/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150811.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 11, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 159 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Removed "Chamberlain" Suit to N.D. West Virginia A & S ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ADVAXIS INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Stock Options AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Brodsky" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing ANTHEM INC: Faces Data Breach Class Suit APPLE: "Shrinkage" Class Suit Trial to Begin January APPLE: Sued Over Refurbished AppleCare+ Hardware Replacements ARAMEX INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Lozano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ASHLEY MADISON: Could Face Data Breach Class Suit BLL RESTAURANT: Faces "Galindo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BLUE CROSS: Michigan Chiropractors Get Deal in Class Suit BURNSVILLE, MN: Faces Class Suit over Carport Inspections CAN-ROXY: Recalls Candy Products Due to Soy, Milk and Wheat CANADA: Class Suit Over CWB Battle Continues, Lawsuit Amended CAPALA BROTHERS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Plaintiff Fee Award in Wage Suit CERTIFIED CREDIT: Faces "Palmer" Class Suit Over FDPCA Violation CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL: Faces Data Breach Class Suit CHRYSLER: Durango Rollover Document May Spur More Settlements CLEAN AIR: Faces "Chang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages D&H CANADA: Recalls Tablet Computers Due to Fire Hazard EAST CHEMICAL: Judge Gives More Time On Chemical Leak Records ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT EZCORP INC: Glancy Prongay Firm Files Securities Class Suit FOREST LABORATORIES: Court Refuses To Toll Statute of Limitations GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers Spar Over Scope of Valukas Deposition GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GERMAINE LAW: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit in Ariz. Over FDCPA Violation HARBOR RAIL: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HERCULES TIRE: Recalls Multiple Tire Models HORIZON HEALTH: Class Suit Continues Despite Dr. Menon's Death HOWARD S. SCHNEIDER: Judge Weighs in on Abuse Suit IDAHO: Inmate Can Move Forward with Heart Attack Suit INNOVATE LOGISTICS: Removed "Torres" Suit to New Jersey Court JB HUNT: Removes "Silfani" Class Suit to Massachusetts Dist. Ct. JOHN DEERE: Recalls Lawn Tractors Due to Crash Hazard JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices KAMBOUSI RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages KEURIG GREEN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Derek Palaschuk Agrees to $2.3MM Class Deal LOUISIANA: Retirement System Sued Over Reimbursement Failure MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls Activity Toys Due to Choking Hazard MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Sequential Merger Plan MERRILL LYNCH: Sued in Florida Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties MF GLOBAL: Corzine Must Face Commodities Customer Class Suit MICROSOFT: May Face Class Suit Over Xbox 360 Defective Discs NAT'L FOOTBALL: Seau Family Seeks Trial in Concussions Suit NAT'L MILK: Retailers Expand Dairy Antitrust Litigation NEW JERSEY: 150 Hurricane Sandy Insurance Cases Await Settlement NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Discrimination Suit NISSAN: Court Approves Deal in Leaf Misleading Advertising Suit PENNSYLVANIA: Four-Time Killer's Death Penalty Delayed PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Aug. 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Kadin" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger ROWAN COUNTY, KY: Judge Hears Testimony in Licensing Suit SANDHURST-WICKHAM: Class Action Has First Court Hearing SCHUMACHER & SEILER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages SMKH LLC: Removes "Sobrino" Class Suit to S.D. Florida SOLAZYME INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit STABIL DRILL: "Veillon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages US HEALTHWORKS: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims VALENCIA HOLDING: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, Court Rules VICE MEDIA: Faces "Ruiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk WASHINGTON: Tardy Toll Payers Given Break From Late Penalties WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Rejects EPA Pre-emption Claim in Washer Suit YINGLI GREEN: Goldberg Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit * FCRA Class Action Suits Rise Sharply in June 2015 * U.S. Securities Class Actions Against Chinese Companies Rise ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Removed "Chamberlain" Suit to N.D. West Virginia -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Tammy Chamberlain, Juanita Gray, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. 7-Eleven, Inc. d/b/a 7-Eleven, d/b/a 7-Eleven 35901-35969 and other store names, and 7-Eleven Sales Corporation, Case No. 15-C- 159 was removed from the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia to the U.S. District Court Northern District of West Virginia (Wheeling). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00095-FPS to the proceeding. The case asserts a claim for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. Rodney A. Smith, Esq. Tony L. Clackler, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com rsmith@baileyglasser.com tclackler@baileyglasser.com - and - Joy B. Mega, Esq. Todd S. Bailess, Esq. BAILESS LAW, PLLC 120 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 342-0550 Facsimile: (304) 344-5529 E-mail: bailesslaw@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric W. Iskra, Esq. Gordon Lee Mowen II, Esq. SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE PLLC 300 Kanawha Blvd E P. O. Box 273 Charleston, WV 25321-0273 Telephone: (304) 340-3875 Facsimile: (304) 340-3801 E-mail: eiskra@spilmanlaw.com gmowen@spilmanlaw.com A & S ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deandra Brunson, and other similarly situated individuals v. A & S Entertainment, LLC d/b/a The Office a/k/a The Office, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-22778-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. A & S Entertainment, LLC owns and operates an entertainment club having its main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com ADVAXIS INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Stock Options ----------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Larkin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Advaxis, Inc., et al., Case No. 11338-CB (Del. Ch., July 27, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the stockholders of Advaxis, Inc., to enjoin the improper granting of "spring-loaded" stock options to the Defendants, as well as the excessive and unfair compensation received by the non-employee Board members. Advaxis, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing multiple cancer immunotherapies. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Jenkins, Esq. Neal C. Belgam, Esq. SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS, LLP 1000 West Street, Suite 1501 P.O. Box 410 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 504-1688 E-mail: djenkins@skjlaw.com nbelgam@skjlaw.com - and - Steven J. Purcell, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Brodsky" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ethan Brodsky, Jeffrey Robb, and Valbona Alla, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Delta Airlines, Inc., American Airlines Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and united Airlines, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00902-JPS (E.D. Wis., July 27, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline tickets through signaling one another how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra seats in order to limit the capacity, and limiting access to competitive fare information to keep the price of airfares artificially high. The Defendants operate the largest commercial airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Guri Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP 3620 E Layton Ave Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com sademi@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- James L. Stewart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and Unite Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15- cv-03446-CRB (N.D. Cal., July 27, 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 operate the largest commercial airlines in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq. THE MEHDI FIRM, PC One Market Spear Tower, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 293-8039 Facsimile: (415) 293-8001 E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com ANTHEM INC: Faces Data Breach Class Suit ---------------------------------------- Dan Harkins, writing for Louisiana Record, reported that a couple is filing a class action lawsuit against a major insurance agency, alleging failure to protect against a recent hacking breach of security for 80 million customers. Stephen and Beryl Fisse, for their minor daughter, filed a lawsuit June 17 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Anthem Inc. and the Anthem Cos. Inc. The complaint states this class action is for all previous and present Anthem customers who had personal data stolen hackers, allegedly due "to Anthem's failure to adhere to reasonable, industry-standard practices." On Feb. 4, 2015, the suit says, Anthem announced its information breach, specifically the personal data of about 80 million former and current insurance plan customers, including their Social Security numbers, street addresses, birthdays, email addresses, employment information and income, the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs seek to classify this case as a class action and appoint the plaintiffs as representatives of the class and its counsel as class counsel, as well as to enter a judgment against the defendants for cited negligent misrepresentations, breaches of implied and express contracts and unjust enrichment. Stephen and Beryl Fisse seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, plus attorney fees and court costs. They are represented by attorneys Arthur M. Murray, Stephen B. Murray Sr. and Amanda K. Klevorn of Murray Law Firm in New Orleans. APPLE: "Shrinkage" Class Suit Trial to Begin January ---------------------------------------------------- David Kravets, writing for ARS, reported that a federal judge has ruled that Apple must defend a class-action trial, to begin in January, representing thousands of Apple store workers. The employees claim they had to spend as much as 20 minutes off the clock having their bags searched to combat employee theft -- known as "shrinkage" -- every time they left the premises. According to US District Judge William Alsup's ruling: "In stores where searches were performed by the manager on duty, some employees say they had to scour the store to find a manager and wait until that manager finished with other duties, such as assisting a customer. Where searches were performed by a security guard, some employees had to wait until a security guard became available. Some employees sometimes had to wait in line. Employee estimates of the duration of the whole process, including both searches and wait times, range from five minutes to up to twenty minutes per search, with extremes occurring during busy periods such as product launches or holiday seasons. By contrast, managers estimate wait times at only a few seconds." Decision sets the stage for a rare public glimpse into how Apple treats its retail store workers. Store workers in 2012 e-mailed Apple chief Tim Cook saying the search policy treated employees "as