/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150807.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 7, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 157 Headlines 142 MERCER: "Solorio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages 3101 CORP: Faces "Bustamante" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wage 3D SYSTEMS: Aug. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ALASKA USA: Faces "Reith" Suit Over Overdraft Fee Policies ALEX QUALITY: Faces "Infante" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ALEXIAN BROTHERS: Faces "Hauser" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ALLTECH SYSTEMS: "McColgin" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing AMG TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ANGIE'S LIST: Indiana Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Baron" Suit ANTHEM BLUE: Faces "Sheynberg" Suit Over Claims Handling Policy ANTHEM BLUE: Accord in "Lees" TCPA Suit Wins Final Approval APPLE INC: iPhone Users Suit Does Not Need AT&T, 9th Cir. Rules ASA COLLEGE: Wins Dismissal of "Sanchez" Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y. ASPEN NATIONAL: Faces "Ames" Suit in Florida Over FDCPA Violation AT&T MOBILTY: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Data Speed Throttling AUGUSTA, GA: Settles Firefighters' Overtime Dispute Class Suit AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline AX XPRESS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Messenger" Suit Says AZ SECURITY: Faces "Allen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation BEAR STEARNS: "Wang" Suit Tossed; Sanctions Imposed BENDIGO, AUSTRALIA: Unpaid Subcontractors Threatens Class Suit BRAVO FOODS: "Wise" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BUILDING MATERIALS: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Decking Products CELLADON CORP: Aug. 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Removed Fitzgerald Suit to W.D. Oklahoma CHINA FINANCE: Howard G. Firm Files Securities Class Suit CHUCK E. CHEESE: Settles Background Check Class Suit for $1.75MM CHUNGHWA PICTURE: November 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set CIGNA CORPORATION: Sued Over Unlawful Cost-Shifting Practices DOORMAN'S PRIVATE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Marengo" Suit Says DR HORTON: D. Nev. Judge Rules on Homeowners' Bid for Relief EBAY INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Intuit Deal in Hiring Workers EDISON INT'L: Willie Briscoe Files Securities Class Suit ESPN INC: Judge Junks Lawsuit by Student Athletes FEIHE INT'L: Aug. 24 Hearing on Proposed $6.5MM Clas Settlement FLORIDA: Appeals Court Revives Verizon Suit v. Revenue Dept GENERAL POLYMER: Faces "Gray" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GERBER: Faces Suit Over Graduate Puffs' Misleading Label HARTFORD INSURANCE: Conn. High Court Overturns $35-Mil. Verdict HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Gets Prelim. OK of Settlement With Sales Reps IDT ENERGY: Judge Stays "Ferrare" Suit, Denies Bid to Dismiss INDIANA: ACLU Suit Alleges Case Managers Can't Protect Kids INTERNATIONAL STEEL: 6th Cir. Reverses Judgment in "Stiso" Case JANSSEN PHARMA: Physicians Healthsource's TCPA Suit Goes to Trial JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit v. Severance Plan Loses Class Cert. Bid JOHNSTON BROTHERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages KNIGHT OIL: "Montemayor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages KUBRA DATA: Accused in Florida of Taking Criminal Processing Fees LG ELECTRONIC: Judge Rejects Liebler's Bid to Amend Complaint LOWE'S HOME: Overcharges for Sales Tax, Class Suit Claims LRR ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit LUMBER ONE: 11th Circ. Reinstates Class Suit Under ADTPA LYFT: Former Driver Files Class Suit in Florida MARKWEST ENERGY: Faces "Katsman" Suit Over Proposed MPLX Merger MCADAM LANDSCAPING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages M-I LLC: Cal. Judge Transfers "Dewan" Case to Texas NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ordered to Pay $46MM in Attorney Fees NEW YORK, NY: Accord Over Firefighters Discrimination Case Okayed NORTH CAROLINA: Court Certifies Troopers' Suit Over Pay PAPA JOHN'S: "Perrin" Stayed Pending SC Ruling in "Bouaphakeo" PEPSI LIPTON: Sued for Falsely Marketing Tea as "All Natural" PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Removed From Tobacco Case Due to 'Hostility' RDSL URBAN: "Bascome" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages RIDGEWOOD, CA: Court Rules Water Rates Class Suit Can Proceed SC EDISON: Class Wants Utility to Pay for Power Surges SEATTLE SERVICE: Removed "Schaefer" Class Suit to M.D. Florida SELECTIVE SERVICES: Sued by Teen Girl Over Gender Discrimination SERVERGY INC: Texas Atty. General Accused of Deceiving Investors SMITH & NEPHEW: Must Face Rhea Drugstore's TCPA Suit SOCIAL SECURITY: Confiscated Tax Refunds with 'Insufficient' Info SOLAZYME INC: Aug. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ST CHARLES, MO: Dismissal of Suit Over License Taxes Affirmed STAR NISSAN: Faces "Tam" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TEXAS A&M: Faces "Posey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TRADE STREET: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Suit TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Removed "Rogers" Suit to C.D. California TRI-MED HOME: Faces "Persaud" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TRUECAR INC: Levi Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit UBER: Faces $7.3-Mil. Fine and California Ban UBS AG: Faces Sonterra Capital Suit Over Euroyen-Price Fixing UNITED SHIP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Hernandez" Suit Claims UNITES STATES: Food Stamp Processing Delays Suit Can Be Filed UNITED PARCEL: Sued by EEOC Over Religious Discrimination VANDAHL ENGINEERING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages VIDEOTRON: Faces Class Suit Over Failed TV Coverage VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: 11th Cir. Upheld Decision in Fat Loss Suit W&W ENERGY: Faces "Zook" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages WELLS FARGO: Judge Narrows Claims in "Foley" Suit WILLOWICK, OH: Residents Refile Class Suit Over Sewer System WORLD WRESTLING: Blamed by Mom for Death of Doink the Clown XOMA CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports YELP: Sued Over Unapid Tips for Food Delivery YINGLI GREEN: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit * Steven Schienvar Joins Risk Settlements as Managing Director * US Chamber of Commerce Lobbies Against Class Suits in UK Courts Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. to Appeal "Holdsworth" Decision ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Settles "Garvin" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "DeLisle" Appeal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "Sweberg" Appeal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $18.3MM Fibro Costs at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $600MM Fibro Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 1,074 PI Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $500-Mil. Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $64MM Receivables at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 17,935 Fibro Claimants ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Has $97MM PI Claims Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Disclosure of Fibro Settlements Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Court Refuses to Remand "Vesper" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Partially Strikes Opinions in "Vedros" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Overturns Jury Verdict in "Smith" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aug. 19 Pretrial Conference Set for "Andreadis" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Time in 3 NYCAL Suits Enlarged to Nov. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Certifies Securities Suit vs. Halliburton ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Court Remands "Brown" ********* 142 MERCER: "Solorio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Solorio, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 142 Mercer Street, LLC d/b/a Lure Fishbar, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05817 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid wages for off-the-clock work caused by time-shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. 142 Mercer Street, LLC owns and operates the Lure Fishbar restaurant located at 142 Mercer Street, New York, New York 10012. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com 3101 CORP: Faces "Bustamante" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wage ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Bustamante, individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees v. 3101 Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-22760-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay the minimum wage mandated by Fair Labor Standard Act. 3101 Corporation owns and operates Christy's restaurant located at 999 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1045, Coral Gables, FL 33134. The Plaintiff is represented by: R Edward Rosenberg, Esq. MORGADO, P.A. 382 NE 191st Street #84164 Miami, FL 33179 Telephone: (855) 899-9121 Facsimile: (855) 499-9191 E-mail: rer@morgado.us 3D SYSTEMS: Aug. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ----------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the District of South Carolina on behalf of investors who purchased 3D Systems Corporation (NYSE:DDD) securities between October 29, 2013 and October 22, 2014. The complaint alleges that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding: (a) the Company's ability to increase the capacity of its metal printing business; (b) demand for its consumer products; (c) the value of multiple companies it was acquiring; and (d) the Company's expected earnings. If you suffered a loss in 3D Systems you have until August 11, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/DDD-Info- Request-Form-802. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. ALASKA USA: Faces "Reith" Suit Over Overdraft Fee Policies ---------------------------------------------------------- Brian Reith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alaska USA Federal Credit Union and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:15-cv-00125-JWS (D. Alaska, July 24, 2015), is an action for monetary damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief as a result of the Defendants' alleged breach of its contracts with consumers in its implementation of an overdraft fee program. Alaska USA Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered credit union with its headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Ehrhardt, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF EHRHARDT & KELLEY 215 Fidalgo Ave, Ste 205 Kenai, AK 99 Telephone: (907) 283-2876 Facsimile: (907) 283-2896 E-mail: peter@mail.kenailaw.com - and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq. MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com jkk@mccunewright.com - and - Taras Kick, Esq. G. James Strenio, Esq. Thomas A. Segal, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 201 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com jstrenio@yahoo.com thomas@kicklawfirm.com ALEX QUALITY: Faces "Infante" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Infante, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Alex Quality Meat Market Corp., and Aljandro Ynfante, Case No. 1:15-cv-05828 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Alex Quality Meat Market Corp. is a New York based corporation that sells a variety of meats out of its storefront located at 3413 Boston Road, Bronx, New York 10469. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Dickerson, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1010 Northern Blvd. Ste. 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com ALEXIAN BROTHERS: Faces "Hauser" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Kristin Hauser, Kimberly Lind and April Westberg, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Alexian Brothers Medical Center, d/b/a Alexian Brothers Home Health, Alexian Brothers Health System, and Ascension Health, Case No. 1:15-cv-06462 (N.D. Ill., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a home healthcare facility with its principal place of business located at 1515 East Lake Street in Hanover Park, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: tbecvar@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com ALLTECH SYSTEMS: "McColgin" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Leslie McColgin, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Alltech Systems, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00193 (S.D. Tex., July 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Alltech Systems, Inc. operates a professional staffing business that focuses on providing engineering and management employees to oil and gas companies in several states. 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 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Tran, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03412- JCS (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for air passenger transportation services within the United States. The Defendants operates largest commercial airlines in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-8700 Facsimile: (415) 398-8704 E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com - and - Douglas G. Thompson, Esq. Michael G. McLellan, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP 1077 30th Street NW, Suite 150 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 337-8000 Facsimile: (202) 337-8090 E-mail: dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com AMG TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- David Jakubov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMG Transportation, Inc., Case No. 509145/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, statutory damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the New York State Labor Law. AMG Transportation, Inc. operates an ambulette transportation corporation, transporting the elderly and billing government and private insurance plans for the services provided. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2747 Coney Island Ave Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808-2224 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com ANGIE'S LIST: Indiana Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Baron" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William T. Lawrence of the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case EVA and HAROLD BARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ANGIE'S LIST, INC., et al., Defendants, CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-2032-WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind.) Angie's List operates a subscription-based website that publishes customer reviews of high cost of failure services. It is a publicly-traded corporation with its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. Plaintiffs are investors of Angie's List that have filed a putative class action alleging that corporate and individual officer malfeasance was responsible for Angie's List stock-price decline in 2013. The class period asserted by the plaintiffs extends between February 13, 2013, and October 23, 2013. Lead plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers Local 464A Pension Fund filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint, alleging that Angie's List, its Chief Executive Officer William S. Oesterle, its Chief Marketing Officer Angela R. Hicks Bowman, its Chief Accounting Officer Charles Hundt, its Chief Operating Officer Mark Howell, and its Chief Financial Officer Robert R. Milliard made materially false and misleading statements regarding: 1) the stability and predictability of the two core revenue streams that the paid membership model ("PMM") provided to Angie's List; and 2) Angie's List's present success and long-term sustainability based upon those streams. The complaint alleges two counts against the defendants: 1) violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10B-5 promulgated there under by the Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5; and 2) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendant officers. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Judge Lawrence granted defendants' motion to dismiss, but allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint. A copy of Judge Lawrence's entry dated June 18, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/7jlZnJ from Leagle.com. EVA BARON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles C. Hayes, SWEENEY HAYES LLC, Deborah Ruth Gross, LAW OFFICE OF BERNARD M. GROSS PC, James A.L. Buddenbaum, PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON LLP, Mary K. Blasy, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Michael L. Schultz, PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON LLP, Samuel H. Rudman, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP & Travis W. Montgomery, PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON LLP HAROLD BARON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similary Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles C. Hayes, SWEENEY HAYES LLC, Deborah Ruth Gross, LAW OFFICE OF BERNARD M. GROSS PC, James A.L. Buddenbaum, PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON LLP, Mary K. Blasy, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Michael L. Schultz, PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON LLP, Samuel H. Rudman, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP & Travis W. Montgomery, PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON LLP PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, represented by Angelina Nguyen, LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, Jonathan Gardner, LABATON SUCHAROW LLP & Steven Michael Crell, COHEN GARELICK & GLAZIER UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 464A PENSION FUND, "Lead Plaintiff", Plaintiff, represented by Brad A. Catlin, PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, Ronald J. Waicukauski, PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, Darren J. Check, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP,Johnston de F. Whitman, Jr., KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, Joshua A. Materese, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, Meredith L. Lambert, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP & Michael K. Yarnoff, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP CHRISTOPHER BARTOLONE, Individually and on Behalf of all others Smiliary Situated - Consolidated Plaintiff 1:14-cv-00023-WTL-TAB, Plaintiff, represented by Charles C. Hayes, SWEENEY HAYES LLC, Jeremy A. Lieberman, POMERANTZ LLP, Kathleen M. Sweeney, SWEENEY HAYES LLC & Lesley F. Portnoy, POMERANTZ LLP ANGIE'S LIST, INC., Defendant, represented by Bruce G. Vanyo, KATTEN MUCHIN-Los Angeles,George A. Gasper, ICE MILLER LLP, Mary Ellen Hennessy, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Michael J. Lohnes, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Nicholas B. Reuhs, ICE MILLER LLP & Philip A. Whistler, ICE MILLER LLP WILLIAM S. OESTERLE, Defendant, represented by Bruce G. Vanyo, KATTEN MUCHIN-Los Angeles, George A. Gasper, ICE MILLER LLP, Mary Ellen Hennessy, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Michael J. Lohnes, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago,Nicholas B. Reuhs, ICE MILLER LLP & Philip A. Whistler, ICE MILLER LLP ANGELA R. HICKS BOWMAN, Defendant, represented by Bruce G. Vanyo, KATTEN MUCHIN-Los Angeles, George A. Gasper, ICE MILLER LLP, Mary Ellen Hennessy, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Michael J. Lohnes, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Nicholas B. Reuhs, ICE MILLER LLP & Philip A. Whistler, ICE MILLER LLP CHARLES HUNDT, Defendant, represented by Bruce G. Vanyo, KATTEN MUCHIN-Los Angeles, George A. Gasper, ICE MILLER LLP, Mary Ellen Hennessy, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Michael J. Lohnes, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Nicholas B. Reuhs, ICE MILLER LLP & Philip A. Whistler, ICE MILLER LLP ROBERT R. MILLARD, Defendant, represented by Bruce G. Vanyo, KATTEN MUCHIN-Los Angeles, George A. Gasper, ICE MILLER LLP, Mary Ellen Hennessy, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Michael J. Lohnes, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Nicholas B. Reuhs, ICE MILLER LLP & Philip A. Whistler, ICE MILLER LLP MARK HOWELL, Defendant, represented by Bruce G. Vanyo, KATTEN MUCHIN-Los Angeles, George A. Gasper, ICE MILLER LLP, Mary Ellen Hennessy, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Michael J. Lohnes, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Nicholas B. Reuhs, ICE MILLER LLP & Philip A. Whistler, ICE MILLER LLP ANTHEM BLUE: Faces "Sheynberg" Suit Over Claims Handling Policy --------------------------------------------------------------- Marina Sheynberg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-03417 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2015), alleged that the Defendants has engaged in and continues to engage in a pattern of unreasonable and egregious claims handling practices which have directly and adversely impacted individuals suffering from Hepatitis C, and particularly those individuals with a METAVIR liver fibrosis. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company is a California corporation that sells and markets insurance products to millions of consumers in California, and across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn R. Kantor, Esq. Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886 2525 Facsimile: (818) 350 6272 E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net trozelle@kantorlaw.net ANTHEM BLUE: Accord in "Lees" TCPA Suit Wins Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh of the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division ruled on plaintiff's motions in the case RONALD LEES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES INC., d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD, Defendant, NO. 4:13CV1411 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.) Ronald Lees alleges that Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield violated the Telephone Consumers Protection Act (TCPA) when it made such calls to plaintiff and approximately 830,000 other consumers nationwide. Anthem denies any wrongdoing. The parties engaged in settlement discussions and reached a settlement agreement. The settlement also has preliminary approval from the Court. The deal calls for a maximum settlement benefit of $6,250,000 and a minimum settlement benefit of $4,750,000 for the class. Judge Limbaugh granted plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and services award in part; as well as the motion for final approval of class action settlement. A copy of Judge Limbaugh's memorandum and order dated June 10, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/M1b2ZJ from Leagle.com. Ronald Lees, on behalf of Himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander H. Burke -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- at BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC; David M. Marco -- dmarco@smithlaw.us -- Larry P. Smith -- lsmith@smithmarco.com -- at SMITH MARCO, P.C. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., doing business as Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Defendant, represented by Christine E. Czuprynski -- cczuprynski@reedsmith.com -- Dan J. Hofmeister -- dhofmeister@reedsmith.com -- David Z. Smith -- dzsmith@reedsmith.com -- Thomas M. Levinson -- at REED SMITH LLP Glenn Kassiotis, Objector, represented by John W. Davis -- at LAW OFFICE OF JOHN W. DAVIS Anthony R. Brookman, Objector, Pro Se APPLE INC: iPhone Users Suit Does Not Need AT&T, 9th Cir. Rules --------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a class of iPhone users did not have to include AT&T in an antitrust action against Apple over its wireless exclusivity agreement with the carrier, the Ninth Circuit ruled June 29. In a 2-1 decision, a Ninth Circuit panel found the lower court had failed to analyze AT&T mobility's interest in the litigation and how that interest could be affected if the action is resolved in its absence. Rule 19 under federal civil procedure defines a "required party" as someone who claims an interest in the case and cannot protect that interest unless they are joined. The panel also held that Apple had failed to show that AT&T had any cognizable legal interest in the action, even though it claimed the carrier's contractual rights and reputation could be handicapped by its absence. "I think the 9th circuit's analysis was exactly right. Apple never identified any interest that AT&T had," class attorney Mark Rifkin with Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP said in an interview. He said the class likely would have gone after AT&T if it didn't have an arbitration clause with its customers. "But the fact is that AT&T insists on arbitration and Apple insists on being sued in court," Rifkin told Courthouse News. "The 9th now says we didn't have to sue AT&T as well." Apple attorney Daniel Wall with Latham and Watkins could not be reached for comment. The action brought by lead plaintiffs Zack Ward and Thomas Buchar in 2012 was the third of three lawsuits claiming Apple and mobile carrier AT&T entered into a five-year exclusivity agreement shortly before the iPhone was introduced in 2007. Apple enforced the agreement by putting SIM card locks on iPhones without telling customers. If customers wanted an iPhone, they were unknowingly bound to use AT&T as their wireless carrier for five years, even though they signed two-year wireless service contracts with AT&T. The first lawsuit entered into arbitration. U.S. District Judge James Ware ruled in the second case that AT&T was a necessary party under Rule 19. The third case, consolidated with the second and reassigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, adopted Ware's reasoning and was dismissed on the grounds that the class had not added AT&T as a defendant. The fact that the class' complaint portrayed AT&T as a central part of its alleged antitrust conspiracy was not enough to demonstrate that it was a necessary party, Judge Milan D. Smith wrote on behalf of the majority, which also comprised Judge Michelle T. Friedland. But he added, "The court did not identify any specific interest ATTM claimed in the action or explain how ATTM's ability to protect that interest might be impaired by resolution of the action in its absence." He said this analysis is essential, as an absent party could be bound to the outcome of the case. Judge Clifford Wallace said in his dissent that the appeal had no merit because the class had agreed to allow Rogers to dismiss the case based on Ware's earlier order. He said the class needed Rogers to rule against them "to create a vehicle for appellate review of Ware's order." So they stipulated to dismiss their claims under Ware's order and Rogers signed off on it. "At bottom, the Apple III plaintiffs invited Judge Rogers to sign on to an analysis from a different case with the specific intent to argue on appeal that the analysis was erroneous," Judge Wallace wrote. "In doing so, the Apple III plaintiffs sought improperly to skip over the district court to have us decide the Rule 19 issue in the first instance. They have thereby waived any challenge to the error they invited." Plaintiff-Appellant Zack Ward is represented by: Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4762 Telecopier: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com schmidt@whafh.com liskow@whafh.com - and - Francis M. Gregorek, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP Symphony Towers 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 E-mail: Gregorek@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com - and - Randall S. Newman, Esq. RANDALL S. NEWMAN P.C. 37 Wall St. # D New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 797-3737 Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas Buchar is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-0000 Facsimile: (312) 214-0001 E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com The Defendant-Appellee is represented by: Daniel M. Wall, Esq. Christopher S. Yates, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: dan.wall@lw.com chris.yates@lw.com - and - J. Scott Ballenger, Esq. Roman Martinez, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 Facsimile: (202) 637-2201 E-mail: scott.ballenger@lw.com The appellate case is Zack Ward; Thomas Buchar, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs- Appellants v. Apple inc., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 12-17805, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District Court case is Zack Ward; Thomas Buchar v. Apple inc., Case No. 4:12-cv-05404- YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. ASA COLLEGE: Wins Dismissal of "Sanchez" Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case KARILIN FRICA SANCHEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASA COLLEGE, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 14-CV-5006 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.) ASA College, Inc. is a for-profit corporation that offers certificate and associate's degree programs in career-oriented fields such as business and healthcare. It operates a few campuses in Brooklyn and Manhattan, and one campus in North Miami Beach, Florida. Plaintiffs are all former ASA students who filed a lawsuit and allege that defendants' fraudulent scheme induced them into enrolling in ASA certificate and associate's degree programs, unaware of the financial costs they were incurring and the poor employment prospects they were facing upon completion of the programs. Plaintiffs allege that they were victimized by a massive scheme to draw millions of dollars of federal and state financial aid to ASA by the individual defendants, systematically and fraudulently misrepresenting the nature of ASA's certificate and degree programs. Plaintiffs contended that defendants' predatory and fraudulent practices violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-68 (RICO), and Section 349 of New York's General Business Law (the GBL). They seek, among other relief, an injunction directing defendants to cease their allegedly unlawful activities and to cancel all debts purportedly owed to ASA by the plaintiffs and class members, and cease all collection thereof, actual and/or compensatory damages and treble damages pursuant to RICO. Judge Furman granted defendants' motion to dismiss but gave plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. A copy of Judge Furman's opinion and order dated June 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/BhMUVXfrom Leagle.com. Karilin Frica Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Feldman Tarantolo, New York Legal Assistance Group, Eileen Mathews Connor, New York Legal Assistance Group, Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal Assistance Group, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal Assistance Group Shawanna Dilworth, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Feldman Tarantolo, New York Legal Assistance Group, Eileen Mathews Connor, New York Legal Assistance Group, Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal Assistance Group, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal Assistance Group Nelson Forastieri, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Feldman Tarantolo, New York Legal Assistance Group, Eileen Mathews Connor, New York Legal Assistance Group, Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal Assistance Group, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal Assistance Group Andre Lashley, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Feldman Tarantolo, New York Legal Assistance Group, Eileen Mathews Connor, New York Legal Assistance Group, Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal Assistance Group, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal Assistance Group Tommy Miranda, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Feldman Tarantolo, New York Legal Assistance Group, Eileen Mathews Connor, New York Legal Assistance Group, Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal Assistance Group, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal Assistance Group Renee Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Feldman Tarantolo, New York Legal Assistance Group Renee Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Eileen Mathews Connor, New York Legal Assistance Group,Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal Assistance Group, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal Assistance Group Mary Estevez, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal Assistance Group &Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP Rodney Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal Assistance Group & Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP ASA College, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC Alex Shchegol, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC Victoria Kostyukov, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC Victoria Shtamler, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC Roberto Dumaual, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC Lesia Willis-Campbell, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC Jose Valencia, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC Shanthi Konkoth, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC Mark Mirenberg, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC John/Jane Does 1 and 2, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC Alla Shchegol, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC Duwayne Carthan, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC Anthony Dalton, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC Robert Faynblut, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC United States Of America, Amicus, represented by Tomoko Onozawa, U.S. Attorney's Office, ASPEN NATIONAL: Faces "Ames" Suit in Florida Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Ames, Tammy Ames, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aspen National Financial, Inc., d/b/a Aspen National Collections and Vacation Village At Parkway Owners Association, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-61506 (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2015, is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq. J. Andrew Meyer, Esq. LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER, PA 3900 First Street North, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, FL 33703 Telephone: (727) 327-3328 Facsimile: (727) 327-3305 E-mail: ileavengood@leavenlaw.com ameyer@leavenlaw.com AT&T MOBILTY: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Data Speed Throttling ------------------------------------------------------------- Marcus A. Roberts, Kenneth A. Chewey and Ashley M. Chewey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AT&T Mobilty LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-03418-PJH (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's deceptive and unfair trade practice of marketing its wireless service plans as being "unlimited", without disclosing, or adequately disclosing plans are subject to a number of limiting conditions, specifically by throttling the data speed on cellular phones or wireless cards when the consumer has approached or exceeded the internally proscribed data usage limits. AT&T Mobilty LLC is one of the largest wireless telecommunication providers in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael W. Sobol, Esq. Roger N. Heller, Esq. Nicole D. Sugnet, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com rheller@lchb.com nsugnet@lchb.