeywell International, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude Case Reports, Compilations of Case Reports and Opinion Testimony Based on Case Reports and Defendant Ford Motor Company's Motion to Exclude Anecdotal Evidence of Disease are DENIED. B. Ford's Motion to Exclude Evidence Related to the Australian Mesothelioma Registry is GRANTED. C. Honeywell's Motion to Exclude Welch Article and Ford's Motion to Exclude Welch Paper are GRANTED. A full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's Order dated May 29, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/DE3GNqfrom Leagle.com. Judge Flanagan also granted in part and denied in part Ford's motion to exclude expert testimony regarding corporate conduct. A full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's Order dated May 29, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/TiBtzUfrom Leagle.com. Graham Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Tiffany N. Dickenson, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Charles E. Soechting, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Jeffrey B. Simon, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black Law. Becky Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Tiffany N. Dickenson, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Charles E. Soechting, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Jeffrey B. Simon, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black Law. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Kiger, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, Jessica Floyd Middlebrooks, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Kirk G. Warner, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, Thurston H. Webb, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Addie K.S. Ries, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Samuel Lewis Tarry, McGuireWoods, LLP & Shepherd D. Wainger, McGuire Woods. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee Davis, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, LLP, Bruce T. Bishop, Willcox & Savage, PC, Holly A. Hempel, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Jason Larry Walters, Davis & Hamrick, LLP & Kevin P. Greene, Willcox & Savage, PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bare Metal Defense" Wins in " Schwartz" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, presented with the issue whether Pennsylvania law recognizes the so-called "bare metal defense," granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Pratt & Whitney with respect to an asbestos plaintiff's strict liability claims arising from aftermarket external insulation because, under Pennsylvania law, a manufacturer is never strictly liable for injury caused by aftermarket insulation (or aftermarket component parts). Moreover, Judge Robreno granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant with respect to the plaintiff's negligent failure to warn claims arising from aftermarket external insulation because, although the plaintiff has identified evidence that Pratt & Whitney (a) knew its engines would be used with asbestos- containing aftermarket external insulation, there is no evidence in the record that it (b) knew (at the time it placed the engines at issue into the stream of commerce) that asbestos was hazardous. In light of this insufficiency in the evidence, summary judgment on the plaintiff's negligent failure to warn claim is warranted regardless of whether there is evidence that Defendant (c) failed to provide an asbestos-related warning that was adequate and reasonable under the circumstances -- because, under Pennsylvania law, a product manufacturer (or supplier) has a duty to warn only of asbestos hazards it knows are present in the aftermarket component parts it knows will be used in connection with its product, Judge Robreno ruled. The case is JOSEPH SCHWARTZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABEX CORP., et al., Defendants, No. MDL-875, Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-02511-ER (E.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's memorandum dated May 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/2GgOBLfrom Leagle.com. JOSEPH SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW J. DUPONT, LOCKS LAW FIRM, JOSEPH J. MCGILL, LOCKS LAW FIRM, MICHAEL B. LEH, LOCKS LAW FIRM, DAVID D. LANGFITT, LOCKS LAW FIRM & STEFANIE GAIL EBERT, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. STUTMAN, PC. LENORA SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW J. DUPONT, LOCKS LAW FIRM, JOSEPH J. MCGILL, LOCKS LAW FIRM, MICHAEL B. LEH, LOCKS LAW FIRM, DAVID D. LANGFITT, LOCKS LAW FIRM & STEFANIE GAIL EBERT, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. STUTMAN, PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Meyers" Suit Remanded to La. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated May 20, 2015, remanded to state court the asbestos-related lawsuit styled DEBRA DUMMITT MEYERS AND RONALD PALMERO v. A.W. CHESTERTON, ET AL., SECTION "L", Civil Action No. 15-292 (E.D. La.), after determining that the defendants have not demonstrated a proper basis to remove under the Federal Officer Removal Statute. A full-text copy of Judge Fallon's Decision is available at http://is.gd/lZKhFEfrom Leagle.com. Debra Dummitt Meyers, Plaintiff, represented by Terrance A. Prout, Prout Law Firm, Anders F. Holmgren, Esq. -- aholmgren@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan Partners, LLP, Andy Joseph Dupre, Esq. -- adupre@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan Partners, LLP, Harold J. Flanagan, Esq. -- hflanagan@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan Partners, LLP & Sean Patrick Brady, Esq. -- sbrady@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan Partners, LLP. Ronald T. Palermo, Plaintiff, represented by Terrance A. Prout, Prout Law Firm, Anders F. Holmgren, Flanagan Partners, LLP, Andy Joseph Dupre, Flanagan Partners, LLP, Harold J. Flanagan, Flanagan Partners, LLP & Sean Patrick Brady, Flanagan Partners, LLP. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, successor-by-merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stacey Leigh Strain, Esq. - - strain@hubbardmitchell.com -- Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Clark-Reliance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Caruso, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Robert Leland Redfearn, Jr., Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Susan Marie Caruso, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Crane Company, individually and as successor to Cochran, Defendant, represented by Aleta W. Barnes, Esq. -- abarnes@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC. Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C. Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & James Matthew Matherne, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. Trane US, Inc., formerly known as American Standard, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph Benjamin Morton, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Ebony Shadae Morris, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP. Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP. Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc., doing business as Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams, Esq. -- jadams@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Esq. -- astout@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Esq. -- BOrmsby@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Marc John Bitner, Esq. -- mbitner@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Esq. -- wharrison@dkslaw.com - - Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. Elliott Company, named in complaint as Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Lauren Ann McCulloch, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. Warren Pumps, LLC, named in state court petition as Warren Pumps Inc., Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. Boland Machine and Manufacturing Co., named in state court petition as Boland Machine & Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott P. Yount, Esq. -- syount@garrisonyount.com -- Garrison, Yount, Forte & Mulcahy, LLC, Jeremiah Nathan Johns, Esq., at Garrison, Yount, Forte, Mulcahy & Lehner, LLC & Kevin Truxillo, Esq. -- ktruxillo@garrisonyount.com -- Garrison, Yount, Forte, Mulcahy & Lehner, LLC. Grinnell LLC, named in complaint as Grinnell Corporation, Defendant, represented by Lauren Ann McCulloch, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., formerly known as Todd Shipyards Corporation, Defendant, represented by Sherman Gene Fendler, Esq. -- sgfendler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Esq. -- cbwilmore@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Scott C. Seiler, Esq. -- scseiler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Esq. -- trotharmel@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis. Aurora Pump Company, named in complaint as Aurora Pump, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Marc John Bitner, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted to ZIC, AIU ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard G. Andrews of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in a memorandum opinion dated May 29, 2015, granted in part summary judgment to Zurich Insurance Company and AIU Insurance Company in the asbestos insurance coverage lawsuit filed by Maremont Corporation. Judge Andrews granted summary judgment to ZIC and AIU with respect to the period from January 1, 1984, to December 31, 1984 and the period from July 1, 1985 to July 1, 1986, but withheld judgment on the period from September 1, 1981, to December 31, 1982. The case is MAREMONT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; AIU INSURANCE COMPANY; FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY; ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY; AND ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-1379-RGA (D. Del.). A full-text copy of Judge Andrews' Decision is available at http://is.gd/DQlZXMfrom Leagle.com. Jennifer C. Wasson, Esq. -- jwasson@potteranderson.com -- Michael B. Rush, Esq. -- mrush@potteranderson.com -- Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason D. Wallach, Esq. -- wallachj@dicksteinshapiro.com -- (argued), John E. Heintz, Esq. -- heintzj@dicksteinshapiro.com -- Edward Tessler, Esq. -- tesslere@dicksteinshapiro.com -- James S. Carter, Esq. -- carterj@dicksteinshapiro.com -- Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Washington, D.C., attorneys for Plaintiff. Bruce W. McCullough, Esq. -- bmccullough@bodellbove.com -- Bodell Bove, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Antonia B. Ianniello, Esq. -- aianniello@steptoe.com -- (argued), John L. Jacobus, Esq. -- jjacobus@steptoe.com -- John R. Casciano, Esq. -- jcasciano@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Washington, D.C., attorneys for Defendant Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. Jennifer