criminals." Alsup's decision applies to about 12,400 workers in California, which has more employee-friendly work regulations than those of the federal government or other states. Alsup allowed the litigation to continue despite the Supreme Court ruling in 2014 that warehouse workers for Amazon.com in Nevada could be forced to spend as much as 25 minutes off the clock to undergo security screenings at the end of their shift. Apple has maintained that the lawsuit should not be granted class- action status because not all stores conducted the searches or, in the alternative, the searches only took seconds and did not warrant compensation. Here is Apple's employee store search policy, according to the court record: * Ask the employee to open every bag, brief case, back pack, purse, etc. * Ask the employee to remove any type of item that Apple may sell. Be sure to verify the serial number of the employee's personal technology against the personal technology log. * Visually inspect the inside of the bag and view its contents. Be sure to ask the employee to unzip zippers and compartments so you can inspect the entire contents of the bag. If there are bags within a bag, such as a cosmetics case, be sure to ask the employee to open these bags as well. * At no time should you remove any items inside the bag or touch the employee's personal belongings. If something looks questionable, ask the employee to move or remove items from the bag so that the bag check can be completed. * In the event that a questionable item is found, ask the employee to remove the item from the bag. Apple will reserve the right to hold onto the questioned item until it can be verified as employee owned. (This will make the employee more aware to log in all items at start of shift.) * If the item cannot be verified by [the manager on duty], contact Loss Prevention. The policy requires workers to find a manager or security guard to check their bags before leaving the store. Failure to comply, according to Alsup's ruling, "may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination." Trial is set for January 25 in San Francisco federal court. APPLE: Sued Over Refurbished AppleCare+ Hardware Replacements ------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Fingas, writing for AppleInsider, reported that a case was entered July 18 via the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of Joanne McRight, a woman whose father bought her an iPhone 5 with AppleCare+ from an Apple Store in Friendswood, Texas in December 2012. Her screen later broke, and in September 2013 McRight paid AppleCare+'s then-$49 accidental damage fee to secure a replacement. The new device's screen also broke, leading to her paying another $49 in May 2014. Lawyers for McRight said that neither of the devices were new or "equivalent to new in both performance and reliability," as promised in the official terms for AppleCare+. Specifically, McRight argues that refurbished devices -- something Apple frequently offers up in place of broken units -- do not qualify. McRight's father later bought her an iPhone 6 with AppleCare+ in September 2014, but that device's screen broke as well, leading her to seek replacement in July, this time at the increased accidental damage fee of $79. Once again Apple allegedly supplied her with a device that was not equivalent to new. The proposed class covers anyone who bought an AppleCare or AppleCare+ plan between July 11, 2011 and the present, regardless of whether the device is an iPhone. McNight's attorneys are asking for an injunction forcing Apple to provide new devices to people wanting replacements, as well as compensation in the form of legal fees and damages totaling at least $5 million, a minimum set by the Class Action Fairness Act. ARAMEX INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Lozano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edgar Lozano v. Aramex International Courier, Ltd., Case No. 707869/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor Law. Aramex International Courier, Ltd. operates a courier service which operates across the United States, internationally, and within New York State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com ASHLEY MADISON: Could Face Data Breach Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- Laura Wright, writing for CBC News, reported that several high- profile hacks, including the recent attack against Ashley Madison, a website for people looking to have an affair, have raised questions about whether online activity is ever truly private. Ashley Madison is built around the notion of safeguarding its users' information -- reflected in its signature image of a woman's pursed lips making the 'shh' sign, seemingly meant to reassure would-be adulterers that their secrets are safe. But now, hackers say 37 million accounts have been compromised. The company's owner, Toronto-based Avid Life Media, said it has "always had the confidentiality of our customers' information foremost in our minds" but was not able to assure its users that their information is safe. A similar website, Adult FriendFinder, was also hacked in May. Is secret information online -- from a sordid affair to an embarrassing Twilight fan-fiction blog -- ever really secure? Likely not, security and privacy experts say. "What people should think about is just acceptable risk. Any time you're using a computer or giving away information of any kind, there is the risk that can be misused," says Andrew Hilts, executive director at Open Effect, a Canadian non-profit that does research on privacy and security. "It comes down to what level of risk you're comfortable with," says Hilts. "When payment comes into play, often credit cards are used and that's pretty inexorably tied to an identity," he adds. Brian Bourne, co-founder of SecTor, an IT security conference, says a motivated hacker can break into any site. He estimates, based on what the hackers posted online, the Ashley Madison attack took