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 - and - Jean Sutton Martin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC 2018 Eastwood Road, Suite 225 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 292-6676 AUGUSTA, GA: Settles Firefighters' Overtime Dispute Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Susan McCord, writing for The Augusta Chronicle, reported that a week after paying a former deputy coroner $200,000 in Fair Labor Standards Act and whistleblower complaints, the Augusta Commission on authorized another settlement with workers alleging they were improperly paid for overtime work. A class-action lawsuit filed by Augusta Fire Department Lt. Robert Morris last October claimed Morris and approximately 85 of his fire department colleagues hadn't been paid the appropriate overtime rate based on the extra pay all received to be certified as paramedics or emergency medical technicians. Since 2010 the city has paid firefighters an additional $1,800 annually to maintain certification as paramedics and $1,200 to be certified as EMTs. When the firefighters worked more than 212 hours in 28 days and became eligible under FLSA for overtime, however, the certification pay wasn't used to calculate their overtime rate, claimed the suit filed in U.S. District Court. The settlement approved by the commission in a 6-0 vote denied liability and authorized paying the group of firefighters $58,455.32, an average of about $688 each. Tracy Arther, a plaintiff in the class-action suit and vice president of Augusta Professional Firefighters Association, said Morris and the other plaintiffs were reviewing the settlement offer but hadn't decided whether to accept it. "We'll see what the paperwork looks like," Arther said. "The biggest thing is them not admitting they have been neglecting to pay us correctly under federal law. They knew about it and didn't correct it." The commission approved paying former deputy coroner Johnny McDonald $200,000 to settle his complaints he'd been illegally classified as a manager under FLSA and denied overtime wages for several years and been retaliated against for reporting former coroner Grover Tuten's thefts of money and property from the dead to the FBI. Like the firefighters, McDonald said in his lawsuit he'd repeatedly raised the issue of improperly paid overtime with city staff but had been ignored. An effort last fall to correct the certified firefighters' pay discrepancy resulted in the "keying error" that former Human Resources Director Tanika Bryant said caused more than 200 firefighters to receive an extra $2,500 to $2,700 in a single pay period. They were asked to return the money. AVALANCHE BIOTECH: 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 Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class") of purchasers of the securities Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. ("Avalanche" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: AAVL) between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until September 8, 2015 to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit. Avalanche is a biopharmaceutical company purportedly committed to improving or preserving the sight of people suffering from blinding eye diseases with an unmet medical need. Avalanche's proprietary Ocular BioFactory is a platform for discovering and developing medicines with the potential to offer life-changing therapeutic benefit. Avalanche's lead product candidate, AVA-101, is in mid-stage clinical development for patients with wet age- related macular degeneration. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements regarding the successful completion of the first duplexer product; as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Phase 2a trial for AVA-10 was not designed to show statistically significant differences between the active and control subjects in the secondary endpoints; (2) that the drug showed little improvement in visual acuity above baseline; (3) that retinal thickness actually increased among the treatment group; (4) that, as a result, the trial was improperly designed; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than September 8, 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 to shareholders@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. AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class") of purchasers of the securities Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. ("Avalanche" or the "Company") between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until September 8, 2015 to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit. Avalanche is a biopharmaceutical company purportedly committed to improving or preserving the sight of people suffering from blinding eye diseases with an unmet medical need. Avalanche's proprietary Ocular BioFactory is a platform for discovering and developing medicines with the potential to offer life-changing therapeutic benefit. Avalanche's lead product candidate, AVA-101, is in mid-stage clinical development for patients with wet age- related macular degeneration. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements regarding the successful completion of the first duplexer product; as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Phase 2a trial for AVA-10 was not designed to show statistically significant differences between the active and control subjects in the secondary endpoints; (2) that the drug showed little improvement in visual acuity above baseline; (3) that retinal thickness actually increased among the treatment group; (4) that, as a result, the trial was improperly designed; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than September 8, 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 to shareholders@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. AX XPRESS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Messenger" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Messenger v. AX Xpress, Inc., Gregory Irwin and Ruth Irwin, Case No. 2:15-cv-01416-BSB (D. Ariz., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate an asset recovery business, and has its principal place of business in Arizona at 18402 North 19th Avenue, PMB-112, Phoenix, Arizona 85023. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Christopher Davis, Esq. Trey A. R. Dayes III, Esq. PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC 3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (800) 562-5297 Facsimile: (602) 288-1664 E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com AZ SECURITY: Faces "Allen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Allen v. AZ Security Force, LLC, Sean Purdy, and Allyson Kaye Hepting, Case No. 2:15-cv-01414-SPL (D. Ariz., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing security guards to clientele in Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Christopher Davis, Esq. Trey A. R. Dayes III, Esq. PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC 3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (800) 562-5297 Facsimile: (602) 288-1664 E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation --------------------------------------------------------------- Marc G. Federighi, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15- cv-05843-UA (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged collusive manipulation of the market for U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, and derivative financial products based on these Treasury securities, including Treasury futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Bank of Nova Scotia is a New York-based branch of a Canadian financial services and banking company with its principal place of business at 250 Vesey Street, New York, New York 10080. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 722-7053 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 357-9000 Facsimile: (305) 357-9050 E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com - and - Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 320-9507 Facsimile: (954) 320-9509 E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com BEAR STEARNS: "Wang" Suit Tossed; Sanctions Imposed --------------------------------------------------- District Judge Robert W. Sweet of the Southern District of New York granted defendants' motions for sanction in the case entitled IN RE BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES, INC. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND ERISA LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: Securities Action, 08 Civ. 2793. VIVINE H. WANG, Plaintiff, v. BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP.; DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP; ALAN D. SCHWARTZ; ALAN C. GREENBERG; JOEY ZHOU; and GARRETT BLAND, Defendants, NOS. 08 MDL 1963, 11 CIV 5643 (S.D.N.Y.) H. Roger Wang is a real estate mogul whose net worth is more than $3 billion, while his wife Vivine Wang performs administrative tasks for the couple, and often opens accounts in her name for the benefit of both. Mohammed K. Ghods who is currently the named partner of the Ghods Law Firm, has represented either Mr. Wang, Mrs. Wang, or both, in numerous lawsuits and has litigated on behalf of both Mr. and Mrs. Wang before the court. In February 2008, Mr. Wang instructed his wife to open a brokerage account at defendant Bear Stearns & Co. He asked her to fill out the necessary paperwork. Between March 6, 2008 and the near- collapse of Bear Stearns on March 14, 2008, Mr. Wang directed the purchase of 150,000 shares of Bear Stearns stock most of which he did not pay. After the Wangs refused to pay for all of their stock purchases, BS&Co. liquidated their account on March 18, 2008 and filed an arbitration to recover the remaining money owed. Mrs. Wang, represented by Mr. Ghods, refused to participate in the arbitration and was sanctioned by the FINRA panel for failing to comply with discovery obligations. Mrs. Wang testified that she was not even aware that the FINRA panel had imposed sanctions. Mr. Wang filed a lawsuit against Bear Stearns and several of its employees in Los Angeles County Superior Court, based on his purchases of Bear Stearns stock. Mr. Wang's action was removed and transferred to the federal district court for the Southern `District of New York. It was then consolidated with related securities actions under the caption In re Bear Stearns Cos., Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 08 M.D.L. 1963 (S.D.N.Y.) (RWS). In 2011, while both Mr. Wang's action and the Securities Class Action were pending before the court, Mrs. Wang filed suit against Bear Stearns in federal court in California, basing her allegations on the same stock purchases alleged in Mr. Wang's complaint. Over objection, the MDL Panel transferred Mrs. Wang's action to the present court. On February 6, 2012, the court granted Mrs. Wang's application to have her case coordinated, rather than consolidated, with the Securities Class Action. Consistent with Mr. Wang's complaint, Mrs. Wang alleged that it was plaintiff's husband who placed all the orders for the account. The Securities Class Action ultimately settled, and this Court approved the settlement on November 29, 2012. The Securities Class Action claims administrator received 111 timely requests for exclusion from the settlement class, including one from Mrs. Wang, but none from Mr. Wang. Under the applicable Second Case Management Order, depositions in the opt-out actions were scheduled to be completed by December 10, 2014. Bear Stearns initially requested deposition dates for Mr. and Mrs. Wang on October 3, 2014. Mrs. Wang's deposition took place on December 3, 2014. Bear Stearns sought confirmation that Mr. Ghods was authorized to act on behalf of Mr. Wang at least nine times between October 23 and December 8, 2014. During this period, Mr. Ghods actively negotiated possible deposition parameters on Mr. Wang's behalf, but also claimed to be awaiting instructions from his "client" on the issue of service. On December 9, 2014, Mr. Ghods finally acknowledged that he was acting as Mr. Wang's counsel in this matter. Bear Stearns pursued a variety of other methods to attempt to obtain Mr. Wang's testimony. Bear Stearns incurred attorneys' fees and costs of approximately $100,000 as a result of the Wangs' discovery abuses, including for time spent attempting to serve Mr. Wang, for seeking court approval for service by alternate means and an extension of time to depose Mr. Wang, for preparing for Mr. Wang's deposition, for traveling to Los Angeles, and for preparing this motion for sanctions. Defendants moved pursuant to Rule 37(d), F. R. Civ. P. for sanctions based on the failure of Mr. Wang to appear for deposition in the securities action brought by Mrs. Wang. Judge Sweet granted defendants' motions for sanctions and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. A copy of Judge Sweet's opinion dated June 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/vJl1GO from Leagle.com. BENDIGO, AUSTRALIA: Unpaid Subcontractors Threatens Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Corsetti, writing for ABC news, reported that subcontractors who are waiting to be paid for work done on Bendigo's new theatre have joined forces to try to secure the money they are owed. Twenty subcontractors rallied in Bendigo in a bid to secure several million dollars they said was outstanding for their work on the $26 million Ulumbarra Theatre, which opened in April. Electrical subcontractor Brendan Trudgett said he walked off the building site in protest back in May because his business was owed more than $100,000. "There are almost 25 subcontractors and there is more that are starting to ring up and mention that there are outstanding monies as well, because of the advertisements," he said. "We've all been trying to receive some payments individually, so over time we've all got together and decided we need to band as one and try to get something moving forward, particularly when we have had [Premier] Daniel Andrews' department state that they are there to support us." Cameron McCaig said he had been told a payment variation to his airconditioning company had not been approved. "Moving forward we'll try and put pressure on the State Government, Department of Education and even the local council to try and get them to pressure the builder to give us that payment," he said. Andrew Shearer said he felt dismayed by the experience and the group was considering taking further action. "Working collectively with all the other subcontractors to try to put a class action in place to either stop the building functioning and trying to get the Department of Education to basically come to the party and start making some proper processes to make sure the subcontractors are all paid in full," he said. The lead builder, Contract Control, said the dispute was a matter of unapproved and unassessed variations that lie with the Education Department. The department oversaw the project and said it was working with Contract Control to try to get funds to the subcontractors. It also said it obtained occupancy certificates for the theatre but some work at the site remained unfinished. BRAVO FOODS: "Wise" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Cory Wise, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Bravo Foods LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-01199-CEM-DAB (M.D. Fla., July 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Bravo Foods LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Brevard County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Bernard Celler, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. Suite 230, 7450 Griffin Road Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com BUILDING MATERIALS: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Decking Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Christoffersen, Troy Koster, Steve Brown, Mark Law, John Kuropatkin, Randy King, Robert Aspinwall, George Johnson, Douglas Smieja, and Cheryl Johnson, on behalf of himself, herself or themselves as well as on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-05765-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., July 24, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the persons who purchased Elk Cross Timbers and DuraLife Decking products that were designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold by the Defendants, with design defects that caused Decking to crack, warp, swell, and expand at rates well beyond what is acceptable for a product meant for the outdoors. Building Materials Corporation of America is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Wayne, New Jersey. GAF is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Ave. Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com jbk@chimicles.com - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 919-600-5000 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: 973-994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com CELLADON CORP: Aug. 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline -------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminds purchasers of Celladon Corporation common stock from July 7, 2014 through June 25, 2015, all dates inclusive, of the important August 31, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Celladon investors under the federal securities laws. According to the lawsuit, Celladon misstated or failed to disclose adverse information regarding the prospects for MYDICAR -- the Company's promising investigational drug for heart failure patients, including that: (1) success in the CUPID1 trial was not indicative of any success in the CUPID2 trial since the CUPID1 trial was extremely small; and (2) the Company's existence was tied to the trial results and defendants were aware of their limitations. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 31, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the class action and recover your losses, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-660.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Removed Fitzgerald Suit to W.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Fitzgerald Farms LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Chesapeake Operating LLC, Case No. CJ-10-00038, was removed from the District Court of Beaver County, Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00807-HE to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action from the alleged breach of contract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. GUNDERSON SHARP & WALKE LLP 5301 W 75th St Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0500 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com The Defendant is represented by: John F. Shepherd, Esq. HOLLAND & HART 555 17th St., Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80201-8749 Telephone: (303) 295-8333 Facsimile: (303) 713-6296 E-mail: jshepherd@hollandhart.com The Objector is represented by: Stephen C. Griffis, Esq. THE GRIFFIS LAW FIRM PLLC 3035 NW 63rd St, Suite 229 Oklahoma City, OK 73116 Telephone: (405) 840-2664 Facsimile: (405) 842-0787 E-mail: scgriffis@gmail.com CHINA FINANCE: Howard G. Firm Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against China Finance Online, Co. ("China Finance" or the "Company"), who purchased shares of China Finance between May 6, 2014 through June 3, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have been damaged by the recent declines in the Company's stock price. China Finance investors must file a motion by August 4, 2015 for consideration as a class representative in this purported class action. The lawsuit concerns the Company's and its executives' alleged violations of securities laws, based on recent reports alleging that: (1) the most current Chinese government records show that Chairman and CEO Zhiwei Zhao suddenly resigned from his positions at three key Chinese VIE subsidiaries of China Finance over the past few months; (2) Chinese media reports exposing the detention of the Company's independent director Rongquan Leng prompted China Finance to announce his resignation, without addressing his alleged detention; and (3) Ling Wang, a former long-time China Finance director and associate of Zhao, fled China in 2014, leaving his company indebted to China Finance for $25 million. The complaint alleges that when the truth was finally revealed regarding the above Company matters, shares of China Finance fell $1.28 per share, to close on June 3, 2015 at $5.67, a one-day decline of 22% on volume of over 3 million shares thereby damaging investors. If you purchased shares of China Finance during the Class Period, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. CHUCK E. CHEESE: Settles Background Check Class Suit for $1.75MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reported that a $1.75 million settlement in a class action lawsuit that claimed entertainment chain restaurant Chuck E. Cheese failed to provide job applicants with proper background check disclosures was granted preliminary approval by a California federal judge. U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino granted the unopposed motion by the plaintiffs for preliminary approval. The class action lawsuit settlement will give relief to approximately 28,500 Class Members who applied to work at Chuck E. Cheese since March 24, 2012. As part of the class action lawsuit settlement, Chuck E. Cheese -- also known as CEC Entertainment Inc. -- agreed to change job applications used by the company to better comply with laws governing the use of background check disclosure forms, Top Class Actions reports. The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claimed the preauthorization form for background checks used by Chuck E. Cheese was buried underneath employment application information and liability release forms and thus violated California laws and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Top Class Actions reports. According to the FCRA, applicants must give permission on separate preauthorization forms before employers may perform background checks. The class action lawsuit settlement is for Ford, et al v. CEC Entertainment Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00677, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. CHUNGHWA PICTURE: November 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Class action settlements have been reached involving Cathode RayTubes ("CRTs"), a display device that was sold by itself or as the main component in TVs and computer monitors. The lawsuit claims that the Defendants fixed the prices of CRTs causing consumers to pay more for CRTs and products containing CRTs, such as TVs and computer monitors (collectively "CRT Products"). The Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations. Who is included in the Settlements? Individuals and businesses that: * Purchased a CRT or a product containing a CRT, such as a TV or computer monitor, in the United States (except Illinois, Washington and Oregon) between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007; * For their own use and not for resale. Purchases made directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator are not included (see the list of defendants and alleged coconspirators at www.CRTclaims.com or by calling 1-800-649-0963). What do the Settlements provide? There are six new Settlements totaling $541.75 million. Together with the two previously-approved settlements, the Settlement Fund is $576.75 million. Only individuals and businesses who purchased CRT Products in AZ, CA, FL, HI, IA, KS, ME, MI, MN, MS, NE, NV, NM, NY, NC, ND, SD, TN, VT, WV, WI, or the District of Columbia, are eligible to file a claim for money. HI, NE and NV have shorter claims periods. The purchase must have been made in one of the foregoing states, but you do not have to be a resident of one of these states. The Settlements release the injunctive relief claims of purchasers of CRT Products nationwide. The amount of money you will receive depends on the type and quantity of CRT Products you purchased and the total number of claims made. Eligible individuals and businesses are expected to get a minimum payment of $25. Large purchasers could recover many thousands of dollars. How can I get a payment? Claim online or by mail by December 7, 2015. The simple online Claim Form only takes 3-5 minutes for most individuals. What are my rights? If you do nothing you will be bound by the Court's decisions. If you want to keep your right to sue the Defendants, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by October 8, 2015. If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the Settlements by October 8, 2015. The Court will hold a hearing on November 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. to consider whether to approve the Settlements and a request for attorneys' fees up to one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of litigation expenses and awards to Class Representatives. This date may change so please check the website. You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense. For More Information: 1-800-649-0963 www.CRTclaims.com Text: "CRTclaims" to 97000 (text messaging rates may apply) PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT The Defendant companies are: * Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.; Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) SDN. BHD ("Chunghwa"); * LG Electronics Inc.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd. ("LG"); * Koninklijke Philips N.V. (f/k/a Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.); Philips Electronics North America Corporation; Philips Taiwan Limited (f/k/a Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd.); Philips do Brasil, Ltda. (f/k/a Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda.) ("Philips"); * Panasonic Corporation (f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.); Panasonic Corporation of North America; MT Picture Display Co., Ltd.; and an affiliate of Panasonic Corporation, Beijing Matsushita Color CRT Co., Ltd. (collectively "Panasonic"); * Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd. (n/k/a Japan Display Inc.); Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.; Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; Hitachi America, Ltd. ("Hitachi"); * Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America Consumer Products, L.L.C.; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. ("Toshiba"); * Samsung SDI Co. Ltd; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI Brasil, Ltda.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd; Samsung SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V. ("Samsung SDI); * Technicolor SA (f/k/a Thomson SA); Technicolor USA, Inc. (f/k/a Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.) ("Thomson"); and * Technologies Displays Americas LLC (f/k/a Thomson Americas LLC) ("TDA") CIGNA CORPORATION: Sued Over Unlawful Cost-Shifting Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Fayeulle and Matthew Gentrup, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cigna Corporation, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, and Columbine Chiropractic Plan, LLC, d/b/a Columbine Health Plan, Case No. 1:15-cv-01581 (D. Colo., July 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged cost-shifting scheme by sending false Explanation of Benefits forms to insureds that misrepresent the administrative fees Cigna owes to the Subcontractors as ordinary medical expenses billed by a medical provider. The Defendants operate a global health insurance company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Knott, Esq. Carl S. Kravitz, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 778-1813 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 E-mail: jknott@zuckerman.com ckravitz@zuckerman.com - and - D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 897-3434 Facsimile: (212) 704-4256 E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com DOORMAN'S PRIVATE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Marengo" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Gerard Marengo, and all others similarly situated v. Doorman's Private Ride Service, Inc. d/b/a Executive Limousine, Inc., Executive Limousine Service, Inc., and Associated Limousine, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-22758-UU (S.D. Fla., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a transportation rental company in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM DR HORTON: D. Nev. Judge Rules on Homeowners' Bid for Relief ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge James C. Mahan of the District of Nevada granted plaintiff's motion in the case AZURE MANOR/RANCHO DE PAZ HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff(s), v. D.R. HORTON, INC., Defendant(s), CASE NO. 2:14-CV-2222 JCM (NJK) (D. Nev.). Plaintiff is the homeowners association for the Azure Manor/Rancho De Paz community in Clark County, Nevada. Plaintiff, in its representative capacity, brought suit in Nevada state court against D.R. Horton, one of the community's builders, alleging construction defects. Plaintiff brought an action as a single- family home class action suit. D.R. Horton removed the action to the Nevada federal district court and filed a motion to stay litigation and to dismiss plaintiff's class action allegations. D.R. Horton argued that plaintiff failed to meet the various notice requirements for construction defect claims established by N.R.S. chapter 40 and asked the court to stay the case until plaintiff complied with the statutory requirements. Additionally, D.R. Horton argued that a class action suit is inappropriate for constructive defect claims for single-family homes and asked the court to dismiss the portion of plaintiff's complaint related to the class action allegations. Plaintiff failed to file its response on due date and finding that the failure constituted plaintiff's consent to granting D.R. Horton's motion and that a weighing of the Ghazali factors supported dismissal of plaintiff's claims, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff moved for relief from the order pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(b)(1). In the alternative, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order. Judge Mahan granted plaintiff's motion for Rule 60 relief and ordered plaintiff to file a response to defendant's motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge Mahan's order dated June 10, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/WfpLw5from Leagle.com. Azure Manor/Rancho de Paz Homeowners Association, Plaintiff, represented by Anna Mirijanian -- Paul P. Terry -- pterry@angius- terry.com -- Scott P Kelsey -- skelsey@angius-terry.com -- at Angius & Terry LLP D.R. Horton, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel D. Odou -- jodou@wshblaw.com -- Anthony S Wong -- awong@wshblaw.com - at Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP EBAY INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Intuit Deal in Hiring Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that EBay and Intuit agreed not to solicit or hire one another's employees to keep wages down, an antitrust class action claims in California Superior Court. EDISON INT'L: Willie Briscoe Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor LLP announce that a federal class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against Edison International, Inc. ("Edison") EIX, -0.60% and several officers and directors for acts taken during the period of July 31, 2014 and June 24, 2015 (the "Class Period"). Based upon the allegations in the class action, the firms are investigating additional legal claims against the officers and Board of Directors of Edison. If you are an affected Edison shareholder and want to learn more about the lawsuit or join the action, contact Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC via email at shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com, Patrick Powers at Powers Taylor LLP via email at shareholder@powerstaylor.com, or call toll free at (877) 728-9607. There is no cost or fee to you. The California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") launched an investigation in October 2012 related to the closure of two reactor units at a large Southern California nuclear power plant (San Onofre) owned by Edison's largest subsidiary, Southern California Edison ("SCE"). In November 2014, Edison entered into a settlement agreement for $3.3 billion providing that it would refund customers for excess charges incurred to support the two closed units. According to the complaint, the defendants are alleged to have violated certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that Edison failed to disclose that its ex parte contacts with the CPUC decision makers were more extensive than Edison had reported to CPUC, and that this delayed disclosure would jeopardize the settlement. The complaint alleges that SCE submitted a notice to the CPUC on February 9, 2015 disclosing that a previously unreported ex parte contact took place during the time of the San Onofre settlement negotiations. The notice indicates that Stephen Pickett, then an executive vice president at SCE, and Michael Peevey, then president of the CPUC, discussed the future of San Onofre and a potential resolution of the investigation at an industry conference on March 26, 2013. Edison's failure to timely report the ex parte meeting represented a possible violation of CPUC rules governing ex parte contact between CPUC decision makers and interested parties. The complaint also alleges that, prompted by SCE's delayed disclosure and growing public criticism of the relationship between the CPUC and California's utilities, the CPUC ordered SCE to turn over additional communications regarding the San Onofre settlement negotiations. After reviewing the documents turned over by SCE, an attorney for the Utility Reform Network ("TURN") stated that the documents showed "a number of unreported ex parte contacts and that Edison violated the rules by not reporting those communications." An article published on May 4, 2015 by SFGate reported that SCE's newly released documents revealed a previously unreported May 2014 meeting between Michael Peevey and SCE executives, at which the parties discussed donating millions of dollars to a UCLA institute at which Michael Peevey held an advisory post. On June 22, 2015, Strumwasser & Woocher released an independent report commissioned by the CPUC describing such ex parte meetings as "frequent, pervasive, and at least sometimes outcome-determinative" and recommending banning them altogether in rate cases. On June 24, 2015, TURN filed an application with the CPUC that charged SCE with "fraud by concealment" and urged the CPUC to set aside the settlement and reopen its investigation. According to the complaint, Edison stock dropped significantly immediately following this series of announcements. The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC is a full service business litigation, commercial transaction, and public advocacy firm with more than 20 years of experience in complex litigation and transactional matters. Powers Taylor LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles a variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression, shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions. ESPN INC: Judge Junks Lawsuit by Student Athletes ------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kevin H. Sharp of the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division granted defendants' motions to dismiss in the case JAVON MARSHALL, STEVEN CLARKE, CHRIS CONNER, PATRICK MILLER, BYRON MOORE, CHAZ MOORE, SEAN PARKER, ERIC SAMUELS, MARLON WALLS, and ROD WILKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ESPN INC.; CBS BROADCASTING, INC., NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY INC.; ABC, INC.; FOX, INC.; IMG COLLEGE, LLC; ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE; BIG TEN CONFERENCE; BIG 12 CONFERENCE; PACIFIC-12 CONFERENCE; SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE; CONFERENCE USA; OHIO VALLEY CONFERENCE; BIG EAST CONFERENCE; IMG WORLDWIDE, INC.; IMG COLLEGE, LLC; BIG TEN NETWORK SERVICES, LLC; CBS COLLEGIATE SPORTS PROPERTIES, INC.; JMI SPORTS LLC; TELESOUTH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., T3 MEDIA, INC.; ESPN INC. D/B/A SEC NETWORK; SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE D/B/A SEC NETWORK; ESPN INC. D/B/A LONGHORN NETWORK; IMG COLLEGE, LLC D/B/A LONGHORN NETWORK; LEARFIELD SPORTS LLC; and WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVORS, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01945 (M.D. Tenn.) A putative class action suit was brought by current and former Student Athletes who played National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football and Division I college basketball. Plaintiffs are eight former college football players and two former college basketball players. Defendants are more than two dozen separate entities that fall into three camps. The assorted athletic conferences, specifically the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big East Conference, Inc., Big 12 Conference, The Big Ten Conference, Inc., Conference USA, Ohio Valley Conference, Pac-12 Conference, and Southeastern Conference (the Conference Defendants), manage athletic competition among teams and sell the rights to broadcast conference games. The networks, specifically, ESPN Inc., CBS Broadcasting Inc., NBCUniversal Media, LLC, ABC, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, Big Ten Network, LLC, SEC Network, and Longhorn Network (the Network Defendants), purchase media content, including college sports from content owners, or produce it internally, and then telecast that content to television viewers. The licensing agencies, specifically, Outfront Media Sports, Inc., IMG Worldwide, LLC, IMG College, LLC, William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC, JMI Sports LLC, Learfield Sports LLC, T3 Media, Inc., and TeleSouth Communications, Inc. (the Licensing Defendants), offer brand development and management and act as a conduit in licensing college teams' intellectual property. Plaintiffs' complaint contains seven causes of action. The first two causes, against all defendants, allege a statutory violation of the right of publicity under Tenn. Code Ann. Section 47-25-1105 (First Cause) and a violation of the right to publicity under Tennessee common law (Second Cause); the Third Cause, also against all defendants, alleges a civil conspiracy; the Fourth Cause, again against all defendants, alleges a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act; the Fifth Cause, against only the Licensing and Network defendants, alleges false endorsement in violation of Section 43(a) the Lanham Act; and the Sixth Cause, against all defendants, alleges unjust enrichment; and the Seventh Cause seeks an accounting as to all defendants. Defendants filed motions to dismiss which seeks dismissal of all of plaintiffs' claims. Judge Sharp granted the motions to dismiss filed by the Network defendants, the Conference defendants, and the Licensing defendants and such dismissal is with prejudice. A copy of Judge Sharp's memorandum datedv June 8, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/JahDHqfrom Leagle.com. Javon Marshall, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A. Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J. Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC Steven Clarke, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A. Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J. Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC Chris Conner, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A. Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J. Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC Patrick Miller, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A. Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J. Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC Byron Moore, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A. Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J. Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC Chaz Moore, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A. Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J. Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC Sean Parker, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A. Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J. Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC Eric Samuels, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A. Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J. Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC Marlon Walls, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A. Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J. Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC Rod Wilks, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A. Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J. Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC ESPN Inc., doing business as SEC Network doing business as Longhorn Network, Defendant, represented by Daniel Alexander Richards, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Evan R. Chesler, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Joe Wesley Earnhardt, Joel D. Eckert, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Roger G. Brooks, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Stefan H. Atkinson, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP & Samuel David Lipshie, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric S. Hochstadt, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, James W. Quinn, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Robert Dale Grimes, Bass, Berry & Sims & Yehudah L. Buchweitz, Weil, Gotshal & Manges National Broadcasting Company, Inc., now known as NBCUniversal Media, LLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur Burke, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, Dana Meredith Seshens, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, James W. Haldin, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, Jeffrey P. Yarbro, Bass, Berry & Sims, Kelli L. Sager & Robert Dale Grimes, Bass, Berry & Sims ABC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Alexander Richards, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Evan R. Chesler, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Joe Wesley Earnhardt, Nathan E. Siegel, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schultz, LLP, Roger G. Brooks, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Stefan H. Atkinson, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP & Samuel David Lipshie, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Fox Broadcasting Company, Defendant, represented by Carl R. Metz, Williams & Connolly, John E. Schmidtlein, Williams & Connolly, Kevin T. Baine, Williams & Connolly, Thomas G. Hentoff, Williams & Connolly & Hal D. Hardin IMG College, LLC, doing business as Longhorn Network, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Thomas, Jenner & Block LLP, David R. Singer, Jenner & Block LLP, Kenneth L. Doroshow, Jenner & Block, LLP,Richard L. Stone & W. Scott Sims, Sims Funk, PLC Atlantic Coast Conference, Defendant, represented by D. Erik Albright, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP,David Alexander Fardon, Harwell, Howard, Hyne, Gabbert & Manner, P.C., Gregory G. Holland, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP & Jonathan P. Heyl, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP Big Ten Conference, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Rosenman, Mayer Brown LLP, Britt Marie Miller, Mayer Brown LLP, Jay Scott Bowen, Shackelford Bowen Zumwalt & Hayes, Richard J. Favretto, Mayer Brown LLP & William V. Parsons, III, Shackelford Bowen Zumwalt & Hayes Big 12 Conference, Defendant, represented by Amy D. Fitts, Polsinelli P.C., Caitlin J. Morgan, Polsinelli PC, J. Gregory Grisham, Leitner, Williams, Dooley, and Napolitan, Leane K. Capps, Polsinelli PC & Reid Daniel Leitner, Leitner, Williams, Dooley, and Napolitan Pacific-12 Conference, Defendant, represented by Jacquelyn Ferry, James N. Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, Jennifer L. Jones, Proskauer Rose, LLP, John R. Jacobson, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson,Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Proskauer Rose, LLP & Scott P. Cooper, Proskauer Rose, LLP Conference USA, Defendant, represented by Amy D. Fitts, Polsinelli P.C., J. Gregory Grisham, Leitner, Williams, Dooley, and Napolitan, Leane K. Capps, Polsinelli PC & Reid Daniel Leitner, Leitner, Williams, Dooley, and Napolitan Ohio Valley Conference, Defendant, represented by Bradford David Box, Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C. Big East Conference, Defendant, represented by Jacquelyn Ferry, James N. Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, Jennifer L. Jones, Proskauer Rose, LLP, John R. Jacobson, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson,Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Proskauer Rose, LLP & Scott P. Cooper, Proskauer Rose, LLP IMG Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Thomas, Jenner & Block LLP, David R. Singer, Jenner & Block LLP, Kenneth L. Doroshow, Jenner & Block, LLP, Richard L. Stone & W. Scott Sims, Sims Funk, PLC Big Ten Network Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Carl R. Metz, Williams & Connolly, John E. Schmidtlein, Williams & Connolly, Kevin T. Baine, Williams & Connolly, Thomas G. Hentoff, Williams & Connolly & Hal D. Hardin CBS Collegiate Sports Properties, Inc., now known as Outfront Media Sports Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley G. Hubbard, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Brian E. Robison, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP,Robert C. Walters, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & John S. Hicks, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC JMI Sports LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy J. Everhart, Everhart Law Firm PLC, Daniel M. Mayeda, Leopold, Petrich & Smith, Louis Peter Petrich, Leopold, Petrich & Smith & Maria A. Spear, Everhart Law Firm PLC Telesouth Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by John S. Hicks, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Samuel D. Gregory, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, W. Scott Welch, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC & Walker W. Jones, III, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC T3 Media, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robb S. Harvey, Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP & Todd Ryan Hambidge, Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP Learfield Sports LLC, Defendant, represented by Gail Vaughn Ashworth, Wiseman Ashworth Law Group PLC, Grant Kojis Schmidt, Fish & Richardson, P.C., M. Brett Johnson, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Thomas M. Melsheimer, Fish & Richardson, P.C. & Thomas B. Walsh, IV, Fish & Richardson, P.C. William Morris Endeavors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Thomas, Jenner & Block LLP, David R. Singer, Jenner & Block LLP, Kenneth L. Doroshow, Jenner & Block, LLP, Richard L. Stone & W. Scott Sims, Sims Funk, PLC Southeastern Conference, doing business as SEC Network, Defendant, represented by Aubrey B. Harwell, Jr., Neal & Harwell, James Franklin Sanders, Neal & Harwell, James Isaac Sanders, Neal & Harwell, Mark W. Merritt, Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. & Robert W. Fuller, Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. FEIHE INT'L: Aug. 24 Hearing on Proposed $6.5MM Clas Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Entwistle & Cappucci LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the Feihe International, Inc. Shareholder Litigation: THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH IN RE FEIHE INTERNATIONAL, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION Lead Case No. 120906911 CLASS ACTION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. The Honorable Andrew H. Stone SUMMARY NOTICE IF YOU HELD SHARES OF COMMON STOCK IN FEIHE INTERNATIONAL, INC. ("FEIHE") AT ANY TIME FROM AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 3, 2012 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 28, 2013 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Third Judicial District Court for Salt Lake County, Utah, that a hearing will be held on August 24, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., at the Court's chambers, 450 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the Action for the sum of $6,500,000.00 in cash plus accrued interest should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Court should enter a final judgment in the Action on the merits against the named Plaintiffs and the Class as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 27, 2015 ("Stipulation");[1] (3) whether the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this litigation should be approved. If you held Feihe common stock at any time from and including October 3, 2012, through and including June 28, 2013, your rights may be affected by the settlement of this Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement Hearing and Right to Appear ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Feihe International, Shareholder Litigation, Settlement Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990, or you can download a copy at www.feiheshareholderlitigation.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Amount, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form postmarked no later than November 6, 2015, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you held Feihe common stock at any time from and including October 3, 2012, through and including June 28, 2013, and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than August 10, 2015, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All members of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court at the address above and served by hand or first-class mail on counsel listed below such that it is received no later than August 10, 2015: Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 894-7200 www.entwistle-law.com/ Carl L. Stine, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 759-4600 Fax: (212) 486-2093 http://www.wolfpopper.com/ Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 http://www.rgrdlaw.com/ Jon V. Harper, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, P.C. 50 West Broadway, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Tel: (801) 534-1700 Fax: (801) 364-7697 Park City (Toll Free): (435) 655-0188 http://www.aklawfirm.com/ Nicole A. DiSalvo, Esq. Eric S. Waxman, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 687-5000 Fax: (213) 687-5600 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Rodney Square P.O. Box 636 Wilmington, DE 19899 Tel: (302) 651-3000 Fax: (302) 651-3001 https://www.skadden.com/ Robert S. Clark, Esq. PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C. 101 South 200 East, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Tel: (801) 532-7840 Fax: (801) 532-7750 Email: mkano@parrbrown.com Paul J. Lockwood, Esq. Andrew R. Escobar, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 839-4800 Fax: (206) 839-4801 https://www.dlapiper.com/ James S. Jardine, Esq. RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C. 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 P.O. Box 45385 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Tel: (801) 532-1500 Fax: (801) 532-7543 http://www.rqn.com/ Matthew L. Lalli, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 15 W South Temple #1200 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1531 Tel: (801) 257-1900 Fax: (801) 257-1800 http://www.swlaw.com/ If you held Feihe common stock at any time from and including October 3, 2012 through and including June 28, 2013 and you do not take the required steps to appear in this Action, object to the proposed Settlement, or exclude yourself from the Class, and the Settlement is approved, you will be barred from raising an objection to the Settlement in this or any other action or proceeding, bound by the Settlement and the Court's judgment, and certain claims that you might have released. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: June 25, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH FLORIDA: Appeals Court Revives Verizon Suit v. Revenue Dept ----------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Joseph Lewis, Jr. of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reversed the final judgment and remanded the appealed case entitled VERIZON BUSINESS PURCHASING, LLC, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, A STATE AGENCY, Appellee, CASE NO. 1D14-3213 (Fla. Dist. App.) On January 2007, the Florida Department of Revenue notified Verizon Business Purchasing, LLC that it was going to audit the monthly sales tax returns that Verizon had filed for the preceding three-year period, January 2004 through December 2006. The audit was commenced and, for various reasons, the parties entered into a series of agreements extending the statute of limitations time period within which the Department could issue an assessment. The final extension agreement was entered into in August 2010 and provided that the new statute of limitations date for issuance of the tax assessment would be March 31, 2011. On February 8, 2011, the Department issued to Verizon a Notice of Proposed Assessment (NOPA), which identified the tax deficiency for the three-year period at issue. Verizon was informed that if it did not agree with the proposed assessment, it could request a review through an informal protest, an administrative hearing, or a judicial proceeding. Verizon had until April 11, 2011, to file an informal written protest. If Appellant did not file a protest, the proposed assessment would become a final assessment on April 11, 2011. In September 2011, Verizon filed an amended complaint against the Department. In Count One, Verizon challenged the NOPA on statute of limitations grounds. It contended that the sales and use tax liability asserted in the NOPA did not become an assessment until April 11, 2011, that the Department was required to issue any assessment with respect to the audit period at issue prior to March 31, 2011, and that, as a result, the Assessment is invalid in its entirety and must be abated. As an affirmative defense, the Department argued that Count One failed to state a cause of action because the NOPA was a legal assessment as a matter of law for purposes of the statute of limitations. Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. It determined that the NOPA constituted an assessment for purposes of section 95.091(3)(a). The trial court rejected Verizon's argument that section 213.21(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which provides for a tolling of the statute of limitations period for the issuance of final tax assessments when informal protest procedures are sought, establishes that the assessment contemplated in section 95.091(3)(a) is a final assessment. The trial court alternatively determined that even if the NOPA was not an assessment, only the first month of the audit period would be untimely because each month of the taxing periods in the audit period was extended. The trial court entered a Partial Final Judgment in the Department's favor as to Count One of the amended complaint, Verizon voluntarily dismissed the other two counts of its amended complaint, and the Final Judgment was entered. Verizon subsequently took an appeal from the trial court's Final Judgment entered in favor of the Department. It argues that the NOPA issued to it by the Department was not the final assessment contemplated in the statute of limitations. The Appeals Court reversed the final judgment and remanded the case with instructions that judgment be entered in Verizon's favor. A copy of Chief Judge Lewis' opinion dated June 11, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/1CEtxBfrom Leagle.com. Katherine E. Giddings -- katherine.giddings@akerman.com -- Kristen E. Fiore -- kristen.fiore@akerman.com -- Michael J. Bowen -- michael.bowen@akerman.com -- Peter O. Larsen -- peter.larsen@akerman.com -- at Akerman LLP, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and J. Clifton Cox , Special Counsel, for Appellee The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District panel consists of Chief Judge Joseph Lewis, Jr. and Judges Ronald V. Swanson and Stephanie W. Ray. GENERAL POLYMER: Faces "Gray" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- James Gray, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. General Polymer Services, L.L.C., Case No. 4:15-cv-02130 (S.D. Tex., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. General Polymer Services, L.L.C. operates an insurance agency located at 4705 Decker Drive, Baytown, TX 77520, The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Micah Williams, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES 810 Highway 6 South, Suite 111 Houston, TX 77079 Telephone: (832) 230-4125 Facsimile: (832) 230-5310 E-mail: jwilliams10050@gmail.com GERBER: Faces Suit Over Graduate Puffs' Misleading Label -------------------------------------------------------- Gerber, the best-known baby food company in America, has a well- known brand built on a reputation for providing healthful and nutritious food for babies and toddlers. Unfortunately, with its Graduates Puffs, the company is misleading parents into buying a product that is far from nutritious, according to the class action complaint filed. The plaintiffs allege that the packaging for Puffs is dominated by pictures of fruit or vegetables: juicy peaches, slices of ripe banana, nutritious sweet potatoes. But the ingredients list belies these pictures. Banana-flavored Puffs contain no bananas, only a trace amount of banana flavoring. Sweet potato-flavored Puffs don't contain actual sweet potatoes, or any other vegetable, only miniscule amounts of sweet potato "flavor." The closest thing to a fruit or vegetable in Puffs is a very tiny amount of dried apple puree -- powder, in other words. Three prominent consumer advocacy firms -- the Stanley Law Group, Bailey & Glasser LLP, and David F. Sugerman -- have filed the class action, claiming that these depictions of Graduates mislead toddlers' parents. The suit alleges that parents trying to buy healthy and nutritious snacks for their toddlers have trusted Gerber's reputation and package presentations, paid Gerber's premium prices based on that reputation, and, in exchange, unwittingly provided their toddlers with empty calories. Far from the healthy treat the labels and Gerber's reputation suggest, Puffs are little more than flour and sugar. The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, and is titled Gyorke-Takatri, et al., v. Nestle USA, Inc. and Gerber Products Company. HARTFORD INSURANCE: Conn. High Court Overturns $35-Mil. Verdict --------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Nolan, writing for the Connecticut Law Tribune, reported that the state's highest court has overturned a nearly $35 million verdict in a class action lawsuit accusing The Hartford insurance company of scheming to fix the rates it paid for auto body repairs. Contrary to what a jury and trial judge previously decided, the justices ruled unanimously in the 18-page decision that the insurer did not violate Connecticut law. Justice Richard Palmer said that insurance companies in the state have the right to negotiate the hourly labor rate that they are willing to pay for auto body repairs and have the right to refuse to give their business to a repair shop with which they cannot agree on a rate. Further, he stated, insurance companies can employ appraisers to negotiate the labor rate for repairs on the insurer's behalf. "It would be an anomalous result, to say the least, if we were to endorse the position of the plaintiffs that every time an insurance company exercises its right to negotiate with an auto body repair shop for an hourly labor rate, and then proceeds to have its appraisers estimate the cost of repairing its insureds' vehicles on the basis of that agreed on rate, it is somehow committing an unfair trade practice," Palmer wrote. A dozen years ago, a group of about 1,000 Connecticut auto body shops brought a class action against The Hartford Fire Insurance Co., part of The Hartford Financial Services Group, claiming the insurer violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by pressuring its independent appraisers to establish artificially low hourly labor rates for auto body repair work. The plaintiffs alleged that The Hartford used a group of pre- approved "direct repair providers," repair shops that accept lower rates for a high volume of work. The Hartford, in turn, would not pay any auto body shop higher rates than those paid to the direct repair providers. That put pressure on independent auto repair appraisers to write lower-than-market-value estimates or not get work. At the trial, an appraiser who worked for The Hartford for 20 years testified that, he would have used a higher hourly labor rate when estimating the cost of auto body repairs because he believed the prevailing rate was too low, a state of affairs he attributed to the ability of the insurance companies to effectively dictate that rate. He further testified that if he and an auto body repair shop could not agree on a labor rate, he would call his supervisor, who would either authorize an increase or tell the shop that the insured motorist would have the repair done elsewhere. The case went to trial over 17 days in November 2009 and the jury returned a $14.7 million verdict. Then in June 2013, Stamford Superior Court Judge Alfred Jennings added $20 million for punitive damages. It was believed to be the largest CUTPA verdict in Connecticut history. A team of lawyers from Wiggin and Dana in New Haven, led by Jonathan Freiman and Aaron Bayer, represented The Hartford. They appealed the trial court verdict and the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The lawyers for The Hartford argued that the auto repair shops in the class action were using CUTPA to try to drive up repair prices. "Like any seller of goods or services, plaintiffs wanted to increase profits by charging more," the defense lawyers wrote in court documents. "Unable to convince their customers, including The Hartford, to pay more, the auto body shops aimed to use CUTPA to force them to pay more -- at the expense of consumers and competition." Palmer and the justices apparently agreed. "Indeed, we are unable to discern why appraisers, when negotiating for the cost of auto repairs on behalf of their employers, would ever owe a duty of impartiality to the auto body repair shops with whom they are negotiating," wrote Palmer. "Under our regulatory provisions, those businesses are deemed to be capable of representing their own interests, and certainly are under no obligation to accept insurance related work that is not sufficiently remunerative." A spokesman for The Hartford said they were "delighted" by the ruling, but declined to allow the Law Tribune to interview the lawyers who handled the case. 'Cigarette Rule' The plaintiffs' legal team was led by David Slossberg, of Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff in Milford. Slossberg was disappointed with the decision. "I feel most badly for the thousands of small businesses in Connecticut who had a bona fide claim that a jury agreed with us and a trial judge agreed with us," said Slossberg. "There were several big issues before the [Supreme Court justices] that they did not write on and I think the opinion is noteworthy for that." One of those was the so-called the cigarette rule, which grew out of cases challenging television ads for tobacco products. Under the rule, the following criteria must be considered in determining whether the defendant had engaged in an unfair trade practice: whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy established by statute or common law; whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous; and whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, competitors or other businesspersons. The Hartford argued that the trial judge improperly instructed the jury on the cigarette rule because of the Federal Trade Commission. The insurer argued that the FCC has abandoned the cigarette rule and replaced it with a different test for courts to consider. Experts had expected the state's high court to address the fate of the cigarette rule in Connecticut. Two amicus briefs were submitted to the Supreme Court about that issue, including from the state Attorney General's Office. Attorney General George Jepsen declined to comment on the issue because the justices declined to address it. "In light of our conclusion in the present case that the plaintiffs' CUTPA claim fails even under the more lenient cigarette rule, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether that rule should be abandoned in favor of the federal test," Palmer wrote in a footnote. "Because of the likelihood that this court will be required to address this issue in a future case, however, the legislature may wish to clarify its position with respect to the proper test." Slossberg said the plaintiffs were still "digesting" the decision and could not yet comment on whether they would pursue any further legal action. Business lawyer Anthony Minchella, of Minchella & Associates in Middlebury, who was not involved in the case, was also disappointed with the ruling but acknowledged that this case was probably not the best set of circumstances to determine the fate of the cigarette rule. "I am disappointed because the court appears to substitute its own judgment for the jury's," said Minchella. "Typically a trial court's refusal to set aside a verdict is entitled to great weight and presumed to be correct. I didn't even read that standard anywhere in the court's opinion." Minchella pointed to the 2013 state Supreme Court decision in State v. Acordia, which he called part of a trend in not holding insurance companies liable for CUTPA violations. In that case, the court reversed the ruling of a trial judge who had decided that one of the country's largest insurance brokerage firms had violated the state statute when taking kickbacks to push clients to certain insurers. Minchella believes the decisions are showing that small business owners are being held liable under CUTPA while large companies are not. "If there was any doubt after Acordia whether insurance companies would be subject to CUTPA, this decision is the death knell for that doubt," said Minchella. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Gets Prelim. OK of Settlement With Sales Reps ------------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that without specifying dollar amounts, a federal judge preliminarily approved settlement of a sales reps' class action against Howmedica Osteonics and Stryker Corp., and set Oct. 8 for a final approval hearing. The case is Tanner Trosper v. Howmedica Osteonics Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-00607-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. IDT ENERGY: Judge Stays "Ferrare" Suit, Denies Bid to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Anita B. Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled on defendant's motion in the case ANTHONY FERRARE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IDT ENERGY, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14- 4658 (E.D. Pa.) IDT Energy, Inc. is an electric generation supplier (EGS) that entered the Pennsylvania energy market as a result of deregulation. IDT is licensed by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (the PUC) to supply electricity to residential customers in Pennsylvania. Anthony Ferrare alleges that IDT induced energy consumers to switch to IDT from the local utility or from other energy suppliers by promising competitive, market-based rates and savings on electric energy bills and offered new customers a teaser rate, and promised that after the rate expired, IDT would replace it with a market-competitive variable rate. Despite the promise, IDT raised customers' rates to above-market prices. Ferrare alleges that from September 2013 until March 2014, IDT overcharged him by hundreds of dollars above the local utility's rate for electricity. Ferrare brought a suit on behalf of himself and putative class members, who are "all persons in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who contracted with IDT to act as their electric supplier." Ferrare brought three claims against IDT related to IDT's pricing practices: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) declaratory judgment. On June 20, 2014, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate commenced a proceeding against IDT before the PUC. The Commonwealth's PUC complaint relates to the IDT pricing practices implicated in Ferrare's lawsuit. In August 2014, two Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) issued an interim order on some of the claims raised in the PUC Proceeding. IDT and the Commonwealth each petitioned the PUC for interlocutory review of the ALJs' August 2014 order. The PUC granted both petitions and issued a decision clarifying the ALJs' August 2014 order. The PUC determined that because PUC regulations require that an EGS's billed price reflect its disclosure statement, the PUC has jurisdiction and authority to determine whether IDT billed customers in accordance with its Disclosure Statement. The PUC clarified that it lacks "subject matter jurisdiction to interpret the terms and conditions of a contract between an EGS and a customer to determine whether a breach of the contract has occurred. IDT moves for a stay of this lawsuit pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or, alternatively, dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. Judge Brody granted defendant's motion to stay and denied its motion to dismiss without prejudice. The action will be stayed until the PUC decides whether IDT charged prices consistent with its Disclosure Statement, and if there were any overcharges, whether refunds are necessary. A copy of Judge Brody's memorandum dated June 10, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/YAzLFDfrom Leagle.com. ANTHONY FERRARE, Plaintiff, represented by JONATHAN SHUB -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- at KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC; TROY M. FREDERICK -- at MARCUS & MACK PC & SCOTT A. GEORGE -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- at SEEGER WEISS IDT ENERGY, INC., Defendant, represented by THOMAS L. ALLEN -- tallen@reedsmith.com -- HENRY F. REICHNER -- hreichner@reedsmith.com -- at REED SMITH LLP INDIANA: ACLU Suit Alleges Case Managers Can't Protect Kids ----------------------------------------------------------- James Gherardi, writing for CBS4, reported that The Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a class action lawsuit against the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS). The ACLU claims case managers for DCS are overworked, and as a result, are unable to protect thousands of children across the state. ACLU lawyers claim DCS is breaking Indiana law. In the suit, the ACLU represents a case manager responsible for 43 cases. The state required maximum is 17. The ACLU has filed a preliminary injunction requesting immediate action on behalf of the Indiana General Assembly to hire enough DCS case workers to get the case load down to a legal level. "This isn't a lawsuit about case managers having to work too hard. This is a lawsuit about what happens when case managers are not able to do their job," said Ken Falk, the Legal Director for the ACLU of Indiana. "Hopefully the lawsuit will remind people that when the legislature says that there shall be efficient staff to achieve these levels, that the legislature itself takes that seriously and gives enough money to alleviate all the problems that give rise to the fact that at the current time, my client is handling 43 cases when the statute says she's supposed to have 17," said Falk. Falk doesn't blame DCS for the department's shortcoming. Constant case manager turnover, and massive caseloads he says is due to a lack of DCS funding from the state legislature. "The legislature has set the rules and the legislature has to abide by its own rules," he said. "The Governor's request looked to me like it should be adequate to really solve this problem and also required some management work inside the department," said State Senator Luke Kenley (R -- Noblesville). Kenley was a part of Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee that approved extra funding to hire 100 additional case managers. The ACLU claims that move did not go nearly far enough. "It just shows how tough that problem is when you have more than four times as many case workers as you used to have and yet there's still a squeaky wheel issue," said Kenley. In a statement on the suit DCS Director, Mary Beth Bonaventura issued this statement: "Lawsuits are distractions from the essential efforts underway to help children in need. Our commitment to Hoosier children is genuine and resolute, and we are 100 percent engaged in hiring more caseworkers and increasing training opportunities as directed by Governor Pence and the 2015 General Assembly. By July 27, we will have hired all of the newly-created positions for our 100 Family Case Managers and their training will then commence immediately. DCS is working diligently to bring help and hope to children affected by the tragedy of child abuse." The ACLU legal team is hoping more case managers will join in this class action lawsuit. INTERNATIONAL STEEL: 6th Cir. Reverses Judgment in "Stiso" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the appealed case of MICHAEL STISO, for himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL STEEL GROUP, d/b/a ARCELORMITTAL USA, LLC; ARCELORMITTAL USA LLC; INTERNATIONAL STEEL GROUP INC. LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE PLAN; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-3503 (6th Cir.) International Steel Group, doing business as ArcelorMittal USA, LLC, provides its employees with long-term disability benefits if certain eligibility conditions are met. Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) administers the long-term disability benefits program as agent for International Steel and is the party responsible both for deciding eligibility and paying benefits. The benefit plan is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001 et seq., and it is an employer-funded welfare benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA. Plaintiff became employed with International Steel in May 2003. He became a participant in the company's long-term disability plan and received the summary plan description from International Steel in January 2005. Thereafter, plaintiff had a stroke and became disabled and unable to work. He received a copy of the actual plan document after he became disabled and has been receiving benefits since March 2006. In February 2009, plaintiff requested an increase in his monthly benefits based on the language in the plan and the summary providing for a 7% annual increase. MetLife denied the claim and plaintiff filed an action to recover an equitable remedy equivalent to a 7% per year cost-of-living increase to his long-term disability benefits in federal court against his employer ArcelorMittal, the name used by International Steel after a merger with Mittal Steel Company and Arcelor Steel Company, and against MetLife, the claims administrator. Plaintiff seeks relief under two sections of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act: wrongful denial of benefits under the terms of the insurance plan in violation of Section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B), and equitable claims of estoppel and breach of fiduciary duty under Section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3). The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to the 7% annual increase and that equitable relief was not warranted. Plaintiff appealed. Circuit Judge Merritt reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. A copy of Judge Merritt's unpublished amended opinion dated June 9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/y8DAmrfrom Leagle.com. The Sixth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Gilbert S. Merritt, Danny J. Boggs and Jane Branstetter Stranch. JANSSEN PHARMA: Physicians Healthsource's TCPA Suit Goes to Trial ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the District of New Jersey denied defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ALERT MARKETING, INC., ORTHO-McNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC., ORTHO-McNEIL, INC., Defendants, CIV. NO. 12-2132 (FLW-TJB) (D.N.J.) In the spring of 2008, two faxes were sent to Dr. Jose Martinez on behalf of Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals (Janssen). The faxes were sent by defendant Janssen's marketing department to physicians' fax machines in New York City, Southern FL, New Jersey, Texas, Northern FL, Georgia, Chesapeake, Rocky Mountain, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina and New England. Teose regions corresponded to the regions defendant Janssen's marketing department was targeting in 2008 in its bid to increase Levaquin's market share. On April 5, 2012, plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging that the two faxes in question constituted unsolicited advertising that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq., which the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On January 31, 2013, Judge Wolfson granted defendants' motion to dismiss and, thereafter, supplemented its opinion on the motion. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to amend, which Judge Wolfson denied the motion for reconsideration but granted the motion to amend. On June 26, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In its amended complaint, plaintiff added eight new allegations, which boil down to the following factual assertions (1) Plaintiff did not have a business relationship with Defendants; (2) Levaquin had the same Tier reimbursement rating from at least 2004 to the time the faxes were sent and, thus, the faxes provided stale information; (3) any insurance reimbursement information was not directly relevant to any fax receipients. Defendants moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's amended complaint, which the court denied without prejudice finding that plaintiff did not have an adequate opportunity to take discovery. After the parties engaged in discovery, defendants renewed their motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue that the faxes are clearly informational because there is no need for a fax to contain breaking news to be informational and because the faxes contained important information, the faxes were issued because UnitedHealthcare renewed Levaquin's tier status on its commercial formulary in early 2008, and the faxes are informational even under a standard requiring a tier change in the drug to qualify as informational because significant changes were made in Levaquin's tier status on several UnitedHealthcare group plans in early 2008. Judge Wolfson denied defendants' motion for summary judgment. A copy of Judge Wolfson's opinion dated June 19, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/0ZecaHfrom Leagle.com. PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by MATTHEW NICHOLAS FIOROVANTI -- mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com -- at GIORDANO HALLERAN & CIESLA PC JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant, represented by MARSHA JESSICA INDYCH -- Marsha.Indych@dbr.com -- at DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP ALERT MARKETING, INC., Defendant, represented by KATHLEEN M. FENNELLY -- kfennelly@grahamcurtin.com -- THOMAS R. CURTIN -- tcurtin@grahamcurtin.com -- GEORGE C. JONES -- gjones@grahamcurtin.com -- at GRAHAM CURTIN, PA JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit v. Severance Plan Loses Class Cert. Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the District of New Jersey ruled on the parties' motions in the case ALAN M. BECKNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. SEVERANCE PAY PLAN OF JOHNSON & JOHNSON AND U.S AFFILIATED COMPANIES and PENSION COMMITTEE OF JOHNSON & JOHNSON, Defendants, CIV. ACTION NO. 13-4622 (FLW)(TJB) (D.N.J.) From 1977 to 2007, Allan M. Becknell was employed by Ethicon, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (J & J), and a participating company under the Severance Plan. The Severance Plan is maintained as an Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) welfare benefit plan. The administrator of the Severance Plan is the Pension Committee of Johnson & Johnson. Defendants also offer their employees a Long-Term Disability Income Plan, which provides long-term disability income protection. Claims Service Organization is a corporation, or other entity, retained by the Plan Administrator on behalf of the Disability Plan to provide specified administrative services to the Disability Plan. On October 16, 2007, plaintiff began a short-term disability (STD) leave. He exhausted his 26-week STD leave on April 15, 2008, but did not return to work after that date. Subsequently, plaintiff applied for, and received, long-term disability (LTD) benefits for 14 months, from April 15, 2008 to June 11, 2009. Three years later, plaintiff sent a letter, dated October 25, 2012, to Ethicon's Corporate Benefits department requesting an application for severance benefits based on his employment with J & J. By letter dated February 4, 2013, plaintiff's claim was denied by the Claims Administrator. On March 4, 2013, plaintiff, through his counsel, appealed the Claim Administrator's determination to the Benefit Claims Committee in accordance with the Severance Plan's administrative procedures. Plaintiff had not received a decision on his appeal by July 31, 2013, and so plaintiff initiated a putative class action involving the denial of plaintiff's claim for severance benefits under the Severance Pay Plan of Johnson & Johnson and Affiliated Companies established under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B), et seq. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the denial of plaintiff's claim for severance benefits is subject to the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, and their decision was reasonable based because the termination of plaintiff's employment did not result from a severance-eligible event, as defined in the Severance Plan. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and further moves for class certification on behalf of those similarly situated. Judge Wolfson granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot. A copy of Judge Wolfson's opinion dated June 19, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/J2L1kHfrom Leagle.com. ALAN M. BECKNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by LAWRENCE A. KATZ -- lkatz@ckmo.com -- at COFFEY, KAYE, MYERS & OLLEY, ESQS. Defendants, represented by FRANCIS X. DEE -- fdee@mdmc-law.com -- at MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY, & CARPENTER, LLP JOHNSTON BROTHERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Arleen Uerling v. Johnston Brothers II L.L.C., Walter Johnston and Jane Doe Johnston, George Johnston Jr. and Jane Doe Johnston II, Case No. 2:15-cv-01417-SPL (D. Ariz., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate the Rose Terrace RV Trailer Park in Maricopa County, Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Christopher Davis, Esq. Trey A. R. Dayes III, Esq. PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC 3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (800) 562-5297 Facsimile: (602) 288-1664 E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com KNIGHT OIL: "Montemayor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Marcos Montemayor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Knight Oil Tools, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv- 00315 (S.D. Tex., July 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Knight Oil Tools, LLC operates an oil and gas service company providing oil and gas related services and equipment, such as rental tools, fishing tools and services, well services, manufacturing, inspection and hard-banding, and QHSE training and consulting. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Street Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com KUBRA DATA: Accused in Florida of Taking Criminal Processing Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Kubra Data Transfer made millions by taking "criminal" processing fees from electronic bill payments, for utilities and others, a class action claims in Florida Federal Court. LG ELECTRONIC: Judge Rejects Liebler's Bid to Amend Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson of the District of New Jersey denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint in the case DAVID LIEBLER and GREG CAREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-03500 (JLL) (JAD) (D.N.J.) Liebler, a Michigan resident, filed on June 2, 2014, a complaint alleging that LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.'s business practices regarding the marketing and sale of certain of its cellular phones constituted a violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) N.J. Stat. Sections 56, et seq, alleging that LG has engaged in deceptive practices and made both fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, and served as the basis of common law claims for fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. On July 15, 2014, plaintiff Liebler filed an amended complaint that, among other things, added Greg Carey, a resident of Kanas, as a named plaintiff and potential class representative. Plaintiffs Liebler and Carey also added various factual allegations, converted the breach of contract claim into a claim for breach of express warranties, and reiterated the other causes of action pled in the original complaint. LG filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. On September 31, 2014, before Judge Linares had an opportunity to address that motion, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file second amended complaint. The proposed amended complaint (PSAC) proposes that both Liebler and Carey will be drop from the complaint and be relpalce with new potential class representative, Michael Criaris. Moreover, in addition to revising certain factual allegations, the PSAC would: (1) modify the NJCFA claim so that it seeks relief solely under a fraud by omission theory, thereby eliminating references to defendant's alleged deceptive practices and misrepresentations; (2) replace the common law claim for fraud in the inducement with a common law claim for fraud by omission; and (3) eliminate the common law claims for both negligent misrepresentation and breach of express warranties. Defendant opposes plaintiff's motion, arguing that plaintiff's PSAC would be vulnerable to dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and, therefore, plaintiff's proposed amendment would be futile. Judge Dickson denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint without prejudice. A copy of Magistrate Judge Dickson's opinion dated June 4, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Q7Lb1Dfrom Leagle.com. DAVID LIEBLER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by STEFAN LOUIS COLEMAN LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by JONATHAN SAMUEL HERSHBERG -- jhershberg@rlrpclaw.com -- MARK M. ROTTENBERG -- mrottenberg@rlrpclaw.com -- at ROTTENBERG LIPMAN RICH, PC. LOWE'S HOME: Overcharges for Sales Tax, Class Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Lowe's Home Centers overcharges for sales tax, and knows it does it, a class action claims in Hillsborough County Court. LRR ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, case no. 4:15-cv-02017, on behalf of unit holders of LRR Energy, L.P. ("LRR Energy" or the "Company") (NYSE: LRE) who held (and continue to hold) LRR Energy securities acquired on or before April 20, 2015. On April 20, 2015, the Company entered into a Purchase Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC ("Vanguard") will acquire all of the outstanding units of LRR Energy through Vanguard's wholly owned subsidiary Lighthouse Merger Sub, LLC ("Merger Sub"). The unit- for-unit transaction is valued at approximately $251 million, with Vanguard assuming LRR Energy's net debt of $288 million. The vote on the proposed transaction is currently scheduled for September 10, 2015. The complaint charges LRR Energy, its Board of Directors, Vanguard, and Merger Sub with violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was unanimously approved by the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board" or "Individual Defendants"), LRR Energy unitholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.55 Vanguard units for each common unit of LRR Energy they own. LRR Energy and Vanguard claim that this exchange ratio amounts to a deal consideration of $8.93 per LRR Energy common unit, based on Vanguard's closing price of $16.23 on April 20, 2015. However, Vanguard units are currently trading at significantly lower prices, closing at $13.56 on July 14, 2015. Critically, the Merger Agreement includes no protective collar on the transaction's exchange ratio and no guarantee that LRR Energy unitholders will receive the estimated $8.93 per unit consideration. Moreover, the $8.93 per unit consideration falls well below LRR Energy's recent historical unit prices (the Company had a 52-week trading high of $20.11) and certain analyst opinions. The complaint alleges that the S-4 Registration Statement (the "S- 4") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on June 3, 2015 (amended on July 9, 2015) provided materially incomplete and misleading disclosures, thereby violating Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The omitted information is material to the impending decision of LRR Energy unitholders on whether or not to exchange their shares. The complaint also alleges that the 0.55 Vanguard units per LRR Energy unit is inadequate, as LRR Energy has experienced significant growth in recent months and has consistently exceeded management's revenue and earnings expectations. The offer price also fails to adequately value LRR Energy's prospects for future growth. Take Action Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com LUMBER ONE: 11th Circ. Reinstates Class Suit Under ADTPA -------------------------------------------------------- Michael Carroll, Burt M. Rublin, and Neal Walters of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for JD Supra, reported that dealing a blow to defendants facing consumer fraud litigation in the 11th Circuit, the court of appeals for that circuit has reinstated a class action under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act (ADTPA), despite that the ADTPA itself expressly prohibits class action litigation. The ADTPA creates a private right of action for consumers, but it expressly prohibits plaintiffs from bringing their claims on behalf of a class. In Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC, the 11th Circuit held that Rule 23 -- which provides for class actions in federal court -- trumps the ADTPA, and allows plaintiffs to file a class action in federal court, despite that it would be barred in Alabama state court. Plaintiff Robert Lisk purchased allegedly defective wood from Lumber One. When the wood prematurely rotted, plaintiff brought suit in federal court on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers. Based on the ADTPA's prohibition against class actions, the district court dismissed the case. The 11th Circuit reversed, concluding that the case was effectively identical to the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Ins. Co. In Shady Grove, the Supreme Court held that Rule 23 trumped a New York statute precluding class actions in all cases involving a statutory penalty. But Shady Grove was a 5-4 decision, and the majority was split in its reasoning. A four-vote plurality opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, concluded that the New York statute was procedural, and not substantive, and therefore Rule 23 could apply without violating the Rules Enabling Act. The Rules Enabling Act provides that federal rules of procedure "shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right." Justice Stevens -- the fifth vote in the majority -- authored a separate concurrence, disagreeing with the plurality's reasoning. He concluded that some state procedural rules nonetheless should apply in federal court, because they function as a part of the state's definition of substantive rights and remedies. Justice Stevens found it notable that the New York rule at issue in Shady Grove was in a procedural statute, applicable to claims not only under New York law, but also those brought under federal law or the law of another state. As such, it is difficult to characterize that rule as one of substantive New York law. By contrast, the prohibition against class actions in Lisk is located directly within the text of the ADTPA itself. The 11th Circuit disregarded that distinction, concluding that "how a state chooses to organize its statutes affects the analysis not at all." Instead, the 11th Circuit drew a distinction between what it saw as a substantive claim -- whether Lumber One violated the ADTPA -- and a procedural right -- whether offended consumers may seek redress in a single action. In so ruling, the 11th Circuit states in the opinion that it did not choose between the competing rationales of the Shady Grove majority. But in drawing a simple distinction between procedure and substance, without exploring the purpose or reasoning behind the ADTPA's class action limitation, the 11th Circuit plainly sided with Justice Scalia's plurality opinion. That approach creates a meaningful difference for defendants, and eliminates substantive statutory protections included in the very state laws under which plaintiffs are bringing suit. LYFT: Former Driver Files Class Suit in Florida ----------------------------------------------- Wade Tyler Millward, writing for Tampa Bay Business Journal, reported that in fall 2014, Fequiere Frederic became one of the infamous Uber and Lyft drivers charged with a misdemeanor in Hillsborough County for providing public transportation without a license. Now, Frederic has made a move against Lyft as part of a class- action lawsuit in U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida that accuses ridesharing companies of violating state and federal laws because of how they treat their drivers. Frederic accuses Lyft of wrongfully classifying its drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. This way, Lyft avoided federally guaranteed employee benefits, including at least $7.25 an hour in minimum wages and overtime for working over 40 hours a week, according to court documents filed July 8. Though only Lyft's Florida branch is named in the lawsuit, these court decisions would increase the amount of money ridesharing services are expected to pay for drivers. This could potentially harm Lyft and Uber's businesses. Lawsuits are unproven allegations. A call to Frederic's attorney and emails to Uber representatives are still pending return. A Lyft spokeswoman said the company doesn't comment on pending litigation. Steve Anderson, an attorney who has represented Lyft in front of Hillsborough's Public Transportation Commission, said the company hasn't been served yet. Lyft, valued at about $2 billion thanks to investments from groups like Icahn Enterprises (NASDAQ: IEP) and Alibaba (NYSE: BABA), also has avoided responsibility for drivers cited and criminally charged for operating as a taxi service without a license, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges the company hasn't compensated drivers for community service hours or court costs after they've been found guilty of a crime. Hillsborough County's public transportation commission has repeatedly threatened to cite people like Frederic if caught driving for Lyft or Uber. A county representative will argue for a judge to ban such services from the county, paving the way for harsher penalties. Uber and Lyft representatives have in the past called their employers "technology companies" as opposed to taxi or limo services to justify ignoring public transit regulations. Frederic drove for Lyft in Tampa from January 2013 until October 2014. His suit argues Lyft is an employer because it controls whether drivers get work. It allows them onto the company's platform through an application process and boots them for unsatisfactory performance. Instead of a minimum wage, Lyft drivers are paid based on a formula in which Lyft gets 20 percent of the transaction. Lyft sets rates, discounts and standards for clean cars and passenger interactions. Lyft blocks drivers from working past a certain number of hours and from driving more than 60 miles at once, and provides a two- hour training session for drivers. Frederic seeks the money Lyft owes him, not stated in the suit, plus the same amount in damages. He also wants Lyft to pay attorney fees and court costs. His misdemeanor case is still open. MARKWEST ENERGY: Faces "Katsman" Suit Over Proposed MPLX Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Katsman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 11332 (Del. Ch., July 24, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the common unit holders of MarkWest Energy, L.P., to enjoin the merger agreement between MarkWest and MPLX LP for inadequate consideration. MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C. is engaged in the gathering, processing and transportation of natural gas; the transportation, fractionation, storage and marketing of NGLs; and the gathering and transportation of crude oil. MPLX LP is one of the largest petroleum product refiners, marketers and transporters in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401 P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com - and - U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq. Joseph R. Seidman Jr., Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 E-mail: Ottensoser@bernlieb.com Seidman@bernlieb.com MCADAM LANDSCAPING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Juan Martinez, a/k/a Arturo Brito, a/k/a Elias Martinez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. McAdam Landscaping, Inc., and W. Scott McAdam and Robert McAdam, Case No. 1:15-cv- 06461 (N.D. Ill., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. McAdam Landscaping, Inc. provides landscaping design, construction, and maintenance, in addition to snowplowing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com M-I LLC: Cal. Judge Transfers "Dewan" Case to Texas --------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the Eastern District of California granted defendant's motion to transfer in the case MATTHEW DEWAN, individually, Plaintiff, v. M-I, L.L.C., doing business as M-I SWACO, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-01151-AWI-MJS (E.D. Cal.) Matther Dewan, Intervenors Sarmad Syed and Ashley Balfour are former drilling fluid specialist for M-I, L.L.C. (M-I). Dewan filed a putative class action suit in the Southern District of Texas and alleges that he was misclassified as an exempt employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, and seeks to recover overtime pay as well as asserts violations of the Texas Labor Code. Syed and Balfour alleges that they were improperly classified as exempt employees and not paid overtime under the FLSA and additionally alleging Rule 23 class action for wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code, had previously filed a collective action in the Eastern District of California on October 18, 2012 and moved for conditional nationwide certification on July 8, 2013. Syed and Balfour subsequently filed in the Southern District of Texas a motion to intervene and transfer the later filed Dewan matter to the present court. The District Judge in Texas granted the motion. M-I filed a motion to transfer the Dewan matter back to the Southern District of Texas. Senior District Judge Ishii granted defendants' motion. A copy of Senior District Judge Ishii's order dated June 18, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/9Y8QQnfrom Leagle.com. Matthew Dewan, Plaintiff, represented by: R Ira Spiro, Esq. Spiro Law Corp. 10573 West Pico Blvd. #865 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: 310-235-2350 Email: info@spiromoore.com - and - Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq. Melissa Moore, Esq. Moore & Associates 4350 East-West Hwy #500 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: 301-565-5100 M-I, L.L.C., Doing business as MI Swaco, Defendant, represented by Patricia S Riordan -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LlP; Samuel Zurik, III -- sz@kullmanlaw.com -- Martin J Regimbal -- mjr@kullmanlaw.com -- Robert Peter Lombardi -- rpl@kullmanlaw.com -- at The Kullman Firm Schlumberger Technology Corp., Defendant, represented by Patricia S Riordan -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LlP Intervenors, represented by: Jennifer L. Conner, Esq. Ira Spiro, Esq. Spiro Law Corp. 10573 West Pico Blvd. #865 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: 310-235-2350 Email: info@spiromoore.com - and - Jennifer Lynn Connor, Esq. Cohelan Khoury & Singer 605 C Street, Suite 20 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 888-808-8358 Facsimile: 619-595-3000 Email: JConnor@CKSLaw.com - and - Richard J Burch, Esq. Bruckner Burch PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza #1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ordered to Pay $46MM in Attorney Fees ------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reported that a federal judge ordered the NCAA to pay nearly $46 million in attorneys' fees and costs to lawyers for student-athletes including former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon in their class-action antitrust lawsuit against the organization. The decision late night by U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins came nearly a year after U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, California said the NCAA violated antitrust law by barring athletes from sharing in revenue from the use of their names and images in broadcasts and video games. In awarding the athletes' lawyers 90 percent of the $50.9 million they sought, Cousins rejected the NCAA insistence that any award not exceed $9.1 million, and its subsequent "middle ground" suggestion to cut the fee request in half. "This win against a behemoth of an institution like the NCAA could significantly change American college sports," wrote Cousins, who works in San Jose. "Plaintiffs did not succeed on every claim. But the time spent on the unsuccessful claims contributed to the decisive success by laying the groundwork for the eventual trial victory." The NCAA declined to comment. Cousins' decision is the latest defeat for the NCAA in litigation over its refusal to pay major college soccer and men's basketball players. Critics say the prohibition shortchanges athletes, and often keeps them from taking paid jobs while in school. O'Bannon, who won an NCAA championship in 1995, testified to spending 40 to 45 hours a week on basketball. On March 17, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the NCAA's appeal of Wilken's August ruling, which also said some athletes may deserve up to $5,000 a year in deferred payments. The outcome could affect Cousins' decision. In seeking lessened fees, the NCAA alluded to Charles Dickens in calling the athletes' case "a tale of two lawsuits." It said many claims in the original 2009 lawsuit were unsuccessful, before the narrowed 2012 lawsuit found success. Cousins, though, said a more apt allusion was to "Game of Thrones," adapted from the works of George R.R. Martin. "In Martin's world, when you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground," Cousins wrote. "For plaintiffs, their trial victory in this adventurous, risky suit, while more than a mere game, is nothing less than a win." Michael Hausfeld, a lawyer for the athletes, said: "It's a solid decision, and takes apart the NCAA's attempted fabrications." The case is O'Bannon et al v. NCAA et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 09-03329. NEW YORK, NY: Accord Over Firefighters Discrimination Case Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York granted Plaintiff-Intervenors' motions in the case UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, and THE VULCAN SOCIETY, INC., for itself and on behalf of its members, JAMEL NICHOLSON, and RUSEBELL WILSON, individually and on behalf of a subclass of all other victims similarly situated seeking classwide injunctive relief; ROGER GREGG, MARCUS HAYWOOD, and KEVIN WALKER, individually and on behalf of a subclass of all other non-hire victims similarly situated; and CANDIDO NUNEZ and KEVIN SIMPKINS, individually and on behalf of a subclass of all other delayed-hire victims similarly situated, Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, NOS. 07-CV-2067 (NGG) (RLM), 13-CV-3123 (NGG) (RLM) (E.D.N.Y.) In 2007, the United States of America brought suit against the City of New York, alleging that certain aspects of the City's policies for selecting entry-level firefighters for the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e, et seq., as amended. The Vulcan Society, Inc. and several individuals intervened as plaintiffs, alleging similar disparate impact claims and also alleging claims of disparate treatment on behalf of a class of black entry-level firefighter candidates, bringing all claims under various federal, state, and local laws. Proceedings were bifurcated and on July 2009, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States' and plaintiff- intervenors' Title VII disparate impact claims, finding the City liable. Subsequently, in January 2010, the court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-intervenors' various disparate treatment claims, and plaintiff-intervenors' disparate impact claims brought pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. The court issued an Initial Remedial Order which explains that claimants were entitled to two broad categories of relief: (1) prospective injunctive relief to ensure future compliance with Title VII; and (2) individual compensatory, "make whole" relief for the individual victims of the City's discrimination. In August 2011, the court held a remedial-phase bench trial, and ordered prospective injunctive relief in a Remedial Order and Partial Judgment, Permanent Injunction, & Order Appointing Court Monitor. The court appointed a Court Monitor to oversee the City's compliance with the Remedial Order. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the court's granting of summary judgment only with respect to plaintiff-intervenors' disparate treatment claims, finding that a trial was needed to determine whether the City had acted with discriminatory intent. The federal district court issued a Modified Remedial Order and Partial Judgment, Permanent Injunction, & Order Appointing Court Monitor on June 6, 2013, which incorporated the Second Circuit's modifications as well as proposed amendments from the Court Monitor and the parties. On remand, plaintiff-intervenors and the City reached an agreement to settle plaintiff-intervenors' disparate treatment claims through injunctive relief. On April 22, 2014, they jointly moved for preliminary approval and entry of the Intent Stipulation which the court granted. After a notice-and-objection period, plaintiff- intervenors moved for final approval and entry of the Intent Stipulation. The court held a fairness hearing on October 1, 2014, at which plaintiff-intervenors and the City argued in support of final entry of the Intent Stipulation, and some class members lodged oral objections thereto. The court held open the record until October 15, 2014, at 5:00 p.m., for any additional written statements in support of or opposition to final approval and entry of the Intent Stipulation. On December 1, 2014, in accordance with the court's direction, plaintiff-intervenors and the City submitted a proposal regarding the provision of notice of the Intent Stipulation and a supplemental fairness hearing to 23 class members who had not previously received proper notice thereof. The court approved the proposal submitted by the parties and scheduled the Supplemental Fairness Hearing. The court held the supplemental fairness hearing on February 20, 2015, at which, after remarks by the court, plaintiff-intervenors and the City again spoke in support of final entry of the Intent Stipulation. Judge Garaufis granted plaintiff-intervenors' first and second motions for final entry of intent stipulation and in a separate docket entry, the court contemporaneously approved and entered the Stipulation to resolve Plaintiff-Intervenors' intentional discrimination claims. A copy of Judge Garaufis's memorandum and opinion dated June 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/lyMeFbfrom Leagle.com. United States of America, Plaintiff, represented by Allan K. Townsend, United States Department of Justice, Barbara A. Schwabauer, U.S. Department of Justice, David Michael Eskew, United States Attorneys Office, Elliot M. Schachner, United States Attorneys Office, Eric Bachman, U.S. Department of Justice, Jennifer Swedish, United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division,Kathryn Ladewski, United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Meredith L. Burrell, U.S. Department of Justice, Michael J. Goldberger, United States Attorneys Office, Raheemah Abdulaleem, US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division & Sharon Seeley, US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Employment Vulcan Society, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Allyson L. Belovin, Levy Ratner, P.C., Anjana Samant, Center for Constitutional Rights, Beth A. Kaswan, Scott + Scott, LLP, Dana E Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C., Darius Charney, Center for Constitutional Rights, Ghita Schwarz, Center for Constitutional Rights, Judith S Scolnick, Scott and Scott, LLP, Leon Friedman, Offices of Leon Friedman, Richard A. Levy, Levy Ratner P.C., Robert H. Stroup, Levy Ratner P.C., Shayana Devendra Kadidal, Center for Constitutional Rights & Chauniqua Danielle Young, Center for Constitutional Rights Marcus Haywood, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Allyson L. Belovin, Levy Ratner, P.C., Anjana Samant, Center for Constitutional Rights, Beth A. Kaswan, Scott + Scott, LLP, Dana E Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C., Darius Charney, Center for Constitutional Rights, Ghita Schwarz, Center for Constitutional Rights, Judith S Scolnick, Scott and Scott, LLP, Richard A. Levy, Levy Ratner P.C.,Robert H. Stroup, Levy Ratner P.C. & Shayana Devendra Kadidal, Center for Constitutional Rights Candido Nunez, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Allyson L. Belovin, Levy Ratner, P.C., Anjana Samant, Center for Constitutional Rights, Beth A. Kaswan, Scott + Scott, LLP, Dana E Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C., Darius Charney, Center for Constitutional Rights, Ghita Schwarz, Center for Constitutional Rights, Judith S Scolnick, Scott and Scott, LLP, Richard A. Levy, Levy Ratner P.C., Robert H. Stroup, Levy Ratner P.C., Shayana Devendra Kadidal, Center for Constitutional Rights &Chauniqua Danielle Young, Center for Constitutional Rights Roger Gregg, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Allyson L. Belovin, Levy Ratner, P.C., Anjana Samant, Center for Constitutional Rights, Beth A. Kaswan, Scott + Scott, LLP, Dana E Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C., Darius Charney, Center for Constitutional Rights, Ghita Schwarz, Center for Constitutional Rights, Judith S Scolnick, Scott and Scott, LLP, Richard A. Levy, Levy Ratner P.C.,Robert H. Stroup, Levy Ratner P.C. & Shayana Devendra Kadidal, Center for Constitutional Rights. Jamel Nicholson, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Beth A. Kaswan, Scott + Scott, LLP, Dana E Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C., Richard A. Levy, Levy Ratner P.C. & Chauniqua Danielle Young, Center for Constitutional Rights Rusebell Wilson, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Beth A. Kaswan, Scott + Scott, LLP, Dana E Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C., Richard A. Levy, Levy Ratner P.C. & Chauniqua Danielle Young, Center for Constitutional Rights Kevin Walker, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Dana E Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C. & Richard A. Levy, Levy Ratner P.C. Kevin Simpkins, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Dana E Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C., Richard A. Levy, Levy Ratner P.C., Shayana Devendra Kadidal, Center for Constitutional Rights & Chauniqua Danielle Young, Center for Constitutional Rights City of New York, Defendant, represented by Georgia Mary Pestana, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Jessica Giambrone, New York Law Dept., Kami Zumbach Barker, NYC Law Department,Kathleen Marie Comfrey, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Keri Reid McNally, New York City Law Department, Leah Sharon Schmelzer Serrano, New York City Law Department, Patricia B. Miller, NYC Corporation Counsel, Vivien V. Ranada, The City of New York Law Department, William S.J. Fraenkel, Corporation Counsel of the City of NY, Yuval Rubinstein, New York City Law Department & Benjamin J. Traverse, NYC Law Department NORTH CAROLINA: Court Certifies Troopers' Suit Over Pay ------------------------------------------------------- ABC 13 reported that a lawsuit seeking more money for North Carolina state troopers now has class action status. Waynesville attorney David Wijewickrama is one of the lawyers involved in the case. It all started with 50 troopers on board. Now, he says a judge has heard testimony and is giving the case class action status with 800 troopers involved. Wijewickrama says some troopers started with salaries around $35,000 a year, but expected to make upper 50s with step raises. He says the state hasn't delivered on those promises, causing hardship for many troopers. "They're unable to provide for their families, basic needs for their health care, for their heating fuel, for their food," Wijewickrama said. He says there's no excuse, especially with a $450 million state budget surplus. "It is a clear choice that the state is making to not honor their promises. It's appalling and disgusting," Wijewickrama said. Residents like Dianne Burnette agree. "I mean if they was promised something they should get what they're promised," Burnette said. Wijewickrama says some troopers have quit taking higher paying jobs at North Carolina police departments. All troopers can opt out of the class action lawsuit. A hearing on the merits of the case is likely by this Fall. The state says it doesn't comment on pending litigation. PAPA JOHN'S: "Perrin" Stayed Pending SC Ruling in "Bouaphakeo" -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Fleissig of the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part defendants' motion to stay the case of WILLIAM TIMOTHY PERRIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 4:09-CV-01335-AGF (E.D. Mo.) Plaintiffs brought a class and collective actions against defendants Papa John's International, Inc. and Papa John's USA, Inc., asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the minimum wage laws of five states, Missouri, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Maryland. Plaintiffs are current and former delivery drivers, who alleges that defendants violated the laws by underestimating plaintiffs' automotive expenses for reimbursement purposes, and consequently, failing to pay them minimum wage. The court conditionally certified the FLSA collective action based on plaintiffs' allegation that the drivers were similarly situated in that they were all subject to a single policy which under- reimbursed them for vehicle expenses, decreasing their hourly pay below their respective minimum wages. After discovery was conducted against the opt-in class, plaintiffs moved to certify the five state-law classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which the court certified. After discovery, defendants moved to decertify the class and collective actions, asserting two main arguments: (1) that individualized issues will predominate because plaintiffs must demonstrate that their individual vehicle expenses caused them to receive less than minimum wage, and that even if individual plaintiffs can estimate these expenses by reasonable inference, they may not do so using group-wide averages based on statistical samples and composite evidence, as plaintiffs purport to do, and (2) that, even under plaintiffs' theory of the case, the class impermissibly contains uninjured members who lack standing because they suffered no minimum wage violation in any workweek. Defendants moved to stay the case pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in Bouaphakeo will provide controlling precedent regarding the two issues raised in their decertification motions, and that staying this case pending the Supreme Court's decision will ultimately save the parties and the court significant time and resources. Judge Fleissig granted defendants' motion to stay in part. Notwithstanding the stay, the court will rule on the parties' pending motions for partial summary judgment, and the parties shall proceed in good faith with a mediation conference. However, all other proceedings in the case are stayed until such time as the Supreme Court comes to a final disposition of Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146. Within seven days following the Supreme Court's ruling in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, defendants shall file an appropriate motion as to the lifting of the stay. All deadlines previously set, including the hearing on defendants' motions to decertify set for June 25, 2015 and the trial date of August 10, 2015, were vacated, to be reset as appropriate upon lifting of the stay. A copy of Judge Fleissig's memorandum and order dated June 19, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/LcWoxbfrom Leagle.com. William Timothy Perrin, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett J. Vahle, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, George A. Hanson, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK Bryan Keith Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC,Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Andrew Massin, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP James E. Welsh, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC,Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Merle Summers, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Aaron Mayhew, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK Tyrone Bowden, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK Dan Benton, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK William E. Cox, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Dexter Bradley, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Tom Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK Tim Bauer, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Kevin Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Joel Bass, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Virginia Gardner, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Marniz Moose, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Brad Parks, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP David Travis, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Aleczander Vanselow, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP James Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Scott Dzik, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Christopher Tindale, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Stacey Grissom, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Donna Greene, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Brian Phillips, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Robert Duncan, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Amariah Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Daniel Sitter, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Casey Breiten, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Sylvester Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP James Van Deven, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Andre Boury, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Morgan Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Benjamin Kopriva, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Kenneth Manzo, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Tamika Shears, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Branden Twist, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP Papa John's International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer Kate Oldvader, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, L. Gray Geddie, Jr., OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, P.C., Patrick F. Hulla, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, Rodney A. Harrison, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, Sarah J. Kuehnel, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, David L. Schenberg, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS & Eric A. Todd, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS Papa John's USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric A. Todd, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS,Jennifer Kate Oldvader, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, L. Gray Geddie, Jr., OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, P.C., Patrick F. Hulla, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, Rodney A. Harrison, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, Sarah J. Kuehnel, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS & David L. Schenberg, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS PEPSI LIPTON: Sued for Falsely Marketing Tea as "All Natural" ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that The Pepsi Lipton Tea Partnership markets its Pure Leaf products as "all natural," but the beverages contain chemically processed citric acid, a class claims in New York court. PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Removed From Tobacco Case Due to 'Hostility' ----------------------------------------------------------------- Palm Beach Post reported that a Palm Beach County circuit judge has been thrown off a tobacco case because an attorney claimed she tearfully told him she would never forgive him for blocking her dreams of becoming a federal court judge. Saying it was bound to accept the allegations lodged against Circuit Judge Meenu Sasser as true, the 4th District Court of Appeal said she should not rule on a $4 million jury verdict that Fort Lauderdale attorney Scott Schlesinger's law firm won against two cigarette-makers. The move, the appellate judges noted, is unusual. "Though we previously concluded that any hostility arising from the events of the judicial nominating process did not warrant disqualification, the judge allegedly opened the door and displayed the depth of such hostility by failing to remain silent despite the passage of time," the opinion said. After Schlesinger's law partners won a $4 million jury verdict for Debra Perrotto from R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris for causing her husband's death from smoking, Schlesinger and the Boca Raton woman approached Sasser to thank her. In an affidavit submitted to the appeals court, Perrotto said Sasser said she would "never forgive (Schlesinger) for what he did to me." It appeared Sasser was "highly emotional and on the verge of tears as she said this," Perrotto said in the affidavit. The alleged exchange, which was confirmed by Schlesinger's law partner, illustrates ongoing animosity and justifies Perrotto's claims that she can't get a fair shake from Sasser, the appeals court said. The ruling means another judge will review the trial transcript to rule on motions filed by R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris, which are asking that the verdict Perrotto won be thrown out. The bad blood between Schlesinger and Sasser dates back to a 2013 tobacco trial when Sasser threw out a $1.2 million verdict Schlesinger won against cigarette-makers for his Delray Beach client, David Cohen, whose wife died from lung cancer. Sasser claimed Schlesinger's high-octane closing arguments were misleading and constituted a fraud upon the court. Later, Sasser submitted the order as a writing sample to a committee reviewing her application to become a federal court judge. Schlesinger responded by sending the committee a letter, challenging the facts in Sasser's order and questioning her suitability to become a federal court judge. "Generally, a trial judge's expression of dissatisfaction with counsel or a party's behavior does not warrant disqualification," the appeals court ruled. "Here, the judge's comments, as alleged by (Perrotto) and her trial attorney in their sworn affidavits, rebut any assumption of non-prejudice." The case was one of two tobacco lawsuits the appeals court decided. It also threw out a $1.5 million verdict that widow Beatrice Skolnick, of Boca Raton, won in 2013. When she received $60,000 from a New York manufacturer in a settlement of an unrelated 2002 class-action lawsuit, she agreed not to sue other companies over her husband's death from lung cancer. The appeals court said she could raise other claims against tobacco companies in a new trial. RDSL URBAN: "Bascome" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Whitney Bascome and Destiny Crespo, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. RDSL Urban NY LLC, d/b/a Open Loop New York, Case No. 1:15-cv- 05822 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. RDSL Urban NY LLC operates a sightseeing "hop on hop off" line of bus tours throughout New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Dickerson, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1010 Northern Blvd. Ste. 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com RIDGEWOOD, CA: Court Rules Water Rates Class Suit Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Nichols, writing for The Bergen Dispatch, reported that an appellate panel ruled that the courts had jurisdiction to hear a law suit filed by Wyckoff Glen Rock, and Midland Park against the village of Ridgewood. Ridgewood Water utility provides potable water for the residents of Wyckoff Glen Rock, and Midland Park. A Bergen County Supervisor Court judge had ruled the matter should be handed by the Board of Public Utilities. In 2010, Wyckoff, Glen Rock, and Midland Park filed a suit against the Village of Ridgewood claiming it raise the rate on the water supply to provide tax relief to residents. The suit says Ridgewood "improperly permitted the Utility to include millions of dollars Ridgewood's municipal operating expenses, such as the cost of providing health insurance to non-utility employees, police department salaries and expenses, fire department salaries and expenses, and the fees charged by Ridgewood's corporation counsel." By ordinance, Ridgewood inceased the water rates charged by the Utility to its customers by a total of thirty-one percent over the course of 2010, 2011, and 2012. The plaintiffs claim Ridgewood "used the Utility as a means of clandestine form of municipal tax relief to its own residents, consequently imposing an improper tax burden on plaintiffs' residents in the form of higher water rates" "We do not find any legal or public policy basis to conclude the BPUhas the greater expenses expertise at performing this type of statutory analysis than the Supreme Court. Indeed, it is the function of the Supreme Court to engage in this kind of analysis," wrote the court. "We hold the motion judge erred in applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to transfer this case to the BPU." SC EDISON: Class Wants Utility to Pay for Power Surges ------------------------------------------------------ Julianna Krolak, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that power surges repeatedly damage computers and other appliances but Southern California Edison denies liability for them and refuses to compensate injured customers, a class action claims. Greg Nordyke claims power surges in June and December 2013 did $3,000 in damages to electrical equipment in his Ventura home. Ted Bauer claims a July 2014 power surge cost him $1,800. The lead plaintiffs claim that "(d) despite the well-settled state of the law in California, defendants SCE has routinely, affirmatively, and uniformly misled its customers/ratepayers by falsely stating that SCE is not strictly liable for damages caused by a power surge." They claim that SCE has equipment and procedures to track the homes of customers affected by a power surge, but routinely denies all claims for property damage unless it determines the surge was caused by negligence. SCE serves 14 million customers in 50,000 square miles. Nordyke and Bauer seek class certification, costs of restoration, repair and/or replacement, attorney's fees, and equitable relief. They are represented by Allen Ball with Ball & Yorke in Ventura. Parties to the lawsuit could not be reached for comment after business hours. SEATTLE SERVICE: Removed "Schaefer" Class Suit to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Amanda Schaefer, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Seattle Service Bureau, Inc. d/b/a National Service Bureau and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 15-CA-1577, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida to the U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers). The District Court Clerk assigned 2:15-cv- 00444-SPC-CM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts insurance-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ernest H. Kohlmyer III, Esq. URBAN THIER & FEDERER, PA 200 S Orange Ave Ste 2000 Orlando, FL 32801-3418 Telephone: (407) 245-8352 Facsimile: (407) 897-8361 E-mail: kohlmyer@urbanthier.com - and - Maria Alaimo, Esq. VILES & BECKMAN, LLC Suite A, 6350 Presidential Ct Ft Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (239) 334-3933 Facsimile: (239) 334-7105 E-mail: maria@vilesandbeckman.com SELECTIVE SERVICES: Sued by Teen Girl Over Gender Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Esther Crain, writing for Yahoo Parenting, reported that women have long been welcome to join all branches of the military, and since the ban on combat was lifted in 2013, they've been able to fight in battle for their country as well. But only men are required to register for the draft through the Selective Service System, which they must do after they turn 18, even though the U.S. hasn't had a draft since 1973. So when Elizabeth Kyle-LaBell, a recent high school grad from New Jersey who is contemplating becoming a military veterinarian, tried to register on the Selective Service's website, she was barred from doing so as soon as she checked the box indicating her sex. Seventeen-year-old Elizabeth, who goes by Liz, says that's discrimination. "I hadn't even entered my age yet when the website directed me to a page saying I couldn't register," Kyle-LaBell tells Yahoo Parenting. "I feel that if a woman wants to register for the draft, she should be able to." To overturn what she describes as a policy that violates women's civil rights, Kyle-LaBell and her mom, Allison Kyle, filed a class-action lawsuit against the Selective Service System. As a minor, Kyle-LaBell wasn't able to file it herself, so her mother filed on her behalf, she says. "With both males and females available for such roles, the two sexes are now similarly situated for draft registration purposes, and there is no legitimate reason for the government to discriminate against the female class, so equal protection applies," the complaint, which identifies Kyle-LaBell by her initials, E.K.L., states. SERVERGY INC: Texas Atty. General Accused of Deceiving Investors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul J. Weber, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had an investment opportunity: a tech startup making data servers. He told people he had put his own money into Servergy Inc., according to prosecutors, and helped persuade a state lawmaker and another wealthy businessman to buy more than $100,000 in shares. All the while, Mr. Paxton was actually being compensated by Servergy, according to an indictment unsealed on Aug. 3, the same day the state's top law enforcement officer turned himself into jail on securities fraud charges. The alleged deception took place before Paxton took office in January. If convicted, the rising Republican star could face five to 99 years in prison. It was a low moment for a tea-party favorite who is barely seven months on the job, and whom GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz candidate called a "tireless conservative warrior" when Paxton ran for office last year. Attorneys for Mr. Paxton, 52, said he will plead not guilty to two counts of first-degree securities fraud and a lesser charge of failing to register with state securities regulators. "He is looking forward to the opportunity to tell his side of the story in the courtroom," said Dallas attorney Joe Kendall, adding that a judge instructed Mr. Paxton's lawyers not to comment further. A frenzy of media outside the Collin County jail in Paxton's hometown was reminiscent of a year ago, when then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry was booked after being indicted on charges of abusing his power with a 2013 veto. But whereas Perry defiantly welcomed the cameras at jail, Mr. Paxton ducked reporters after his booking, driving away in a black SUV. Nor did top Texas Republicans rush to Mr. Paxton's side with the same outrage as they did with Perry, whose case has not yet gone to trial. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who last held the attorney general job, issued only a brief statement that urged the justice system to play out. "I recognize this is the first step in a lengthy process and will respect that process as it moves forward," Mr. Abbott said. The Collin County normally jail makes suspects wear a towel around their neck before taking their mug shot. Mr. Paxton was allowed to be photographed without one, allowing his suit and red tie to be part of his booking photo. Just as Mr. Perry was allowed to finish his term after his indictment, Mr. Paxton can stay on the job while his criminal case proceeds. However, some are already calling for him to resign, including several Democratic Party officials. In the middle of a heated Republican primary last year, Mr. Paxton admitted to violating state securities law by not telling regulators that he got commissions for referring law clients to a financial planner. He paid a $1,000 fine and chalked it up as an administrative oversight. Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa issued a statement on Aug. 3 calling Paxton "an admitted lawbreaker" who "needs to spare Texas the embarrassment of a drawn out legal fight in the public eye, take responsibility, and accept the consequences." Questions about Mr. Paxton's financial dealings shadowed him during his first seven months on the job. His aides have denied any wrongdoing by Paxton and described the criminal investigation led by two special prosecutors as a political smear campaign. According to prosecutors, Republican state Rep. Byron Cook was among those duped. While serving in the Legislature in 2011, Mr. Paxton told Mr. Cook that he personally invested in Servergy and offered Cook a chance to buy more than $100,000 of stock in the company, according to the indictment. Unbeknownst to Mr. Cook, Mr. Paxton had been given more than 100,000 shares of Servergy stock, according to the indictment. Mr. Cook's lawyer, Terry Jacobson, declined to comment on Aug. 3. The Associated Press reported last month that Mr. Paxton listed himself as a shareholder in Servergy and that his name was among search terms that Servergy attorneys used to satisfy a federal subpoena. The company is under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations of deceiving investors. While top Republican leaders were cautious in their remarks about Paxton, the Texas GOP struck a defiant tone, calling the grand jury process "sloppy" and praising Paxton's performance in office. Mr. Paxton joins other current or recent state attorneys general facing criminal charges. In Pennsylvania, a grand jury in January recommended that state Attorney General Kathleen Kane face charges over allegations of engaging in a cover-up and lying about her role in a grand jury leak to a newspaper. Ms. Kane, a Democrat who took office in 2013, has not been charged and has denied breaking any laws. Utah's previous two attorneys generals were also arrested last summer on charges of running pay-to-play schemes during their combined 13 years in office. SMITH & NEPHEW: Must Face Rhea Drugstore's TCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon P. McCalla of the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case RHEA DRUGSTORE, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., Defendant. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. MODERN MARKETING CONCEPTS, INC., Third-Party Defendant, NO. 2:15-CV- 02060-JPM-TMP (W.D. Tenn.) Rhea Drugstore sued Smith & Nephew, alleging that the latter violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, by faxing unsolicited advertisements to the former and others similarly situated without providing the opt-out notice required by statute. Plaintiff alleges that those faxes are exemplary of the junk faxes defendant sends. As individual and class relief, plaintiff requested the court to determine that the action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23, ask the court of an award for damages for each violation in the amount of actual monetary loss or $500, whichever is greater, and treble those damages, enjoin defendant from additional violations and other legal and equitable relief as the court may deem appropriate, including costs and attorney's fees. On February 4, 2015, Rhea filed a motion for class certification and to stay briefing, explaining that it had filed the motion out of an abundance of caution in light of a potential mootness problem. S&N filed a motion to dismiss on April 9, 2015, on the ground of mootness and lack of subject matter and argued that it provided Rhea with an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on March 19, 2015. According to S&N, it offered: (1) to pay damages to Rhea Drug for its individual claims under the TCPA in the amount of $5,000; (2) to be enjoined from sending facsimiles in violation of the TCPA; and (3) to pay Rhea Drug all of its costs accrued as well as its reasonable attorneys' fees to be determined by the court. A copy of Judge McCalla's order dated June 10, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/QMKRNBfrom Leagle.com. Rhea Drugstore, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by John Charles Williams -- jwilliams@cbplaw.com -- at CARNEY BATES PULLIAM PLLC Smith & Nephew, Inc., Defendant, represented by Glen G. Reid, Jr. -- greid@wyattfirm.com -- Kacey Leigh Faughnan -- kfaughnan@wyattfirm.com -- at WYATT TARRANT & COMBS, LLP Smith & Nephew, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Glen G. Reid, Jr. -- greid@wyattfirm.com -- Kacey Leigh Faughnan -- kfaughnan@wyattfirm.com -- at WYATT TARRANT & COMBS, LLP Modern Marketing Concepts, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Don Lester Hearn, Jr. -- dhearn@glankler.com -- at GLANKLER BROWN, PLLC; Randall William Slade -- randall.slade@francomoroney.com -- at FRANCO & MORONEY LLC SOCIAL SECURITY: Confiscated Tax Refunds with 'Insufficient' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Fisher, writing for The Salem News, reported that the Social Security Administration confiscated $75 million in tax refunds due to about 300,000 Americans without giving those taxpayers sufficient information to figure out why their money was being taken, according to a new report by the agency's inspector general. After The Washington Post reported on Social Security's drive to collect decades-old debts from hundreds of thousands of people whose parents allegedly received overpayments, the agency temporarily halted the collections and the inspector general launched an investigation into the practice. The review concludes that in more than half of the 300,000 cases, the letters Social Security sent to taxpayers informing them of debts were returned as undeliverable. In almost 8,000 of those cases, the government went ahead and confiscated tax refunds due to people who had never received any notice of a debt, the report said. Even when taxpayers did receive the letters, "the information was insufficient for the debtor to recall the debt and the circumstances surrounding the debt," according to the report by Inspector General Patrick O'Carroll Jr. In 73 percent of the cases, the debts being collected were between 21 and 40 years old, and many of the addresses Social Security used for the taxpayers were that old. The inspector general said Social Security needs to do a better job of explaining to taxpayers how they came to owe the government money, but the report does not address the central complaint of a separate class-action lawsuit against the agency: whether it is fair or constitutional for the government to collect debts incurred by a taxpayer's parent. The report says Social Security operated within the law when it asked the Treasury Department to seize taxpayers' tax refunds to pay off debts stemming from overpayments Social Security made more than a decade ago. The collections started after a single sentence was tucked into the farm bill in 2011 lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on debts to Uncle Sam. "The inspector general's report doesn't address the fairness of going after the child of someone who incurred the debt, and we contend that is a serious constitutional violation," said Robert Vogel, a Washington lawyer who filed the federal class-action suit on behalf of taxpayers who had their refunds confiscated. Vogel's clients include a Takoma Park woman, Mary Grice, who had never received notice of a debt when her tax refunds from the IRS and the state of Maryland were intercepted by the U.S. government. Social Security says someone in Grice's family was overpaid $2,996 in 1977. Thirty-seven years later, the government took its money, yet it has never shown Grice evidence of who initially received excess benefits. And Grice has never found out why the government came after her, rather than her surviving siblings, for money that presumably was paid to their mother after their father died. She was 4 when her father died. After The Post reported on cases like Grice's, Social Security announced it would freeze collection efforts on the decades-old debts "to ensure public confidence." But within a few months, the agency sent letters reminding people whose debts had been frozen that those debts remain "subject to future collection." Some taxpayers whose seized refunds were returned to them because they had not been given notice of the debt received new demands for payment a few months later. In response to the inspector general's report, Social Security pledged to resolve the address problems and said it would look into revising the notices to provide a better explanation of why the debts existed. The agency told the inspector general it has not resumed collection efforts on the old debts and is still "exploring policy or legislative changes to limit [the program] for childhood beneficiaries." On its Web site, the Federal Trade Commission advises Americans that "family members typically are not obligated to pay the debts of a deceased relative from their own assets." But Social Security officials say that if children indirectly received assistance from public dollars paid to a parent, the children's money can be taken, no matter how long ago an overpayment occurred. The inspector general found that many of the old debts were incurred by children who received benefits after a parent died; the surviving parent or guardian got the money on behalf of the minor child. In some cases, checks kept coming to that adult even when the child went off to college -- a move that should have ended the benefits. The report said Social Security was within its rights to try to recoup those payments. To those who have had their money confiscated, the main question in the dispute remains unresolved. "The reason these people didn't get the notice of their alleged debt is because it was their parents' debt," Vogel said. "This policy is a scam, and it pits children against their parents." SOLAZYME INC: Aug. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Solazyme, Inc. ("Solazyme") between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Solazyme shares between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to: http://zlk.9nl.com/solazyme-szymor contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and omitted material information concerning the production capacity of its oil producing facility in Moema, Brazil. In particular, it is alleged that Solazyme improperly concealed ongoing construction delays caused by inadequate access to electricity and steam utility services. If you suffered a loss in Solazyme you have until August 24, 2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. ST CHARLES, MO: Dismissal of Suit Over License Taxes Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Philip M. Hess of the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Two, affirms the trial court's judgments of dismissal in the appealed case TONY BETHMAN, et al., Appellants, v. SALLY A. FAITH, et al., Respondents, NO. ED101896 (Mo. Ct. App.) On December 30, 2013, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the Mayor of the City of St. Charles, the Director of Finance, and several Council Members. Plaintiffs sought to compel the collection of allegedly unpaid license taxes "from all persons responsible for the payment of the same under Chapter 620 from January 1, 2009 to the present. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants had failed to properly collect license taxes from "all entities engaged in the business of a restaurant as defined in Chapter 620. The following day, plaintiffs filed a "Class Action Petition," on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against the City of St. Charles and numerous current and former city officials, seeking actual and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs based on claims of negligence and respondeat superior for failing to properly and fully collect the license tax from 2009 to the present. In January 2014, the trial court entered a preliminary order directing defendants to take all actions to collect the license tax as provided for in Chapter 620 of the ordinances of the City of St. Charles from all entities located in the City, which operate a restaurant as defined in Chapter 620. Defendants filed a motion to quash the preliminary order and motions to dismiss both the mandamus action and the civil suit asserting that Plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim. The trial court granted defendants' motions and dismissed both actions based on the grounds alleged. Plaintiffs appeal. Judge Hess affirms the trial court's judgments of dismissal. A copy of Judge Hess's decision dated June 9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/NEtdYNfrom Leagle.com. The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Two panel consists of Presiding Judge Sherri B. Sullivan and Judges Mary K. Hoff and Philip M. Hess. STAR NISSAN: Faces "Tam" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Tam and Lei Guo a/k/a Raymond Guo, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated v. Star Nissan, Inc. d/b/a Star Nissan, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04363 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Star Nissan, Inc. owns and operates Nissan Service Center located at 171-20 Station Road, Flushing, NY 11358. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com TEXAS A&M: Faces "Posey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelli Posey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Texas A&M University and Texas A&M University Health Science Center, Case No. 3:15-cv-02465-K (N.D. Tex., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants are university systems organized and managed by the State of Texas and a subdivision of the state headquartered in College Station, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent James Bhatti, Esq. Ditty Susan Bhatti, Esq. HE BHATTI LAW FIRM PLLC 14785 Preston Road, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 253-2533 Facsimile: (214) 204-0033 E-mail: vincent.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com ditty.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com TRADE STREET: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP filed an amended class action complaint asserting claims against the members of Trade Street Residential, Inc.'s Board of Directors (Board) for breaching their fiduciary duties to its shareholders in connection with the proposed sale of Trade Street Residential, Inc. (Trade Street) to Independent Realty Trust, Inc. (IRT). The complaint also charges certain hedge funds holding large interests in Trade Street with aiding and abetting those breaches and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, on May 11, 2015, Trade Street announced that its Board agreed to sell the company to IRT in a deal in which current Trade Street stockholders would receive a mix of cash and IRT stock purportedly valued at $7.60 (the proposed transaction) for each share of Trade Street common stock. The complaint alleges that the actual consideration being offered to Trade Street shareholders is presently closer to $7.00 per share. In addition to providing current Trade Street stockholders grossly inadequate consideration, the complaint alleges, the proposed transaction is the end result of a self-interested scheme by which two hedge funds, Senator Investment Group and Monarch Alternative Capital, surreptitiously took control of Trade Street and are now able to quickly and profitably exit their investment through a forced sale of the company. The complaint further claims the proposed transaction is unfair to stockholders due to the involvement of a third hedge fund, BHR Capital, which owns more than five percent of Trade Street's common stock and (1) began purchasing substantial amounts of IRT stock while Trade Street was exploring a deal with the company and (2) had a conflicted representative on Trade Secret's Board that the Board members inexplicably permitted to be involved in the proposed transaction process. Plaintiffs, represented by Labaton Sucharow, seek to recover monetary damages resulting from the proposed transaction as well as all unjust benefits obtained by the three named hedge funds. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Removed "Rogers" Suit to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Mona Rogers, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. Transamerica Premier Life Insurance Company and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. CIVDS 1508469, was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-01473 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts insurance-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mona Rogers PRO SE The Defendant is represented by: Joshua E. Anderson, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 E-mail: janderson@sidley.com TRI-MED HOME: Faces "Persaud" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Taragini Aneesa Persaud and Benices Infante, on behalf of themselves individually, and on behalf of all others similarly- situated v. Tri-Med Home Care Services, Inc. and Vinod Sinha, Case No. 2:15-cv-04341 (E.D.N.Y., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Tri-Med Home Care Services, Inc. operates an assisted living company with a staff of hundreds of home health aides who provide healthcare support to the Defendants' customers twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Dickerson, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com TRUECAR INC: Levi Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of TrueCar, Inc. ("TrueCar") between May 16, 2014 and May 20, 2015. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired TrueCar securities between May 16, 2014 and May 20, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to: HTTP://ZLK.9NL.COM/TRUECAR-TRUE or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) TrueCar's business practices violated unfair competition and deceptive trade practice laws; (b) TrueCar acts as a dealer and broker in car sales transactions without proper licensing, in violation of various States' laws that govern car sales; and as a result of the above (c) the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you suffered a loss in TrueCar you have until July 27, 2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. UBER: Faces $7.3-Mil. Fine and California Ban --------------------------------------------- The Week reported that Uber could be fined $7.3 million and suspended from operating in California over its failure to give regulators enough information about its service and operations. Karen V Clopton, a judge at the California Public Utilities Commission -- the regulator that allows Uber to operate in the state -- recommended the penalty, arguing that the increasingly beleaguered company had not filed all the reports required by state laws. She ruled that Uber's months-long refusal to provide crucial data was in violation of the 2013 legislation that authorised ride- hailing firms to operate in the state, the Los Angeles Times reports. The requested information includes details of the number of requests for rides from people with wheelchairs and how many such rides were completed. The global taxi-hailing giant, whose headquarters are in San Francisco, said it would appeal. In a prepared statement, a spokeswoman called the decision "deeply disappointing". The appeals process, which could take several months, will decide whether the fine and suspension are enforced. Uber has been hit with a series of threats from regulators, drivers and taxi unions in recent months. If the firm is suspended in its own backyard, it would be a symbolic and demoralising blow as it attempts to deal with pushback from taxi operators in many of the 300+ cities it operates in across six continents. In the UK, Conservative MP Charles Walker said that London would have to choose between backing its traditional black cabs or Uber, but could not have both plying for trade alongside each other. "Walker said while cab drivers had to pass the Knowledge and undergo background and financial checks, technology start-up Uber was brazenly ignoring the rules and flooding the capital with mini-cab drivers," the Daily Telegraph reports. "Walker said if Uber was preferred there should be a genuine free for all, releasing cab drivers from the current regulations on themselves and allowing them to put 'any old piece of rubbish on the road'." Meanwhile, a legal bid to force Uber to treat drivers as employees rather than freelancers could massively inflate the company's costs (see next page). If drivers were redefined as employees, the company could be forced to offer a range of perks including health insurance and reimbursements for fuel and other expenses. And in a separate case, Uber has reached a settlement with the family of a six-year-old girl who died after being hit by a driver offering rides to its customers. The family of Sofia Liu began legal action after the accident, which took place in San Francisco on New Year's Eve 2013. Although the driver was not carrying passengers at the time, the driver was logged into the Uber app and had said he was available for hire, Reuter's reports. In a statement, Uber said: "The Lius suffered a terrible tragedy and our hearts go out to them. While we cannot ease their pain, we do hope that this settlement helps the family move forward." The terms of the settlement will remain confidential at the request of the family. UBS AG: Faces Sonterra Capital Suit Over Euroyen-Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd. and Hayman Capital Management, L.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UBS AG, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05844-UA (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2015), arises from Defendants' unlawful combination, agreement, and conspiracy to fix and restrain trade in, and intentional manipulation of Euroyen TIBOR (the Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate), Yen-LIBOR (the London Interbank Offered Rate for the Japanese yen), and the prices of Euroyen-based derivatives during the period of at least January 1, 2006 through at least June 30, 2011. UBS AG is a Swiss banking and financial services company headquartered in Zurich and Basel, Switzerland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq. Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq. Raymond Girnys, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. One North Broadway, 5th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: ghorn@lowey.com vbriganti@lowey.com pstphillip@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com UNITED SHIP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Hernandez" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arnaldo Hernandez Hernandez and all others similarly situated v. United Ship Service Corp. a/k/a United Ship Service Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-22759-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. United Ship Service Corp. is a Florida corporation that provides marine products and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM UNITES STATES: Food Stamp Processing Delays Suit Can Be Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Cohen, writing for WNPR.org, reported that advocates for the poor have argued that the state takes too long to process food stamp applications, and that people should have a right to sue. State attorneys have pushed back. But, a federal appellate court ruled that applicants can in fact file a class action against the state. "When we filed the case in March of 2012, Connecticut was ranked last in the country in processing food stamps," said Lucy Potter, a staff attorney with Greater Hartford Legal Aid. Potter said a judge in 2012 found that as much as 40 percent of the state's food stamp applications were being processed late. The deadline is seven days for urgent cases, and 30 days for other cases. Potter said urgent case are when someone's rent and utilities add up to more than their income. Altogether, over 400,000 people get assistance each year to buy food. Benefits can be used at grocery and convenience stores and some farmers markets. Potter said the state has improved its timeliness since her agency filed suit back in 2012. Now, Potter said an overwhelming majority of the applications are completed in time. Still, the state hasn't reached its mandated goals. "They're at like 87 percent for seven-day cases, and about 94 percent for 30-day cases," Potter said. "For three years they've been fighting us and also trying to comply. They've made significant progress." In an email, a spokesman for the state Department of Social Services said his agency is reviewing the appellate court's decision. But it also said the state has made "tremendous improvement" when it comes to processing food stamp applications Potter said that doing better isn't necessarily good enough, and this latest legal victory promises an avenue for legal relief. UNITED PARCEL: Sued by EEOC Over Religious Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Bogage, writing for The Washington Post, reported that federal labor regulators announced that they are suing United Parcel Service, the country's largest private package delivery service, for violating its employee's religious rights. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges in its suit that the company declined to hire applicants and promote employees because their religious dress habits conflicted with its uniform policy. The UPS uniform policy requires supervisors and employees who regularly come in contact with customers to shave their beards, according to the EEOC's complaint filed in the Eastern District Court of New York. Male employees in the same roles are also barred from growing their hair below collar-length. "UPS has persistently enforced its appearance policy even when that policy conflicts with the religious beliefs of its applicants and employees," said Robert D. Rose, the regional attorney for EEOC's New York District Office, in a statement. "No person should be forced to choose between their religion and a paycheck, and EEOC will seek to put an end to that longstanding practice at UPS." UPS did not respond to a request from The Washington Post for a copy of its uniform policy. It said in a statement that it doesn't discriminate against its employees. Regulators are seeking an injunction against UPS, which employs more than 300,000 people nationwide, and is seeking back pay and damages for impacted employees and applicants. UPS spokesman Steve Gaut in a statement said the company works with employees who request accommodations for their religious customs such as how they dress and time off needed for prayer. "UPS respects religious differences and is confident in the legality of its employment practices. UPS is proud of the diversity of its workforce," Gaut said in a statement. He said the company would review the case and "defend its practices that demonstrate a proven track record for accommodation." The EEOC said it the class-action suit on behalf of Bilal Abdullah and Muhammad Farhan, Muslims who grow beards in accordance with their faith. According to the complaint, Abdullah, of Rochester, N.Y., was told by a supervisor in 2005, "God would understand," if he shaved his beard to get a job, or that he could apply for a lower-paying job if he wanted to keep the beard. Farhan, of Dallas, in 2007, was sent home by a supervisor when he reported to work on his first day in a new role because of his beard, the complaint says. He asked five supervisors including human resources personnel for UPS's religious accommodation paperwork, but was told the documents were not available. He was not provided religious accommodation forms until he filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, according to the complaint. VANDAHL ENGINEERING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Tricia Ayala v. Vandahl Engineering and Sales, LTD, Peter A. Van Wolvelaerd and Jane Doe Van Wolvelaerd, Case No. 2:15-cv-01415-JZB (D. Ariz., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants are in the business of providing general construction, construction management, and design/build services to customers around Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Christopher Davis, Esq. Trey A. R. Dayes III, Esq. PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC 3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (800) 562-5297 Facsimile: (602) 288-1664 E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com VIDEOTRON: Faces Class Suit Over Failed TV Coverage --------------------------------------------------- Steve Faguy, writing for Montreal Gazette, reported that Videotron's failure to provide its television subscribers in greater Montreal with sufficient community access television could end up hurting the company financially, if a judge accepts a proposed class-action lawsuit filed by a group that wants to replace MAtv with its own community TV channel. As part of the conditions it agrees to abide by to offer a television service in Canada, Videotron is required by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to devote five per cent of its gross revenue from TV services to Canadian programming, and can choose to spend up to two of that five per cent on a community TV channel, which devotes at least 45 per cent of its programming to community access television. In February, following a complaint by a grassroots community organization, the CRTC determined that Videotron's MAtv service in Montreal fell well short of its obligations, broadcasting mainly professional in-house programs that were not local and did not adequately reflect Montreal's diversity. It gave Videotron until August to come into compliance. Independent Community Television, the group that launched the complaint, argues in the motion filed with the court on that Videotron's subscribers should be compensated. "The CRTC's diligence exposes that consumers have paid Videotron for a service that was not delivered by Quebec's largest cable provider," explained Lorraine Guay, a member of ICTV's board. ICTV is requesting reimbursement equivalent to revenue spent on MAtv for the past three years for subscribers in greater Montreal, which it roughly estimated around $3.6 million, pro-rated to the hours per week of community programming that should have been produced, plus damages for breach of charter rights to unrepresented minorities, plus $2 million in moral and punitive damages. Videotron responded to the motion with a brief statement saying that MAtv "MAtv is a community channel and its programming has always revolved around the interests of the local communities it serves" and that it rejected the claims that form the basis for the motion. The class action would need to be approved by a judge before it can proceed. None of the claims have been proven in court. ICTV is represented by the law firm Grenier Verbauwhede, which has won class action suits against Bell and Telus in the past over telecommunications services to consumers. Andre Desrochers, who founded a community television service in Chƒteauguay and is a longtime Videotron subscriber, has been named the designated plaintiff in the case. Lawyer Bruno Grenier says he is unaware of any similar case of a cable distributor being sued by subscribers for failing to meet CRTC requirements. "It is, I think, the first time this has been tried," he said. But "we studied the file, and we found that the file was winnable." Costs are assumed by the law firm, which doesn't get paid unless its lawsuit is successful. News of the proposed class action drew a comment from Quebec solidaire MNA Amir Khadir, who got in a dig at a political rival while saying MAtv has failed in its mandate. "I invite my colleagues in the National Assembly, and particularly opposition leader Pierre Karl Peladeau, to reflect on the place of community television in the context of media convergence," Khadir's statement read. Peladeau is the controlling shareholder of Quebecor Inc., which owns Videotron. VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: 11th Cir. Upheld Decision in Fat Loss Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard Goldberg of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in the case ADAM KARHU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., d.b.a. VPX Sports, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 14-11648 (11th Cir.) Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VPX) markets a dietary supplement called VPX Meltdown Fat Incinerator (Meltdown), which it advertises for fat loss. Adam Karhu purchased the supplement in reliance on Meltdown's advertising. Karhu brought class-action suit, alleging that Meltdown's advertising is false, insofar as Meltdown does not aid fat loss. Karhu moved to certify class of nationwide Meltdown purchasers as well as a subclass of New York purchasers. The district court denied Karhu's motion, holding that the proposed classes satisfied neither the implicit ascertainability requirement under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23, nor the requirements listed in either Rule 23(b)(2) or (3). Karhu moved to alter or amend the order denying certification pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C). Karhu argued that new evidence showed that VPX sold Meltdown primarily to third-party retailers, such that class members could be identified by subpoenaing records from retailers. According to Karhu, proposing that class members could be identified using the records of third-party retailers was sufficient to satisfy the ascertainability requirement. The district court denied Karhu's motion for reconsideration. Karhu appeals and claims that the district court erred to hold that (1) neither proposed class satisfied the ascertainability requirement, and (2) the New York subclass failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements. Judge Goldberg holds that the district court's ascertainability decision was proper and therefore affirms the decision without reaching the district court's Rule 23(b)(3) decision. A copy of Judge Goldberg's unpublished opinion dated June 9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/MIaO6zfrom Leagle.com. W&W ENERGY: Faces "Zook" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Zook, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. W&W Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00605-RP (W.D. Tex., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay its sand coordinators overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. W&W Energy Services, Inc. owns and operates an oil field service company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: ADunlap@fibichlaw.com mjosephson@fibichlaw.com - and - David Isaac Moulton, Esq. 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: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com rburch@brucknerburch.com WELLS FARGO: Judge Narrows Claims in "Foley" Suit ------------------------------------------------- District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts ruled on the parties' motions in the case JONATHAN FOLEY, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., s/h/m to Wachovia Mortgage FSB, f/k/a World Savings FSB, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13- 12107-LTS (D. Mass.) Jonathan Foley purchased a home in Hull, Massachusetts in March 2005. To finance the purchase, Foley obtained a Pick-a-Payment loan. Foley lost his job in October 2008, but continued to pay his mortgage. Foley made several partial mortgage payments between October 2010 and April 2011. Foley continued to call the bank to request loan modifications, but the bank's representatives told him that he was not qualified for any propriety loan modifications and that the only relief available was the federal government's Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP). Foley requested to participate in HAMP, and the bank's representatives stated that a HAMP modification application would be sent to him. A class action suit was initiated in the Northern District of California regarding Pick-a-Payment loans were Foley was a member but plaintiff did not know of the suit. The class representatives and the bank reached a settlement agreement, which the court approved in May 2011. The parties agree that Foley is a member of Settlement Class B. As a Settlement Class B member, Foley was entitled to have Wells Fargo consider him for a HAMP modification and, if he did not qualify or accept a HAMP modification, to have Wells Fargo consider him for a MAP2R modification. Unaware of the settlement, Foley made continued talks to defendant Wells Fargo about the HAMP modification, where the latter also continued to deny Foley on any modification thru letters. After sometime, Foley became aware of the settlement and asked the bank's representative if he had been considered for MAP2R. The representative said that Foley had not been considered for MAP2R and told Foley that as he had been rejected from other modification programs, he had also been rejected from MAP2R. With the threat of foreclosure looming, Foley filed a pro se suit in Plymouth Superior Court in Massachusetts, and alleges breach of contract (count one), violation of Mass. Gen. Law ch. 244, Sections 35A and 35B (count two), violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A (count three), and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (count four). Foley alleged that the bank misled him about his rights under the settlement agreement, misguided him during the modification process, and altogether ignored his modification requests. Foley's complaint ultimately sought specific performance of the settlement agreement and some unspecified damages. Foley also moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, in an effort to stave off the foreclosure scheduled to take place about a week later. Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court, where Foley renewed his motion for preliminary injunctive relief. After a hearing on Foley's motion for injunctive relief, the district court temporarily enjoined Wells Fargo from foreclosing on Foley's home, pending an evidentiary hearing on the motion. While the injunction motion was in abeyance, Wells Fargo moved to dismiss Foley's complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to which Foley filed a written opposition. The case was then reassigned to a different district judge, where the court denied Foley's motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed Foley's action in its entirety three weeks later, The district court dismissed Foley's contract claims count one for breach of contract and count four for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court dismissed count two for violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, Sections35A and 35B because it found that the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) preempted the state statutes. The court dismissed count three for violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A because Foley failed to send Wells Fargo a demand letter, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit. Foley obtained counsel and filed an appeal with the First Circuit. Foley did not appeal the district court's dismissal of his chapter 93A claim. The First Circuit decided Foley's appeal in November 2014, reversing in part the district court's dismissal. The First Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal of count two for violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, Sections 35A and 35B, but on a different basis. Upon remand, Foley again filed for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin Wells Fargo from foreclosing on his home. Wells Fargo failed to submit an opposition to the preliminary injunction, despite the court's allowance of a motion for an extension of time to file. At the motion hearing, the court issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining Wells Fargo from foreclosing Foley's home until the court resolved his motion for a preliminary injunction. At the motion hearing, Wells Fargo raised the issue of transfer for the first time in litigation and moves for a partial dismissal on counts two and three of Foley's complaint, for violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, Sections 35A and 35B and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, respectively. Judge Sorokin denies Wells Fargo's motion to transfer and denies in part and allows in part Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss. Judge Sorokin allows Foley's motion for preliminary injunction and enjoins Wells Fargo from foreclosing on the residence. Plaintiff shall pay $1,377.86 per month effective July 1, 2015, toward the mortgage. A copy of Judge Sorokin's order dated June 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/GTAOBnfrom Leagle.com. Jonathan Foley, Plaintiff, represented by: Valeriano Diviacchi, Esq. DIVIACCHI LAW OFFICE 111 Beach St. Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: 617-542-3175 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., other Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, formerly known as World Savings Bank, FSB other Wells Fargo Bank Southwest, N.A., Defendant, represented by David M. Bizar -- dbizar@seyfarth.com -- Jeremy R. Bombard -- jbombard@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw, LLP WILLOWICK, OH: Residents Refile Class Suit Over Sewer System ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracey Read, writing for The News-Herald, reported that A class- action lawsuit filed by Willowick residents who claim city officials did not do enough to stop the sewer system from backing up into hundreds of people's homes after a rainstorm has been refiled. Ronald Drive resident Kimberley Ragazzo dismissed the lawsuit in May, but she refiled it July 14 in Lake County Common Pleas Court. According to the suit, about 200 Willowick homes became flooded with sewage, pollutants, water, feces, dirt, debris and noxious odors repeatedly since June 2010, and the city failed to take necessary steps to fix the situation. A July 20, 2013, rainstorm resulted in structural damage of homes, destruction of personal property, a reduction in market value of their properties, lost wages and emotional stress, according to the lawsuit filed by attorneys Phillip Ciano, Andrew Goldwasser, R. Eric Kennedy and Daniel Goetz. WORLD WRESTLING: Blamed by Mom for Death of Doink the Clown ----------------------------------------------------------- The wrestler known as the villainous Doink the Clown died of a drug overdose caused by depression from traumatic brain injuries in the ring, his family claims in a lawsuit against World Wrestling Entertainment, reports David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service. The wrestler's mother Michelle James sued World Wrestling Entertainment in Federal Court on June 26 on behalf of her two young grandchildren, Teagan and Matthew Osborne. Her son, Matthew Wade Osborne, wrestled for WWE from 1985 to 2007 and died from a painkiller overdose in 2013 in his Plano home. He was 57. James claims WWE covered up the dangers of head trauma in professional wrestling, "in a campaign of misinformation and deception" that kept her son from understanding the consequences of his injuries. She claims her son did not take action to mitigate his injuries because of "misleading statements" by WWE and its failure to "assess, diagnose and treat concussive and sub-concussive injuries." "WWE concealed important medical information, including the effects of multiple head traumas, and prematurely allowed Matthew Osborne to return to the ring or to practice, even when injured," the 72-page complaint states. "As a result, wrestlers, including Matthew Osborne, suffered serious permanent and debilitating injuries and damages." James claims that WWE's chief doctor, Dr. Joseph Maroon, was "involved in prior concussion and head trauma cover ups, including attempts to discredit research related to CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy)." Maroon is not named as a defendant. James claims WWE's Wellness Program, which helps former wrestlers with problems of drug and alcohol abuse, failed to advise former wrestlers, including her son, about head injuries. "WWE has stated that it has 'the finest monitoring program in American Sports,' thereby admitting the undertaking by WWE to monitor its wrestler's health and safety, and establishing its duty to provide full and accurate information to its wrestlers," the complaint states. "WWE's Wellness Program served to deceive Matthew Osborne by providing a false sense of security and assurance that his health and safety was being adequately monitored, both in the ring and as a former wrestler. The Wellness Program, by purporting to protect Matthew Osborne, merely led him into not seeking adequate treatment or otherwise protecting his health." James lists 40 other former WWE wrestlers who died prematurely of suicide, heart attacks or drug addiction. Including WWE stars Randy Savage, Eddie Guerrero, Ultimate Warrior, Davey Boy Smith and Chris Benoit, the wrestlers form an "unfortunately prevalent case of mortality" in the company, James says. "The death rate among WWE wrestlers has yet to be subjected to statistical analysis by an expert qualified to conduct a such a study; however, upon information and belief, such an analysis would indicate that the death rate among wrestlers exceeds that of any similar athletic profession or any professional sport," the complaint states. "WWE, as organizer and purveyor of professional wrestling in which head trauma is a regular and repeated occurrence, had a duty to act in the best interest of its wrestlers' health and safety -- including to keep wrestlers informed of the neurological risks associated with head injuries suffered while wrestling for WWE. WWE had superior knowledge and access to information, and should have disclosed that information to Matthew Osborne and not concealed such information." James said her son did not wear helmets when he trained with the WWE, though the company now has its wrestlers wear helmets during training in company facilities. The complaint includes an image from this season's WWE's "Tough Enough" reality television show, showing aspiring wrestlers wearing black helmets in the ring. James' lawsuit comes eight months after former WWE wrestlers sued the company in a federal class action in Portland, Ore., with similar claims: that the company hid and denied evidence and medical research regarding traumatic brain injuries. WWE attorney Jerry S. McDevitt, with K&L Gates in Pittsburgh, downplayed James' lawsuit June 26 evening as a money grab. He said it was the latest in attorneys' attempts at "drumming up people" who are "looking for NFL money." He said the lawsuits have no merit. "They are all different from the NFL," McDevitt said. "We never had anyone claim they had these kinds of injuries until [these out-of-town attorneys] did. They find the destitute people who have no money and told them there's money to be made. That is what is going on and I feel bad for these families, because they think they will make money off of this, and they will not." James seeks actual and punitive damages for fraudulent concealment, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent deceit, negligence, gross negligence and wrongful death. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shezad A. Malik, Esq. DR SHEZAD MALIK LAW FIRM 4925 Greenville Ave., #320 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 390-3189 Facsimile: (888) 210-9693 E-mail: DrMalik@ShezadMalik.com - and - R. Christopher Gilreath, Esq. GILREATH & ASSOCIATES One Memphis Place200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 711 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 527-0511 Toll Free: (800) 637-7024 Facsimile: (901) 527-0514 - and - Erica Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW, LLC 132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 E-mail: erica@mirabellaLLC.com - and - Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW 17 Miles Rd. Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (800) 934-2921 XOMA CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph F. Markette, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Xoma Corporation, John W. Varian, and Paul D. Rubin, Case No. 3:15-cv-03425 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Xoma Corporation is a biotech drug company that purports to discover and develop innovative antibody-based therapeutics. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Punzalan, Esq. PUNZALAN LAW, P.C. 600 Allerton Street, Suite 201 Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 362-4150 Facsimile: (650) 362-4151 E-mail: markp@punzalanlaw.com YELP: Sued Over Unapid Tips for Food Delivery --------------------------------------------- Jeff John Roberts, writing for Fortune, reported that on-demand services are growing all the time -- and so is the number of wage- related lawsuits against them. Yelp is the latest to be sued. When Yelp bought Eat24 for $134 million in February, the restaurant review site got a foothold in the growing niche for food-delivery services. But the purchase appears to have come with a nasty legal headache: Eat24 drivers filed a lawsuit seeking at least $5 million in unpaid tips. According to a complaint filed in San Francisco federal court, Eat24 encouraged its customers to enter a tip amount for the food they ordered, but then failed to pass on that money, or even notify the drivers of the tip in the first place. The purported class action complaint was filed by Steven Kay of Oakland and Esteban Polonski of South San Francisco, who are seeking money from Yelp on behalf of other drivers across the country. Both men say they work for the car-hire service SideCar. Yelp has since responded to the lawsuit with an email statement, suggesting the drivers' quarrel may instead be with Sidecar: "This case appears to be brought by drivers who contract with Sidecar to deliver food for orders made through Eat24. To be clear, neither Yelp nor Eat24 hire or contract with any delivery drivers. For Sidecar-made deliveries, Eat24 sends all tips to Sidecar, who we understand then distributes those tips to Sidecar drivers. We believe this lawsuit has no merit." Yelp did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company is one of a growing number of firms to get tangled up in labor issues related to tips and the so-called on-demand economy. Food-delivery service Seamless said it would revise its tip practices in response to pressure from New York's attorney general; meanwhile, car-share services Uber and Lyft are in the midst of high-stakes litigation in which tips are at issue. In the Yelp case, the drivers' complaint includes a screenshot of the Eat24 interface, which invites customers to put in various tip amounts as a percentage or else "pay with cash." It also includes a Twitter exchange in which Eat24 appears to assure the customer that the drivers receive the tips. "This statement was false, however, because drivers do not actually receive the tips that Eat24 collects on their behalf," the lawsuit claims. "Eat24 also conceals the fact that a customer has tipped a driver through its website, as the tip total is not included on the delivery invoices that drivers may see when picking up food to deliver." The lawsuit comes as additional bad news for Yelp, whose share price declined significantly earlier amid reports its CEO had stopped looking for a buyer for the site. The lawsuit accuses Yelp of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and of breaching various California state laws. You can read the complaint for yourself below (I've underlined some of the relevant bits). YINGLI GREEN: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the upcoming deadline in the class action complaint filed on behalf of a class comprising purchasers of the securities of Yingli Green Energy Holding, Co. ("Yingli" or the "Company") between March 18, 2014 and May 15, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors are encouraged to contact Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP prior to the July 27, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline. Yingli is one of the world's largest solar panel producers, and operates on a high volume, low margin business model. Unbeknownst to investors the Company allegedly has overstated certain material accounting items, suffers severe liquidity problems, and may not be able to keep its production lines running in the near term. The complaint filed on behalf of Yingli investors alleges that defendants made allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or allegedly failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company was inappropriately recognizing revenue; (2) that the Company had no reasonable prospects to collect on certain accounts receivable based on historical customer conduct; (3) that the Company was no longer able to borrow from commercial banks to fund its operations; (4) that the Company's inability to raise additional capital or borrow funds from commercial banks threatened its ability to continue as a going concern; and, (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Yingli's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth was revealed to investors, the Company's share price declined sharply thereby damaging investors. If you purchased Yingli securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 27, 2015, if you have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement, please contact Lesley Portnoy, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@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. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. * Steven Schienvar Joins Risk Settlements as Managing Director -------------------------------------------------------------- Risk Settlements is proud to announce that Steven Schienvar has joined the company as a Managing Director. Prior to joining Risk Settlements, Steven spent 13 years at AIG in various positions including President of AIG's assumed reinsurance division (AIG Re) and EVP COO & Chief Risk Officer of AIG Risk Finance, an alternative solutions insurance group. "We are thrilled to have an industry veteran like Steven join our organization. His quantitative and qualitative underwriting expertise enables us to provide a higher level of risk assessment and more risk transfer options," says Joel Fineberg, co-founder. "I'm very excited to join an innovative group that designed the nation's first post- loss class action settlement insurance product (CASI) available in the market place. Our proprietary algorithms, industry-leading database and unique approach to settlement design create effective solutions for companies facing intractable class action liability," said Schienvar. About Risk Settlements: Risk Settlements, the industry leader in class action settlements, evaluates settlement options and customizes the optimal settlement structure that reduces risk and translates into immediate cost savings. In order to lock in the savings, Risk Settlements designed CASI, which is the nation's only insurance product that transfers all the volatility associated with claims payments to a global A-rated insurer. By working with Risk Settlements, companies save money, cap risk and remove all financial volatility and uncertainty arising out of class action settlements. As of July 1, 2015, Risk Settlements has provided risk transfer for over $70M in class action settlement liability. For more information on Risk Settlements or the CASI Product visit us at www.risksettlements.com. * US Chamber of Commerce Lobbies Against Class Suits in UK Courts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Owen Bowcott, writing for The Guardian, reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is lobbying to prevent US-style class actions being brought in the UK courts as litigation funding expands to promote consumer rights. Campaigning under the title Justice not Profit, the organization is claiming that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 will open the door to spurious legal claims that undermine the profitability of business. The UK litigation-funding industry has expanded rapidly in the past few years. It is estimated to have amassed more than œ1bn in capital to invest in court cases. Firms take on the costs and risks of cases and in return receive a proportion of compensation awarded in the final judgment. Over the same period, legal aid for claimants in civil cases has been repeatedly cut. Litigation funders, who operate like hedge funds, mainly target very high-value cases and have now begun repositioning themselves to take on mass lawsuits. Relatively few class actions have been funded by private funders in the UK so far. Bentham Europe, whose parent company is based in Sydney, is coordinating legal action against Tesco for aggrieved shareholders. The law firm Hausfeld is funding litigation by Apple users who claim Google has breached their privacy. But the Consumer Rights Act, which comes into force in October, introduces an opt-out regime, so that claims for redress can be brought on behalf of groups of individuals without the need to identify all the claimants. Cases will be brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The current opt-in regime, which is about to disappear, is deemed not to be working and has resulted in only one collective action, when which? Magazine sued JJB Sports for overcharging on England and Manchester United replica football shirts. Other countries, including Australia, Canada and Portugal, have already introduced opt-in regimes. The Justice not Profit campaign is calling for tighter regulation. "Without adequate safeguards, the new 'opt-out' collective litigation system in the UK creates a commercial opportunity for 'unregulated and predatory' hedge funds and other investment firms with a specialized interest in litigation finance," claims the organization. It added: "Ever since the 2008 financial crash, use of third party litigation funding, which is not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, has significantly grown." It is demanding the retention of the opt-in system. Justice not Profit's website acknowledges that: "The campaign is backed by the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, a not-for- profit public advocacy organization affiliated with the US Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation, which represents the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors and regions, in addition to state and local chambers and industry associations. "Many of the US Chamber's members are companies that conduct substantial business in the UK or are British-owned and operated. ILR is therefore deeply interested in the orderly administration of justice in the UK." Some UK law academics are backing the campaign. Dr. James Griffin, a senior lecturer at the University of Exeter and expert in intellectual property law, said: "I would like to see some regulation that prevents groups of companies getting together and trying to sue however they like. There needs to be some regulation in my area." Professor Richard Grimes, director of clinical programmes at the University of York's law school is quoted on the Justice not Profit website as saying: "Consumers should get fair compensation. The question is if that will happen when there are no caps on funders' fees." Chris Bogart, chief executive of Burford Capital Ltd, one of the largest litigation funders operating in the UK, said: "The US Chamber of Commerce is a very well-funded lobbying group and represents the interests of a small number of very large companies. "In their corporate self-interest they want as little litigation as possible. [The British courts] seem eminently capable of managing these issues. It's clearly the policy of the UK government to encourage litigation funding." The industry is self-regulated through the Association of Litigation Funders. "There's no evidence of any problems in the UK," Bogart added. "Litigation funding is a very small percentage of an enormous market. "Litigation is extremely expensive and means in many cases consumers can't get redress. In the US, pretty much the only way is through a class action," he said. Bogart added that he had recently taken part in a class action against a credit card company to recover disputed sums lost in foreign exchanges. "I couldn't have recovered that relatively small sum of $300 unless it was through collective action." There is no sign of government concern over the issue. The Ministry of Justice said it was a matter for the Department of Business, Skills and Innovation. A spokesperson for the department said: "We are not introducing a US-style class actions regime. The Consumer Rights Act is about getting a better deal for businesses and consumers. The current opt-in regime isn't working, so we are transforming the system to ensure consumers and small businesses can hold those that breach competition law to account in the way big businesses can." The business department has said there would be significant safeguards to control the types of cases that will be brought in the UK. Treble or exemplary damages charges will not be permitted, cases will be restricted to the specialist Competition Appeal Tribunal and claims will have to be certified that they are representative of broader consumer problems and not vexatious. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. to Appeal "Holdsworth" Decision ---------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. plans to pursue an appeal from a decision in the asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Lee Holdsworth, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015. On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a $3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to settlement offsets. Post-trial motions were denied, and the court will set a hearing to assess the amount of damages. Plaintiffs requested judgment in the amount of $1.1 million, but have amended that request to seek judgment in the amount of $1.7 million. The Company plans to pursue an appeal. Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Settles "Garvin" Suit ------------------------------------------------ Crane Co. has settled the asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Lloyd Garvin, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015. On September 11, 2013, a Columbia, South Carolina state court jury in the Lloyd Garvin claim entered an $11 million verdict for compensatory damages against the Company and two other defendants jointly, and also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in the amount of $11 million. The jury also awarded exemplary damages against both other defendants. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, which were denied, except that the Court remitted the compensatory damages award to $2.5 million and exemplary damages award to $3.5 million. Considering settlement offsets, the Court further reduced the total damages award to $3.5 million. The Company has settled the matter. The settlement is reflected in the first quarter 2015 indemnity amount. Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "DeLisle" Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Crane Co. is awaiting a ruling on its appeal from a decision in the asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Richard DeLisle, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015. On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16 percent of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.3 million. The Company has appealed. Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "Sweberg" Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Crane Co. is awaiting ruling on its appeal from the $3.5 million judgment entered in favor of asbestos claimant Ivan Sweberg, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015. On June 16, 2014, a New York City state court jury entered a $15 million verdict against the Company in the Ivan Sweberg claim and a $10 million verdict against the Company in the Selwyn Hackshaw claim. The two claims were consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdicts, to grant new trials, or to reduce the damages, which were denied, except that the Court reduced the Sweberg award to $10 million, and reduced the Hackshaw award to $6 million. Judgments have been entered in the amount of $5.3 million in Sweberg and $3.1 million in Hackshaw. The Company has appealed. Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final payment amount is determined. Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $18.3MM Fibro Costs at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. incurred a total of $18.3 million for gross settlement and defense costs relating to asbestos claims and lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015. The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 totaled $18.3 million and $20.5 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally lag the tort system activity by several months or more, and may show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Cash payments of settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other required documentation are received by the Company, and reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices, transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 totaled $10.7 million and $12.9 million, respectively. The amounts shown for settlement and defense costs incurred, and cash payments, are not necessarily indicative of future period amounts, which may be higher or lower than those reported. Cumulatively through March 31, 2015, the Company has resolved (by settlement or dismissal) approximately 110,000 claims, not including the MARDOC claims. The related settlement cost incurred by the Company and its insurance carriers is approximately $430 million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of approximately $3,900. The average settlement cost per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 was $3,800, $3,300 and $6,300, respectively. Because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period. In addition to large group dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding settlement amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes from period to period in the average settlement cost per claim. Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered in the Company's periodic review of its estimated asbestos liability. The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by the Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed, amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based largely on the Company's experience during a base reference period of eleven quarterly periods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and three additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for claims filed, settled and dismissed. The Company's experience is then compared to the results of widely used previously conducted epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would be filed against the Company and estimates the aggregate settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement costs by disease during the reference period. This methodology has been accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with the Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from the Company which is based upon discussions with its defense counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of the Company's asbestos liability for pending and future claims, based on claim experience during the reference period and covering claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period. The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are (1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the Company. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor predominates in determining the liability estimate. Although the methodology used by HR&A can be applied to show claims and costs for periods subsequent to the indicated period (up to and including the endpoint of the asbestos studies), management believes that the level of uncertainty regarding the various factors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too great to provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for years beyond the indicated estimate. In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide the best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors, including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the tort system have been significantly affected over the past five to ten years by the substantial number of companies that have filed for bankruptcy protection, thereby staying any asbestos claims against them until the conclusion of such proceedings, and the establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts for asbestos claimants, which are estimated to provide $36 billion for payments to current and future claimants. These trend factors have both positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of the Company's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods. Accordingly, the Company's management continues to monitor these trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an alternative forecast period is appropriate. Each quarter, HR&A compiles an update based upon the Company's experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed during the updated reference period (consisting of the preceding eleven quarterly periods) as well as average settlement costs by disease category (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer and non- malignant conditions including asbestosis) during that period. In addition to this claims experience, the Company also considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected future settlement values. As part of this process, the Company also takes into account trends in the tort system. Management considers all these factors in conjunction with the liability estimate of HR&A and determines whether a change in the estimate is warranted. Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $600MM Fibro Liability at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. reported $600 million asbestos liability as of March 31, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015. With the assistance of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc., effective as of December 31, 2011, the Company updated and extended its estimate of the asbestos liability, including the costs of settlement or indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected to be filed against the Company through 2021. The Company's previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed or projected to be filed through 2017. As a result of this updated estimate, the Company recorded an additional liability of $285 million as of December 31, 2011. The Company's decision to take this action at such date was based on several factors which contribute to the Company's ability to reasonably estimate this liability for the additional period noted. First, the number of mesothelioma claims (which although constituting approximately 8% of the Company's total pending asbestos claims, have accounted for approximately 90% of the Company's aggregate settlement and defense costs) being filed against the Company and associated settlement costs have recently stabilized. In the Company's opinion, the outlook for mesothelioma claims expected to be filed and resolved in the forecast period is reasonably stable. Second, there have been favorable developments in the trend of case law which has been a contributing factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity and related settlement costs. Third, there have been significant actions taken by certain state legislatures and courts over the past several years that have reduced the number and types of claims that can proceed to trial, which has been a significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity. Fourth, the Company has now entered into coverage-in-place agreements with almost all of its excess insurers, which enables the Company to project a more stable relationship between settlement and defense costs paid by the Company and reimbursements from its insurers. Taking all of these factors into account, the Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos liability for pending claims and future claims to be filed through 2021. While it is probable that the Company will incur additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does not believe that any such amount can be reasonably estimated beyond 2021. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be incurred for claims which may be made subsequent to 2021. Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021 based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through March 31, 2015, the Company's actual experience during the updated reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's liability estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the Company considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected future settlement values. Based on this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the estimate was warranted for the period ended March 31, 2015. Nevertheless, if certain factors show a pattern of sustained increase or decrease, the liability could change materially; however, all the assumptions used in estimating the asbestos liability are interdependent and no single factor predominates in determining the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty with regard to and the interdependency of such factors used in the calculation of its asbestos liability, and since no one factor predominates, the Company believes that a range of potential liability estimates beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be reasonably estimated. A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011 to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense costs. The liability was $600 million as of March 31, 2015. It is not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021, due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion of the total estimated liability at March 31, 2015 was $79 million and represents the Company's best estimate of total asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount is based upon the HR&A model together with the Company's prior year payment experience for both settlement and defense costs. Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits -------------------------------------------------------- IDEX Corporation continues to defend itself against a number of asbestos-related personal injuries 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. The Company and six of its subsidiaries are presently named as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos- related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that contained asbestos. These components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. As of March 31, 2015, the majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to them. Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance have been settled for various insignificant amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does not currently believe the asbestos- related claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Company is also party to various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. IDEX Corporation (IDEX) is an applied solutions business that sells an array of pumps, flow meters and other fluidics systems and components and engineered products. All of the Company's business activities are carried out through wholly owned subsidiaries. It operates in three business segments: Fluid & Metering Technologies, Health & Science Technologies and Fire & Safety/Diversified Products. The Fluid & Metering Technologies contains the Energy, Water (consisting of Water Services & Technology and Diaphragm & Dosing Pump Technology), and Chemical, Food & Process platforms as well as the Agricultural group (consisting of Banjo). The Health & Science Technologies contains the IDEX Optics & Photonics, Scientific Fluidics and Material Processing Technologies platforms, as well as the Sealing Solutions and the Industrial (consisting of Micropump and Gast) groups. The Fire & Safety/Diversified Products consist of the Dispensing, Rescue, Band-It, and Fire Suppression groups. ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 1,074 PI Suits at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ TriMas Corporation was a party to 1,074 pending asbestos-related personal injury 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 party to 1,074 pending cases involving an aggregate of 7,733 claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries. The following chart summarizes the number of claimants, number of claims filed, number of claims dismissed, number of claims settled, the average settlement amount per claim and the total defense costs, exclusive of amounts reimbursed under the Company's primary insurance, at the applicable date and for the applicable periods: For the three-months ended March 31, 2015, there were 7,992 pending asbestos-related claims. In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used. The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos- related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which product identification can be made may increase, and the Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things, claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 7,733 claims pending at March 31, 2015, 126 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all asbestos-related cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been approximately $7.4 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. As of March 31, 2015, approximately 40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos- related claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely there will be a period within the next one or two years, prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement and following exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage, during which the Company will be solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid. Based on the settlements made as of March 31, 2015, and the number of claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based upon the Company's experience as of March 31, 2015, including the trend in annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other available information (including the availability of excess insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations or cash flows. TriMas Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer and distributor of applied products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. The Company provides the foundation for determining its priorities, executing its growth and productivity initiatives, and allocating capital. It operates six segments: Packaging, designs, manufactures and distributes specialty, highly-engineered closure and dispensing systems for end markets; Energy, manufactures and distributes metallic and non-metallic gaskets, bolts, industrial fasteners and specialty products for industrial markets; Aerospace and Defense, design and manufacture products for use in focused markets; Engineered Components, design, manufacture and distribute high-pressure and low-pressure cylinders for the transportation, storage and dispensing of compressed gases; Cequent APEA and Cequent Americas, design, manufacture and distribute custom-engineered towing, trailer and cargo management products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $500-Mil. Fibro Liability ------------------------------------------------------------ Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $500 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. Union Carbide Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the Corporation's products. The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims. Based on a study completed by Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation ("ARPC") in January 2003, the Corporation increased its December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2 billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since then, the Corporation has compared current asbestos claim and resolution activity to the results of the most recent ARPC study at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual continues to be appropriate. In addition, the Corporation has requested ARPC to review the Corporation's historical asbestos claim and resolution activity each year since 2004 to determine the appropriateness of updating the most recent ARPC study. In October 2014, the Corporation requested ARPC to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2012 study. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2014. The resulting study, completed by ARPC in December 2014, estimates that the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against UCC and Amchem, excluding future defense and processing costs, to be between $540 million and $640 million through 2029 based on the data as of September 30, 2014. As in earlier studies, ARPC provided longer periods of time in its December 2014 study, but also reaffirmed that forecasts for shorter periods of time are more accurate than those for longer periods of time. In December 2014, based on ARPC's December 2014 study and the Corporation's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity, the Corporation determined that an adjustment to the accrual was required due to the increase in mesothelioma claim activity compared with what had been forecasted in the December 2012 study. Accordingly, the Corporation increased its asbestos- related liability for pending and future claims by $78 million. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $513 million at December 31, 2014, and approximately 22 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 78 percent related to future claims. Based on the Corporation's review of 2015 activity, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at March 31, 2015. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $500 million at March 31, 2015. Approximately 20 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 80 percent related to future claims. Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world. The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building- block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $64MM Receivables at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation's total receivables related to its asbestos-related liability was $64 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. At December 31, 2002, the Corporation increased the receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to $1.35 billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability coverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos liability was determined by the Corporation after a thorough review of applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement, to which the Corporation and many of its liability insurers are signatory parties, as well as other insurance settlements, with due consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and taking into account the solvency and historical payment experience of various insurance carriers. The Wellington Agreement and other agreements with insurers are designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of the Corporation's insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. In September 2003, the Corporation filed a comprehensive insurance coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "Insurance Litigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers that were not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place with the Corporation regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. Since the filing of the case, the Corporation has reached settlements with most of the carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation and continues to pursue a settlement with the remaining carrier. The Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability was $10 million at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014. In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability, the Corporation had receivables for defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos- related insurance coverage. The Company's total receivables related to its asbestos-related liability as of March 31, 2015, was $64 million. After a review of its insurance policies, with due consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and after taking into account the solvency and historical payment experience of various insurance carriers; existing insurance settlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to the applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and conditions of its insurance policies, the Corporation continues to believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from all insurance carriers is probable of collection. The amounts recorded by the Corporation for the asbestos-related liability and related insurance receivable were based upon current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues among insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries for the Corporation to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. Because of the uncertainties, the Corporation's management cannot estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims facing UCC and Amchem. The Corporation's management believes that it is reasonably possible that the cost of disposing of the Corporation's asbestos-related claims, including future defense costs, could have a material impact on the Corporation's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of the Corporation. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of any of the legal proceedings and claims referred to in this filing, management believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses with respect to pending claims and proceedings, and that, except for the asbestos- related matters, the ultimate outcome of all known and future claims, after provisions for insurance, will not have a material adverse impact on the results of operations, cash flows and financial position of the Corporation. Should any losses be sustained in connection with any of such legal proceedings and claims in excess of provisions provided and available insurance, they will be charged to income when determinable. Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world. The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building- block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 17,935 Fibro Claimants --------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation and its subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc., had 17,935 asbestos-related claimants, 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 Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to UCC's products. It is the opinion of UCC's management that it is reasonably possible that the costs of disposing of its asbestos-related claims, including future defense costs, could have a material impact on the Corporation's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of the Corporation. There were 17,935 asbestos-related claimants against the Corporation and Amchem, based on criteria developed by UCC and its external consultants as of March 31, 2015, Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants. As a result, the damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury. In fact, there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants. For these reasons and based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement experience, the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged against it and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any potential asbestos-related liability. Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world. The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building- block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Has $97MM PI Claims Reserve -------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, had reserved approximately $97 million for asbestos-related bodily injury 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. Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by ComEd and PECO. The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis and excludes the estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could be material. At March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Generation had reserved approximately $97 million and $100 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of March 31, 2015, approximately $20 million of this amount related to 224 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $77 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is necessary. On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an employee's disability or death resulting from occupational disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court's ruling reverses previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding current and former employees from suing their employers in court, despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to asbestos. Currently, Exelon, Generation and PECO are unable to predict whether and to what extent they may experience additional claims in the future as a result of this ruling; as such no increase to the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been recorded as of March 31, 2015. Increased claims activity resulting from this ruling could have a material adverse effect on Exelon's, Generation's and PECO's future results of operations and cash flows. Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries. Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and contracted electric generating facilities and investments in generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing activities. ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the provision of transmission and distribution services to retail customers in northern Illinois. PECO's energy delivery business in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Disclosure of Fibro Settlements Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joan A. Madden of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the post-verdict motions filed by defendants Cleaver Brooks, Inc., and Burnham LLC for orders compelling asbestos plaintiffs to provide documentation pertaining to all settlements the plaintiffs have entered into, including settlements with bankruptcy trusts. Judge Madden ruled that the Defendants have failed to establish a legal or factual basis for that part of their motions seeking discovery of settlement agreements and amounts with respect to these settling entities. The case is SANTOS ASSENZIO and ANNITOLIA ASSENZIO, ROBERT BRUNCK PAUL LEVY and ROSLYN LEVY CESAR O. SERNA RAYMOND VINCENT, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NOS. 190008/12, 190026/12, 190200/12, 190183/12, 190184/12 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Madden's Decision is available at http://is.gd/rwZ5Fxfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Court Refuses to Remand "Vesper" ------------------------------------------------------------ Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in an opinion dated July 30, 2015, denied a motion to remand the asbestos-related case captioned GEORGE VESPER, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-01322 (JBS/AMD)(D.N.J.). A full-text copy of Judge Simandle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/P0KOOcfrom Leagle.com. Michael S. Noonan, Esq., THE NOONAN LAW FIRM LLC, Red Bank, NJ, William L. Kuzmin, Esq., COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C., Red Bank, NJ, Attorneys for the Plaintiff. Christopher J. Keale, Esq. -- christopher.keale@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP, Newark, NJ, Attorney for Defendants CBS Corporation, Foster Wheeler, LLC, and General Electric Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Partially Strikes Opinions in "Vedros" ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated July 29, 2015, granted in part and denied in part motions to strike filed in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned SALLY GROS VEDROS, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING, INC., ET AL, Section: "J"(4), CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1198 (E.D. La.). Specifically, Judge Barbier granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus Which Are Outside the Scope of Opinions Offered by Dr. Samuel Hammar; and denied as moot the Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum to Plaintiff's Opposition and the Motion for Leave for Amchem to File Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike. A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision is available at http://is.gd/fJIdl9from Leagle.com. Sally Gros Vedros, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Lori Vedros Kravet, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Valerie Vedros White, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Gerald Vedros, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Albert Bossier, Jr., Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Gordon Peter Wilson, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Onebeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. American Employers Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Gordon Peter Wilson, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. American Motorists Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP & Gordon Peter Wilson, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael A. Olsen, Mayer Brown, LLP, Alexandra Lamothe, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lee Blanton Ziffer, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Robert Edward Guidry, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Sophia L. Lauricella, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP. Eagle, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by Edward T. Hayes, Leake & Andersson, LLP, Adam D Whitworth, Leake & Andersson, LLP & Marc E. Devenport, Leake & Andersson, LLP. Continental Insurance Co, Defendant, represented by Glenn Gill Goodier, Jones Walker, Hansford P. Wogan, Jones Walker, William C. Baldwin, Jones Walker & William P. Wynne, Jones Walker. Uniroyal Inc, Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Jason K. Elam, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP. Albert L Bossier, Jr, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Plaintiff, represented by Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP & David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow & Lewis. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jonathan Paul Hilbun, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Albert L Bossier, Jr, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. J Melton Garrett, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. McCarty Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael A. Olsen, Mayer Brown, LLP, Alexandra Lamothe, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lee Blanton Ziffer, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Robert Edward Guidry, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Sophia L. Lauricella, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Claimant, represented by Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow & Lewis. Eagle, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Reilly-Benton, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Diane Sweezer Davis, Funderburk Finderburk Courtois, LLP, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jennifer D. Zajac, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Kenneth R. Royer, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, LLP. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Jevan Smoot Fleming, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. CBS Corporation, Cross 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.. Maryland Casualty Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Edward T. Hayes, Leake & Andersson, LLP, Adam D Whitworth, Leake & Andersson, LLP, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Marc E. Devenport, Leake & Andersson, LLP. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael A. Olsen, Mayer Brown, LLP, Alexandra Lamothe, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lee Blanton Ziffer, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Robert Edward Guidry, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Sophia L. Lauricella, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP. General Electric Company, Cross 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.. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. American Employers Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Overturns Jury Verdict in "Smith" ------------------------------------------------------------ On January 27, 2014, after a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, James Smith, the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, the Illinois Central Railroad Company. On July 11, 2014, the court denied the defendant's post- trial motion but allowed credits from prior settlements to reduce the amount of the jury award. The Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court erred in multiple ways. The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, in an opinion dated July 30, 2015, reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred by preventing the defendant from presenting evidence regarding the plaintiff's work history at the Union Asbestos & Rubber Company (UNARCO) facility at the Bloomington rail yard. The case is JAMES SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, NO. 4-14-0703 (Ill. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/ckwoDQfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aug. 19 Pretrial Conference Set for "Andreadis" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Barbara Jaffe of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated July 24, 2015, denied Michail Andreadis, et al.'s motion for an order consolidating certain asbestos cases for trial. Judge Jaffe directed the parties to appear for a final pretrial conference on August 19, 2015 at 2:30 pm at 80 Centre Street, Room 279, in New York. The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MICHAIL ANDREADIS, Plaintiff, v. ABB, INC., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190411/13 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Jaffe's Decision is available at http://is.gd/zOsVEofrom Leagle.com. Derell D. Wilson, Esq., The Early Law Firm, 360 Lexington Ave., 20th fl., New York, NY 10017, 212-986-2233, For plaintiff. Matthew H. Mueller, Esq. -- wmueller@cm-legal.com -- Clemente Mueller, P.A., 5 Penn Plaza, 23rd fl., New York, NY 10001, 212- 425-5005, For William Powell Co. Austin D. O'Malley, Esq. -- aomalley@cullenanddykman.com -- Cullen and Dykman LLP, 44 Wall St., New York, NY 100005-2407, 212-732- 2000, For Mario & DiBono. Stephen Novakidis, Esq. -- snovakidis@mblaw.net -- Malaby & Bradley, LLC, 150 Broadway, 6th fl., New York, NY 10038, 212-791- 0285, For joint defendants. Mark K. Hsu, Esq. -- mhsu@hptylaw.com -- and Joanna Drozd, Esq. -- jdrozd@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell et al., 600 Lexington Ave., 8th fl., New York, NY 10022, 212-897-9655, For Milwaukee/Oakfabco. Lee D. Schneider, Esq. -- lschneider@mklaw.us.com -- McGivney & Kluger, P.C., 80 Broad St., 23rd fl., New York, NY 10004, 212-509- 3456, For Fairbanks. Austin D. O'Malley, Esq., Cullen and Dykman LLP, 44 Wall St., New York, NY 100005-2407, 212-732-2000, For Goulds. Samantha J. Geoghan, Esq. -- samantha.geoghan@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, et al., 150 E. 42nd St., New York, NY 10017, 212- 915-5542, For Andal. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Time in 3 NYCAL Suits Enlarged to Nov. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in decisions dated July 28, 2015, enlarged to the November 2015 Term the time to perfect appeal in the following cases: * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. BRESCHARD, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. -- CRANE CO. -- ESTATE OF BRESCHARD, MOTION NO. M-2642 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/D4a7iefrom Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. ACEVEDO, v. A.P. GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC. -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-2641 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/GGNBk4from Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. MARKOU, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-2640 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/oHjXBGfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Certifies Securities Suit vs. Halliburton ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Barbara M.H. Lynn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, in a memorandum opinion and order dated July 25, 2015, granted in part The Erica P. John Fund, Inc., et al.'s motion for class certification, only with respect to the alleged corrective disclosure of December 7, 2001, in the case captioned THE ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. HALLIBURTON COMPANY and DAVID J. LESAR, Defendants, NO. 3:02-CV- 1152-M (N.D. Tex.). EPJ Fund is the lead plaintiff in a putative class action against Halliburton and one of its executives alleging violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR Section 240.10b-5 (2013). According to EPJ Fund . . . Halliburton made a series of misrepresentations regarding its potential liability in asbestos litigation, its expected revenue from certain construction contracts, and the anticipated benefits of its merger with another company -- all in an attempt to inflate the price of its stock. Halliburton subsequently made a number of corrective disclosures, which, EPJ Fund contends, caused the company's stock price to drop and investors to lose money. Judge Lynn denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as to the other five corrective disclosures on which Plaintiffs rely. A full-text copy of Judge Lynn's Decision is available at http://is.gd/SpjXVHfrom Leagle.com. Highlands Insurance Company, In Re, represented by Brian S Martin, Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons LLP. Richard Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Marc R Stanley, Stanley Law Group, E Lawrence Vincent, Law Office of Joe H Staley PC, Martin Woodward, Stanley Law Group, Nadeem Faruqi, Faruqi & Faruqi & Roger L Mandel, Lackey Hershman LLP. Private Asset Management, Plaintiff, represented by Darren J Check, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, E Lawrence Vincent, Law Office of Joe H Staley PC, John G Emerson, Jr, Emerson Poynter, Kay E Sickles, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Marc I Willner, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Richard S Schiffrin, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Stuart L Berman, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood. Erica P John Fund Inc, Plaintiff, represented by David Boies, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Arthur L Shingler, III, Scott + Scott, Carl E Goldfarb, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Caryl L Boies, Boies Schiller & Flexner, David R Scott, Scott + Scott, E Lawrence Vincent, Law Office of Joe H Staley PC, Edmund W Searby, Scott + Scott, Justin D Fitzdam, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Kim E Miller, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, Marc R Stanley, Stanley Law Group, Mark V Jackowski, Scott + Scott LLP, Neil Rothstein, Truth in Corporate Justice, Robert M Thornton, Kilgore & Kilgore, Sashi Bach Boruchow, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood, William S Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, Willie Briscoe & Theodore Carl Anderson, III, Kilgore & Kilgore PLLC. Gabriel T Forrest, Plaintiff, represented by David R Scott, Scott + Scott, E Lawrence Vincent, Law Office of Joe H Staley PC, Gregory M Nespole, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, John G Emerson, Jr, Emerson Poynter, Jules Brody, Esq. -- jbrody@ssbny.com -- Stull Stull & Brody, Kay E Sickles, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Patrick Slyne, Esq. -- pkslyne@ssbny.com -- Stull Stull & Brody, Richard S Schiffrin, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP & William B Federman, Esq. -- wbf@federmanlaw.com -- Federman & Sherwood. Paul J Benec, Plaintiff, represented by David R Scott, Scott + Scott, E Lawrence Vincent, Law Office of Joe H Staley PC, Gregory M Nespole, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, John G Emerson, Jr, Emerson Poynter, Jules Brody, Stull Stull & Brody, Kay E Sickles, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Richard S Schiffrin, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood. Gary McAdams, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Alfred G Yates, Jr, Law Office of Alfred G Yates Jr, Paul J Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steven E Cauley, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood. Meyer Meyer Abramowitz, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Marc R Stanley, Stanley Law Group, Martin Woodward, Stanley Law Group & Roger L Mandel, Lackey Hershman LLP. David Garden, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Marc R Stanley, Stanley Law Group, Brian P Murray, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Eric J Belfi, Murray Frank & Sailer, Leo W Desmond, Law Office of Leo W Desmond & Roger L Mandel, Esq. -- rlm@lhlaw.net -- Lackey Hershman LLP. Manisha Patel, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Theodore Carl Anderson, III, Kilgore & Kilgore PLLC, Marc I Gross, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, Patrick V Dahlstrom, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, Richard J Vita, Law Office of Richard J Vita & Stanley M Grossman, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross. Leslie Turbowitz, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Kay E Sickles, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Marc A Topaz, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Paul J Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Robert B Weiser, Weiser Law Firm, Scott E Poynter, Emerson Poynter, Steven E Cauley, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood. Alan Gampel, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Brian M Felgoise, Law Offices of Brian M Felgoise, Robert J Dyer, III, Dyer & Berens LLP, Robert Schachter, Esq. -- rschachter@zsz.com -- Zwerling Schachter Zwerling & Koppell & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood. Francisco Vasquez, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Corey D Holzer, Holzer Holzer & Cannon LLC & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood. Betty P Thibodeau, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey R Krinsk, Finkelstein & Krinsk & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood. Alida S Coelho, Consol Plaintiff, represented by John G Emerson, Jr, Esq. -- jemerson@emersonfirmcom -- Emerson Poynter & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood. John A Coelho, Consol Plaintiff, represented by John G Emerson, Jr, Emerson Poynter & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood. Kevin A Stanley, Consol Plaintiff, represented by William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood. Salomea J Goldberg-Blum, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Thomas E Bilek, The Bilek Law Firm LLP. Lori A Russo, Consol Plaintiff, represented by William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood. Ernest Hack, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Adam J Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer PA, Charles J Piven, Law Office of Charles J Piven, Fred T Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz & Thomas Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz. Robert W Davis, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Thomas E Bilek, The Bilek Law Firm LLP, Aaron Brody, Stull Stull & Brody & Jules Brody, Stull Stull & Brody. Charles G Nemeth, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Richard J Zook, Cunningham Darlow Zook & Chapoton. Diana L Parkes, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Marc R Stanley, Stanley Law Group, David R Scott, Esq. -- david.scott@scott- scott.com -- Scott + Scott, John G Emerson, Jr, Emerson Poynter & Neil Rothstein, Truth in Corporate Justice. David Jaroslawicz, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Richard J Zook, Cunningham Darlow Zook & Chapoton & John G Emerson, Jr, Emerson Poynter. Polar Investment Club, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Fred T Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz. John Kimble, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Arthur L Shingler, III, Scott + Scott & Theodore Carl Anderson, III, Kilgore & Kilgore PLLC. Halliburton Company, Defendant, represented by Jessica B Pulliam, Esq. -- jessica.pulliam@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts, David D Sterling, Esq. -- david.sterling@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP, John Benjamin Lawrence, Esq. -- john.lawrence@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts & Thomas E O'Brien, Esq. -- tom.obrien@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP. David J Lesar, Consol Defendant, represented by David D Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Jessica B Pulliam, Baker Botts, John Benjamin Lawrence, Baker Botts & Thomas E O'Brien, Baker Botts LLP. Arthur Andersen LLP, Consol Defendant, represented by Lea F Courington, Stewart Strong Dugger Dean Kulwicki Johnson & Slater PLLC & Lindsey C Cummings, Bellinger & DeWolf LLP. The Benec Group, Movant, represented by Charles J Piven, Law Office of Charles J Piven, Fred T Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood. Forrest Lead Plaintiffs, Movant, represented by Jules Brody, Stull Stull & Brody & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood. John Miletello, Movant, represented by Marc R Stanley, Stanley Law Group. Patricia A Magruder, Movant, represented by Craig M Walker, Walker Law, Dennis D Gibson, Gibson Law Firm & James M McCoy, The McCoy Law Firm. Ben Alan Murphey, Intervenor, represented by Theodore Carl Anderson, III, Kilgore & Kilgore PLLC. City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System, Intervenor, represented by Joe Kendall, Kendall Law Group LLP, Andrew J Brown, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Thomas G Wilhelm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & William S Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins. Laborers National Pension Fund, Intervenor, represented by Joe Kendall, Kendall Law Group LLP, Andrew J Brown, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Thomas G Wilhelm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, William S Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins & Willie Briscoe . Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Intervenor, represented by Joe Kendall, Kendall Law Group LLP, Andrew J Brown, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Thomas G Wilhelm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & William S Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins. ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Court Remands "Brown" ------------------------------------------------- Harold Brown initiated a common law tort action in New Jersey Superior Court on May 2, 2014, alleging injury from workplace asbestos exposure. The Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 15, 2015, and the Plaintiff now moves to remand it to New Jersey Superior Court. In an opinion dated July 28, 2015, U.S. District Judge William H. Walls granted the Plaintiff's motion, holding that removal of the case to federal court on diversity grounds was improper under the voluntary-involuntary rule. The case is HAROLD BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CATERPILLAR, INC., et al., Defendants, CIV. NO. 15-02687 (WHW)(CLW)(D.N.J.). A full-text copy of Judge Walls' Decision is available at http://is.gd/1Se9TI from Leagle.com. HAROLD BROWN, Plaintiff, represented by LEAH CYLIA KAGAN, LEVY PHILLIPS KONINGSBERG LLP & ROBERT E. LYTLE, Esq. -- RLytle@szaferman.com -- SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC. CATERPILLAR, INC., Defendant, represented by PAUL JOSEPH SMYTH, Esq. -- psmyth@moodklaw.com -- MARKS O'NEILL O'BRIEN DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C.. CUMMINS, INCORPORATED, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA. DANA COMPANIES, LLC, Defendant, represented by GARY D. VAN LIEU, Esq. -- gvanlieu@ofwvlaw.com -- O'TOOLE FERNANDEZ WEINER VAN LIEU, LLC. FEDERAL MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, Defendant, represented by JOSEPH M. TOMAINO, Esq. -- jtomaino@lcbf.com -- LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE & FORD, PC. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOSEPH F. LAGROTTERIA, Esq. -- joseph.lagrotteria@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIRRYAN, ROBYN GNUDI KALOCSAY, Esq. -- robyngnudi.kalocsay@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIRRYAN & MICHAEL DORON GOLDKLANG, Esq. -- michael.goldklang@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIR RYAN. MACK TRUCKS, INC., Defendant, represented by JOHN CHRISTIE MCMEEKIN, II, Esq. -- jmcmeekin@rawle.com -- RAWLE AND HENDERSON LLP. MCCORD CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by ANDREW J. SCHOLZ, Esq. -- ascholz@goldbergsegalla.com -- GIKDBERG SEGALLA LLP & H. LOCKWOOD MILLER, III, Esq. -- hmiller@goldbergsegalla.com -- GOLDBERG SEGALLA 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. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 * * *