Marie Kinkus, Esq. -- jkinkus@ycst.com -- and Timothy Jay Houseal, Esq. -- thouseal@ycst.com -- Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for Defendant AIU Insurance Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah High Ct. Says Service After 5Yrs. is Timely ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara St. Jeor filed a wrongful death suit related to her husband's exposure to asbestos. She served a number of the named defendants within Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 4(b)'s 120-day timeframe, but did not serve defendant Kerr Corporation until five years later, in February 2013. Kerr moved for dismissal, asserting that Ms. St. Jeor had not timely served it. The district court denied the motion and held that Ms. St. Jeor had complied with rule 4(b)'s service requirements. Kerr now brings an interlocutory appeal of that order. The Supreme Court of Utah, in an opinion dated May 22, 2015, held that Ms. St. Jeor complied with the service of process requirements under rule 4(b) because she served Kerr prior to trial and while previously served defendants remained parties to the action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirms the district court's order denying Kerr's motion. But because the Supreme Court acknowledges possible policy concerns, it also refers rule 4(b) to its civil procedure rules committee for review. The case is BARBARA ST. JEOR, Appellee, v. KERR CORPORATION, Appellant, No. 20130913 (Utah). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Jm2Benfrom Leagle.com. Gilbert L. Purcell, Alan R. Brayton, Brian D. Holmberg, Jacob L. Rice, A. Jase Allen, Salt Lake City, for appellee. Robert R. Wallace, Michael D. Johnston, Salt Lake City, for appellant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Handy" Suit Remanded to La. State Court --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Thomas Handy, Jr., suffers from malignant adenocarcinoma of the lung allegedly caused by his occupational exposure to asbestos. He brought negligence and product liability claims against the manufacturers, suppliers, and installers of the asbestos products to which he was exposed, including Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., as successor in interest to LUSCO (Louisiana Utilities Supply Company). On the day of trial, after the plaintiff had allegedly settled and/or dismissed all non-diverse defendants, Ferguson removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to to Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, which was granted by District Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., in an order and reasons dated May 28, 2015, after finding that the case lacks diversity jurisdiction. The case is THOMAS HANDY, JR., ET AL., v. OWENS CORNING CORP., ET AL., SECTION "K" (2), Civil Action No. 15-755 (E.D. La.). A full- text copy of Judge Duval's Decision is available at http://is.gd/M0SYRzfrom Leagle.com. Thomas Handy, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Caleb H. Didriksen, III, Didriksen Law Firm (New Orleans), Erin B. Saucier, Didriksen Law Firm (New Orleans) & Matthew G. Greig, Didriksen Law Firm (New Orleans). Sandra Handy, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb H. Didriksen, III, Didriksen Law Firm (New Orleans), Erin B. Saucier, Didriksen Law Firm (New Orleans) & Matthew G. Greig, Didriksen Law Firm (New Orleans). Thomas Handy, III, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb H. Didriksen, III, Didriksen Law Firm (New Orleans), Erin B. Saucier, Didriksen Law Firm (New Orleans) & Matthew G. Greig, Didriksen Law Firm (New Orleans). Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Louisiana Utilities Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Lawrence G. Pugh, III, Esq. -- lpugh@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey (New Orleans) & Donna M. Young, Esq. -- dyoung@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey (New Orleans). Cimsco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paula Marcello Wellons, Esq. -- pwellons@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC (New Orleans) & Desiree Weilbaecher Adams, Esq. -- dadams@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC (New Orleans). ASBESTOS UPDATE: GRC Can Present Settlement Evidence at Trial ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff General Refractories Company, a manufacturer and supplier of refractory products that at times contained some asbestos, sued its insurance carriers for a declaration of excess insurance coverage against asbestos-related lawsuits and for breach of insurance contract. Since about 1978, GRC has been named as a defendant in a multitude of asbestos-related suits throughout the United States. Each of those insurance carriers has now settled with GRC, except one -- Defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, formerly known as The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. A jury trial is scheduled for June 15, 2015. Under Rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Travelers moves to preclude GRC from introducing at trial a summary -- the "Queue" -- evidencing settlements of claims asserted against GRC in the asbestos-related lawsuits. In a memorandum dated May 29, 2014, Judge L. Felipe Restrepo of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Travelers' motion. According to Judge Restrepo, Rule 1006 permits a summary to substitute as evidence of the contents of claim documents. Importantly, under Koopers and J.H. France, GRC may sue for its total damages from any one defendant insurer on the risk -- such as Travelers here, Judge Restrepo ruled. The case is GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY, v. FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Civil Action No. 04-3509 (E.