several months or even years. "To do what they did generally requires more skill and effort and patience," says Bourne. "So it's not a drive-by and it's not a smash and grab." Bourne adds that hackers having long-term access to networks is "embarrassingly common." The Ashley Madison hackers take issue with its reported $19 charge to users for deleting their information. The hackers say the company doesn't actually delete it, a claim the company disputes. But a security expert says it's difficult for any company to fully delete user information. Robert Beggs, a manager for technical security at Pricewaterhousecoopers, says information on even a simple website's database can easily end up in multiple places, such as test and backup databases, or with marketers. Compounding the issue is that many companies don't know where the information on their database goes, or even sometimes where it's stored. "So when you say, 'Ashley Madison, remove this data,' it will exist in multiple forms," says Beggs. Beggs says it's reasonable to expect that any profile information on a site like Ashley Madison would be removed, but a user's credit card information legally has to be kept on file for up to seven years, which can be linked to a person's name. Privacy lawyer David Fraser says companies are not required to guarantee the safety of information they collect. But they do have to implement commensurate safeguards. "Canadian privacy laws are more principles-based than anything else -- how in fact they apply is sometimes a matter of opinion," he says. Fraser expects a big fallout for Ashley Madison, though the possibility of individual lawsuits isn't likely to pay off for the user, he says. "Courts haven't taken privacy breaches to be associated with a high level of damages. So unless you can point to financial loss, the damages a court would award for hurt feelings or anxiety are not particularly high and almost would never make it worth your while in light of legal fees," says Fraser. He says a massive class-action lawsuit is more likely if hackers publicize users' information, because the damages would be higher if more people are affected. "A large number of people probably find the Ashley Madison site personally repugnant and problematic, but I don't think the law would make that distinction," says Fraser. "Regardless of the morality, privacy is about individuals being able to make choices about how their information is collected, used or disclosed." Fraser says it would be a different story if the site encouraged illegal activity, but affairs are well within the confines of Canadian law. He adds there is a precedent in Canadian law for protecting class- action participants' identities; so users of the site wouldn't necessarily "out" themselves if they took part. Hilts, at Open Effect, says if people want to keep their online behaviour away from prying eyes, there are certain steps they can take. He suggests creating a throwaway email, using pseudonyms, and to avoid paying online with a credit card. He also suggests using browsers in "incognito" mode or deleting internet search histories. But at the end of the day, online activity can always be dragged into the bright light of day. "With every decision you make, decide that if the site loses control of this information, would anyone have information that I'd be upset to have public?" says Hilts. BLL RESTAURANT: Faces "Galindo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rufino de Jesus Galindo, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. BLL Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Porto Bello Restaurant and Vincenzo Bevilacqua, Case No. 1:15-cv-05885 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Porto Bello Restaurant located at 208 Thompson Street, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Gurrieri, Esq. Law Office of Justin A. Zeller 277 Broadway Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 884-0935 Facsimile: (212) 224-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com BLUE CROSS: Michigan Chiropractors Get Deal in Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Chiropractic Economics reported that the Michigan Association of Chiropractors (MAC) is proud to announce that after months of intense negotiations, a settlement has been reached in lawsuits against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network, two of Michigan's largest health insurers. The signed settlement agreements are believed to be the most successful Blue Cross settlements ever reached by a chiropractic state association. When these settlements are implemented on August 1, 2015, chiropractors will be treated fairly under Michigan's chiropractic scope of practice and will be able to be reimbursed for many new services needed by their patients. "These agreements are truly historic for the chiropractic profession in our state," said Damian Palmer, DC, president, MAC. "The settlements are the result of many years of unbelievably hard work and dedication on the part of MAC leadership and our members. This is a major win in the fight to end discrimination against chiropractors and our patients." The settlement agreements, which become effective August 1, 2015, contain provisions relating to the following: Expansion of CPT Code Coverage: * If medically necessary, CMT code 98943 (Extra-spinal) and radiological codes that are part of a Blue Cross policy will now be covered. * All medically necessary physical medicine procedures that are part of a Blue Cross policy, and in the chiropractic scope, will now be covered. * Coverage for evaluation and management services will now be the same for chiropractors as for all other physician groups MAC Representation: The settlement also allows MAC direct representation on Blue Cross Committees dealing with audits, profiling, and utilization management of chiropractors. Marketing Materials: MAC will also have input on relevant marketing materials and will continue to partner with Blue Cross on efforts to include more chiropractors in the BCBSM Physician Group Incentive Program (PGIP) Dispute Resolution Process: Finally, a dispute resolution meeting process will be utilized to help ensure future concerns are dealt with quickly and without the need for litigation. Attorney fees were also included in the settlement. "This settlement will have a major impact on every Michigan chiropractic office that participates with the Blues," said Thomas Klapp, DC, Chair, MAC Legal Affairs Committee. "Chiropractors can now not only practice as we are educated and trained, leading to enhanced patient care, but also be paid for the services we perform. It's a significant win." BURNSVILLE, MN: Faces Class Suit over Carport Inspections --------------------------------------------------------- Joe Augustine, writing for ABC News, reported that the metal frames and tin roofs of carports were bolted in years ago in Burnsville. "It was up there when I bought the place," Donna Stiele said about the carport that sits in front of her double-wide mobile home. Stiele's home in the Rambush Estates mobile home park in Burnsville is on the market and she believes being one of 22 homes in the park with a carport makes it more valuable. "It certainly is a selling point," Stiele saAt least, it was a selling point. The city of Burnsville sent out 22 notices earlier this summer notifying carport owners they must take down their driveway structures. "All of them were installed without a permit," Christopher Forslund, the city's code enforcement coordinator, said. Forslund says the code violations were discovered during citywide inspections, which were ramped up three years ago at the instruction of the city council. "That's the frightening part," he sa"We don't know how they're installed." Homeowners can apply for a variance to be able to keep their carports if they meet the building codes. An attorney representing several homeowners in the park filed a class action lawsuit against the city claiming, among other things, the city does not have the authority to conduct inspections of carports. The lawsuit cites a state statute that says the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry "shall have the exclusive right to conduct inspections" of manufactured premises and homes. It's not clear if that applies to accessory items like carports which are installed separately from the manufactured home. A spokesperson for The Department of Labor and Industry did not comment specifically on this issue but did say it is typical for cities to enforce state building codes within city limits. Anlya Martinez will not wait to find out who is in charge of the inspections. "I don't want no problems; I'm going to remove it," Martinez saHer carport was installed before she bought her mobile home two years ago. "I already sold it," she added. CAN-ROXY: Recalls Candy Products Due to Soy, Milk and Wheat ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 31, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Can Roxy Trading Inc. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail Can-Roxy Trading Inc. is recalling Coffee Soft Candy, Maccha Soft Candy and Ribon brand Soft Hokkaido Milk Candy from the marketplace because they contain soy, milk and wheat which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to soy, milk or wheat or with a sensitivity to gluten should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to soy, milk or wheat or a sensitivity to gluten do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC ---------- ----------- ---- product --- ---------- Japanese Coffee Soft 90 g All codes where 4 901243- Characters Candy soy, milk and 120684 Only wheat are not properly declared on the label Japanese Maccha Soft 90 g All codes where 4 901243- Characters Candy soy, milk and 120233 Only wheat are not properly declared on the label Ribon Soft Hokkaido 110 g All codes where 4 903316- Milk Candy milk is not 430812 properly declared on the label Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/nEqu0V CANADA: Class Suit Over CWB Battle Continues, Lawsuit Amended ------------------------------------------------------------- Jocelyn Turner, writing for Daily Herald Tribune, reported that Supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) are continuing their class action suit against the government. One farmer representing each of the western provinces are the plaintiffs in the case, which initially began in 2010, and includes Peace Country farmer Nathan Macklin of DeBolt. "(The case) has changed somewhat due to the legal decisions that have come down," Macklin explained. "The original lawsuit was asking for a much larger amount in damages. It was claiming that we as farmers had a proprietary interest in the assets of the (CWB) and we own it." The CWB is a marketing board for wheat and barley growers in western Canada which allowed farmers to remain in control of their product until it hit end users overseas, Macklin explained. Prior to the government's changes, there were three major players; the railroads, the grain companies and the board which was controlled by the farmers. "Now, there's two major players and 70,000 farmers who have no control or bargaining capacity once they dump their grain in the pit at the grain company," he sa The original class action sought to return the board to a single- desk mandate as well as $17 billion in compensation for when the federal government took over the board. "We were a little disappointed that the lower courts (in 2012) decided that the government was within its rights to basically confiscate those assets and... that the CWB was their (government) property," he sa "Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to hear our appeal of the lower court ruling on that issue. However, the lower court did allow a portion of our lawsuit, a smaller portion of our lawsuit, to proceed." Macklin said it appears that there was a significant mismanagement of the board's pooled