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Judge Restrepo's Decision is available at http://is.gd/qSbSDkfrom Leagle.com. GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant, represented by MARK E. GOTTLIEB, Esq. -- mgottlieb@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT KURMAN PA, MEGHAN K. FINNERTY, Esq. -- mfinnerty@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT KURMAN PA, MICHAEL CONLEY, Esq. -- mconley@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT KURMAN PA & WILLIAM H. PILLSBURY, Esq. -- wpillsbury@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT KURMAN PA. CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by KAREN H. MORIARTY, Esq. -- kmoriarty@coughlinduffy.com -- COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP & KEVIN E. WOLFF, Esq. -- kwolff@coughlinduffy.com -- COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INS. CO., Defendant, represented by AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INS. CO., PRO SE. ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by SAMUEL J. ARENA, JR., STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG & SAMUEL J. ARENA, JR., STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG. CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondent, represented by CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY, PRO SE,. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Doctor's Opinion in "Byer" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert D. Byer and his wife, Nijole Byer, commenced an action in the New York State Supreme Court, County of Erie on June 6, 2012, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of exposure to asbestos following his diagnosis of mesothelioma on February 6, 2012. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on July 18, 2012. Before the District Court is a joint motion by the defendants to preclude use of Dr. Jacqueline Moline's January 2015 expert witness disclosure and limit her opinions to those set forth in her March and May 2014 reports and the plaintiff's motion to permit late service of Dr. Moline's January 2015 expert report. In a decision and order dated May 28, 2015, Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, denied the defendants' motion and granted the plaintiff's motion. Magistrate Schroeder held that without use of the opinions set forth in Dr. Moline's January 6, 2015 disclosure that, for example, the "causal relationship between exposure to asbestos dust and the development of mesothelioma is so firmly established in the scientific literature that it is accepted as scientific 'fact,'" the plaintiff's ability to establish the elements of his wrongful death cause of action may be severely compromised. Thus, the Court's grant of defendants' motion to preclude would impose a substantial risk of prejudice to the plaintiff. Conversely, Dr. Moline's opinions regarding the link between exposure to asbestos and mesothelioma can hardly be characterized as novel nor can they be expected to substantively alter the defense of the action, Magistrate Schroeder further held. Moreover, discovery has not closed and there is no trial date set, Magistrate Schroeder noted. The case is NIJOLE BYER, Individually and as Administrratrix of the Estate of ROBERT D. BYER, Deceased Plaintiff, v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 12-CV- 676W(SR)(W.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of Magistrate Schroeder's Decision is available at http://is.gd/UNQ4dGfrom Leagle.com. NIJOLE BYER, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of ROBERT D. BYER, Deceased, Plaintiff, represented by Darron Erick Berquist, The Lanier Law Firm, PLLC, Jason M. Hodrinsky, The Lanier Law Firm, PLLC, Dennis P. Harlow, Lipsitz & Ponterio, LLC & Lori A. Benavides, The Lanier Law Firm, PLLC. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Erik C. DiMarco, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP. Lycoming Corporation, Defendant, represented by Erik C. DiMarco, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP. McCauley Propeller Systems, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Erik C. DiMarco, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth J. Grogan, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP & Erik C. DiMarco, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP. CBS Corporation, Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dennis E. Vega, Sedgwick LLP & William J. Bradley, Malaby & Bradley, LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Dennis E. Vega, Sedgwick LLP & Edward P. Kenney, Sidley Austin LLP. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael J. Masino, Harris Beach LLP, Bo Won Kim, Perkins Coie, Deborah A. Smith, Gordon & Rees LLP & W. Simone Nicholson, Segal McCambridge Singer Mahoney, LTD. Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Sandra K. Steinman, Darger Errante Yavitz & Blau LLP, Bonnie T. O'Connor, Smith, Murphy and Schoepperle LLP, Judith A. Yavitz, Darger Errante Yavitz & Blau LLP, Susan W. Gilefsky, Polsinelli LLP & Brian T. Murnane, Darger Errante Yavitz & Blau LLP. Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brendan Regis O'Brien, The Gilbert Firm. Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elisa Tara Gilbert, The Gilbert Firm. Dexter Hysol Aerospace, LLC, Defendant, represented by John J. Doody, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Arezou Khonsari, Lewis Brisbois Bisguard & Smith, LLP & Berj Khoren Parseghian, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan E. VanGelder, Esq. -- svangelder@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg Segalla LLP & Daniel F. Petticord, Esq. -- Brzytwa Quick & McCrystal. Henkel Corporation, Defendant, represented by John J. Doody, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Berj Khoren Parseghian, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Seth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony Fiumara, Esq. -- afiumara@harrisbeach.com -- Harris Beach PLLC, Bo Won Kim, Esq. -- BKim@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie & Michael J. Masino, Esq. -- mmasino@harrisbeach.com -- Harris Beach LLP. IMO Industries, Inc, Defendant, represented by Mary Jo Herrscher, Esq. -- mherrscher@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle LLP & James W. Whitcomb, Esq. -- jwhitcomb@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle LLP. Lehigh Gasket Company, Defendant, represented by Eric Michael Gernant, II, McGivney & Kluger, P.C., Eric M. Gernant, McGivney, Kluger Law Firm & Lisa Green, Margolis Edelstein. Parker Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard Patrick O'Leary, Troutman Sanders LLP. Pneumo-Abex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alfred J. Sargente, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP & Mark D. Debrowski, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP. Boening Company, Defendant, represented by Erik C. DiMarco, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP. United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Henry E. Billingsley, II, Tucker Ellis LLP & Richard A. Dean, Tucker Ellis & West LLP. Harco Laboratories Inc., Defendant, represented by V. Christopher Potenza, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.. Smith Tubular Systems - Laconia, Inc., Defendant, represented by Wendy R. Kagan, Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Junk "Bardone" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Bruce J. Bardone was diagnosed with lung cancer in March of 2014. His disease, he claims, is connected to his asbestos exposure in the 1960s and 1970s while working as an apprentice electrician and journeyman at various work sites throughout New York City. At those sites, the plaintiff claims he was exposed to asbestos dust from floor tiles that were regularly being cut, sawed, and installed in his presence. Defendant BF Goodrich is alleged to have manufactured, sold, and distributed asbestos- containing floor tiles used at the various job sites the plaintiff worked at during the relevant time period. It is undisputed that up until 1963, Goodrich sold asbestos-containing vinyl tiles. Goodrich moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and all claims and cross claims against it. In a decision dated May 14, 2015, Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, State of New York, denied Goodrich's motion, holding that Goodrich has failed to establish a prima facie case and failed to address its continuing operations after it exited the floor tile business in late 1963. Judge Moulton found that the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence, not all of which is hearsay, to warrant the denial of the defendant's motion. The case is BRUCE J. BARDONE and KATHERINE BARDONE Plaintiffs, v. AO SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendant(s), DOCKET NO. 190134/2014 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision is available at http://is.gd/PCR5fofrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens Wins Summary Judgment in "Arendt" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- On June 26, 2013, Plaintiff Georgia Arendt filed a diversity lawsuit on behalf of herself and the estate of her late husband, Anthony Arendt, alleging that he died as a result of his exposure to asbestos during his work life. Defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment and for actual attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1927. In a decision and order dated May 29, 2015, Chief Judge William C. Griesbach of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the motion for summary judgment, holding that the instant case is barred as the dismissal of a prior case filed by the same plaintiff should be given preclusive effct on the issue of whether the Plaintiff's action for non- malignant conditons caused by asbestos exposure is barred by the Wisconsin statute of limitations. Judge Griesbach ruled that it is undisputed that Mr. Arendt never suffered from a malignant asbestos-related disease or cancer. The case is GEORGIA ARENDT, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Anthony Arendt, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS INC, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-C-727 (E.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Griesbach's Decision is available at http://is.gd/BFMngyfrom Leagle.com. Georgia Arendt, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Daniel B Hausman, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. Owens-Illinois Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M Casmere, Schiff Hardin LLP, Matthew J Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP & Rachel A Remke, Schiff Hardin LLP. ********* 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 * * *