funds into the contingency fund and the restructuring costs during it's as a single-desk mandated operation. According to Macklin, there's up to $720 million that should have been returned to farmers in the pool, 'depriving farmers of a lot of value that they are otherwise entitled to.' "The financial statements of the CWB have not been released since the government took over the operation," said Macklin. "We need to get a look at those books to actually figure out how much of that money was actually misallocated and to have some transparency and some accountability on farmer's behalves over the actions that the government has taken through various means, such as citing commercial confidentiality of a private grain company and things like that." In terms of the amended class action, Macklin said they are in the process of certifying it, which he added will take a bit of time. Once the action is certified it can then move on to trial. "We'll see if there's a different government in the meantime," he sa"What changes the election might bring to the strategy, I am not sure but certainly, we're committed to ensuring that farmers receive the full value of the money that they are entitled to... and we'll do the best to our ability with the resources we have to ensure that that happens." It's a bit disappointing that the case seems to have returned to square one and amended from the original case, Macklin admitted, but they knew it was an uphill battle. "We feel we're fighting the good fight on behalf of farmers and we feel that on this instance, the government is completely wrong and needs to be challenged and held accountable," he said. CAPALA BROTHERS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Plaintiff Fee Award in Wage Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that attorney fees in a wages-and-hours case that were double the damages awarded to the plaintiffs were "amply supported" by the defendants' litigation tactics, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on July 29. But the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not allow for including costs for expert witness fees in the legal fee award, the appeals court said. Ruling in Gortat v. Capala Bros., 14-3304-cv, the circuit affirmed most of the fees awarded by Eastern District Court Judge Leo Glasser after the plaintiffs prevailed at a two-week trial in 2013. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $293,000 and Judge Glasser, after trimming about $300,000 from the fees and costs requested by the plaintiffs' counsel, awarded attorney fees of $583,000 in August 2014. The litigation, described by Judge Glasser as an "unexceptional FLSA case," generated more than 400 docket entries, "no less than seven appeals taken by the defendants' counsel" and an $8,000 sanction against the defendants' counsel for "ad hominem attacks." The case was brought in 2007 by seven construction workers who accused their Brooklyn employer, Capala Brothers Inc., of not paying them overtime at time and a half, as required by FLSA. The roofing company workers said they were paid between $15 and $20 an hour only for time at job sites, mostly in Manhattan. But time spent driving company trucks to and from the sites, which pushed the weekly hours worked over 40, was not paid at the overtime rate. "It was a garden-variety wages and hours case," said the plaintiffs' attorney, Robert Wisniewski. "They turned it into a nuclear war." In a summary order, the panel affirmed Judge Glasser's fee award, which had been based on the findings of Magistrate Judge Steven Gold that the "delays in the case were due to defendants' combative and extraordinary conduct that raised many unnecessary disputes regarding case management and discovery as revealed by even a cursory review of the docket sheet." Judge Glasser criticized the defendants' lawyer, Philip Orner, saying "his conduct throughout this litigation has been provocative." Judge Glasser added that Mr. Orner had made "an egregiously baseless charge that Judge Gold engaged in improper ex parte conduct. The tenor of his objections was discourteous and undignified." Judge Glasser dismissed several of the defendants' counterclaims and the jury found the plaintiffs not liable on the remainder. He set Wisniewski's hourly rate at $350, $100 less than requested. On appeal, the circuit rejected Mr. Orner's claim that Wisniewski was not entitled to compensation for unsuccessful motions he had filed. "There is no rule that plaintiffs need achieve total victory on every motion in pursuit of a successful claim in order to be compensated for the full number of hours spent litigating that claim," the panel said in an unsigned ruling. In a separate opinion, however, the circuit said there was not statutory authority under FLSA to award $10,000 Mr. Wisniewski had requested to reimburse an accounting expert. But the panel said the claim might prevail under the fee-shifting provisions of the New York Labor Law. Judges Guido Calabresi, Chester Straub and Debra Ann Livingston joined in the rulings. Judge Wisniewski said the defendants, two brothers who operated the 30-to-50-employee roofing company for 15 years prior to the case, filed for bankruptcy protection in June. "They have also transferred assets they owned to make themselves judgment-proof" Judge Wisniewski said. "So the saga continues." Judge Wisniewski, who heads a two-attorney firm, said he had been litigating wages and hours cases since 1996. "I've never seen this kind of scorched-earth litigation by a defendant before," he said. Mr. Orner, a Flushing-based solo practitioner, said his clients were "entitled to request a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court," but had not yet decided whether to do so. Mr. Orner, in a phone interview, ascribed the acrimony in the case to Judge Wisniewski's refusal to settle. "We had very viable counter-claims," he said. "Tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs tried to put my clients out of business." CERTIFIED CREDIT: Faces "Palmer" Class Suit Over FDPCA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pauline E. Palmer, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Certified Credit & Collection Bureau, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-05790-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Ira Levine, Esq. 210 River Street, Suite 24 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 489-7900 E-mail: levinelaw@verizon.net - and - Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL: Faces Data Breach Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reported that A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charleston Area Medical Center for a data breach that occurred nearly two years ago. Tiffany Mallion and Nickole Pullen were patients of CAMC and agreed with the hospital that as part of the hospital's services, the defendant would protect the plaintiffs' sensitive information, according to a complaint filed in Kanawha Circuit Court. The plaintiffs claim the defendants stored their sensitive information in an unprotected, unguarded, unsecured and/or otherwise unreasonably protected electronic and/or physical location and also failed to properly train and supervise employees in regard to accessing the sensitive information. CAMC did not adequately protect the plaintiffs' sensitive information and their physician-patient confidential relationship has been breached, according to the suit. The plaintiffs claim the defendant did not provide adequate security measures to protect the sensitive information. Between August 2013 and February 2014, employees of the defendant viewed and/or accessed certain information in the plaintiffs' medical records and victims were not notified of the data breach until nearly two years after the incident actually occurred, according to the suit. The plaintiffs claim they were notified in May of the data breach. CAMC's failure to notify its patients of the data breach in a reasonable time caused the plaintiffs to remain ignorant of the breach and they were unable to take appropriate action to protect themselves from identity theft and other harm resulting from the data breach, according to the suit. The plaintiffs claim by failing to fulfill their promise to protect their sensitive information. The plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatory damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. They are being represented by Troy N. Giatras and Matthew Stonestreet of the Giatras Law Firm PLLC. The case is assigned to Circuit Judge Carrie Webster. CHRYSLER: Durango Rollover Document May Spur More Settlements ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Land, writing for Daily Report, reports that a plaintiffs lawyer in a deal resolving a $12 million claim concerning the rollover of a Dodge Durango said a key document unearthed just weeks before a trial was to begin could spur more settlements. Jeff Harris -- jeff@hpllegal.com -- of Harris Penn Lowry said the document produced by defendant Chrysler Group "should have been produced in hundreds of other cases." "That document refutes 20 years of roof-crush defense arguments," added Harris, whose clients in the recently settled case were a woman and her husband, who was left quadriplegic after the Durango he was in rolled over. In their case, a DeKalb County State Court judge punished Chrysler for belatedly supplying the document by forbidding it from arguing it was not on notice that the roof of a Durango could cave in during a rollover crash. "This case is the tip of the iceberg" for internal standards Chrysler claimed never existed, not only for its vehicles' roof- strength, but also for seat belts, air bags and other auto safety features, Harris said. Chrysler Group, the U.S. unit of Fiat Chrysler now known as FCA US, was represented by Swift Currie McGhee & Hiers partners M. Diane Owens -- diane.owens@swiftcurrie.com -- and Terry Brantley and associate Alicia Timm, and by Alison Rodney -- rodney@millercanfield.com -- of Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone's office in Troy, Michigan. The lawyers referred queries to a Chrysler spokesman, who declined to comment. Mr. Harris credited Chrysler's attorneys for immediately disclosing the document once it was found. "I'll give Diane Owens a lot of credit," said Mr. Harris. "She did what any ethical lawyer should do: produce it, knowing full well the judge was likely to sanction them." "But Chrysler knew damn well these documents were out there," he said. The underlying case involved a 2011 accident when a 2003 Dodge Durango DN, in which Abu Kalan was a passenger, approached an intersection on Highway 316 in Barrow County. A pickup truck coming the other way abruptly turned in front of the Dodge, whose driver, Win Tun, jerked the steering wheel to avoid a collision and lost control. The vehicle rolled over as many as four times. Mr. Kalan suffered multiple spinal injuries when the Durango's roof was crushed inward, according to plaintiffs' filings. Mr. Kalan, a refugee from Burma in his mid-40s, now requires a ventilator and round-the-clock care, Mr. Harris said. In 2013, Harris Penn Lowry lawyers Stephen Lowry, Jed Manton, Madeline McNeeley and Kristy Davies and Rebecca Franklin of Franklin Law, sued Chrysler, Mr. Tun and the pickup's driver, William Evans, on behalf of Mr. Kalan and his wife. Mr. Evans died during the litigation, and his estate was substituted. Mr. Tun settled confidentially during the litigation, but Mr. Harris said Mr. Evans' estate was kept in the case to prevent Chrysler from shifting blame to a nonparty at trial. During discovery, the plaintiffs' lawyers repeatedly demanded any documents related to internal testing and standards about the roof structure and crush performance for the Durango. According to defense filings, Chrysler produced "a myriad of engineering drawings, graphics and standards" as well as a report demonstrating that the Durango "was tested to and exceeded the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Standard" roof-crush resistance. "Chrysler Group also stated that it had no 'other internal requirements related to the roof structure' or 'other documents related to roof crush resistance'" regarding the vehicle, the defense document said. Among the discovery items Chrysler submitted was a document referring to a Durango that had passed a "Joint Specification for Passive Safety" (JSPS) test in 2003. According to a plaintiffs' filing, "this language certainly suggested that Chrysler performed internal rollover testing and measured vehicles for compliance" with a set of internal standards. Mr. Kalan's lawyers then filed a "narrow discovery request specifically based on this document," and were again assured that all responsive documents had been produced. Mr. Harris said there were several unsuccessful mediations to resolve the case. Mr. Kalan's medical bills have run to about $2 million, he said, and a life-care plan estimated he would need $10 million for necessary care over the course of his projected life. Trial was set for July 13 before Judge Janis Gordon. On June 12, two days before the plaintiffs' lawyers were to depose key Chrysler experts, the automaker's lawyers emailed a document indicating that, as far back as 2000, Chrysler had implemented standards for crush-testing its vehicles. They included "specific guidelines for 'protection zones for occupants and criterion for crash test," according to a subsequent plaintiffs' motion calling for sanctions. "The defense in roof-crush cases is always that it's not the roof collapsing down that causes the spinal cord injury, it's the person being literally thrown into the roof," said Mr. Harris. "These documents clearly show that, internally, that's not what they believe; that it's a defense strategy." Mr. Kalan's sanctions motion argued that the document and accompanying documents related "to the very issue at the heart of this case: occupant protection in a rollover wreck." In a response filing and during a June 22 hearing, Chrysler's lawyers said the document had only been found in searching an "obsolete data collection." It was a vestige of the years after Daimler-Benz merged with Chrysler in 1998, and it reflected the German automaker's efforts to initiate internal standards across the Daimler-Chrysler product line, they said. Further, they argued, the standards in question were applied only to vehicles made between 2004 and 2007, so they weren't relevant to Mr. Kalan's case, which involved a 2003 model. The defense lawyers said they would agree to a continuance so the plaintiffs' lawyers could depose Chrysler's experts armed with the new information. Mr. Kalan's attorneys countered that they had spent more than a year preparing for trial with incomplete evidence, and that any delay would hurt their client, who was in very poor health. On June 23 Judge Gordon declined to strike Chrysler's answer as a punishment. But she observed that the plaintiffs' "prejudice is undeniable. Plaintiffs could not depose its own or Chrysler's experts about the JSPS standards or conduct additional discovery." While there was some dispute as to whether the standards applied to the 2003 Durango, she wrote, "even if they do not, plaintiffs are still prejudiced, by the failure to disclose standards and testing which clearly took place before the manufacture of this vehicle." While there was no evidence of willful misrepresentation, Gordon wrote, Chrysler "recklessly failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with its discovery obligations." Judge Gordon ordered Chrysler to pay any plaintiffs' expenses stemming from the review of the new documents and any deposition- related costs. She also levied an "issue preclusion" sanction, decreeing that, at trial, "Chrysler will not be permitted to introduce evidence or argue that it was not on notice that in a rollover accident, the roof of a Dodge Durango DN could deform and crush, causing a risk of serious injury," and that she would so instruct the jury. On July 10, three days before trial was to start, the case settled. Mr. Harris said his clients were pleased with the outcome. "I'm certainly looking at other cases to determine whether these [documents] should have been produced," said Mr. Harris. The Daily Report provided key documents from the Kalan suit to Christopher Glover -- chris.glover@beasleyallen.com -- an auto products liability litigator with Birmingham's Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, who was not involved in the litigation. The firm represents plaintiffs, and Glover said the newly uncovered documents could prove vital in both pending and closed cases. "I expect that the disclosure of these critical documents will cause old cases to reopen and fundamentally change existing litigation," said Mr. Glover via email. CLEAN AIR: Faces "Chang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shang Shing Chang, Jie Li, Xiaoxi Xie, Bin Yang, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Clean Air Car Service & Parking Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04385 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Clean Air Car Service & Parking Corporation is in the business of providing handicap/wheelchair accessible vehicles for transportation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (918) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com D&H CANADA: Recalls Tablet Computers Due to Fire Hazard ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 31, 2015 Posting date: July 31, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54452 This recall involves NVIDIA SHIELD tablet computers with 8-inch touch screens. Model numbers P1761, P1761W and P1761WX and serial numbers 0410215901781 through 0425214604018 are included in this recall. NVIDIA and the model and serial numbers are etched on the left side edge of the tablet computer. The SHIELD logo is on the back of the tablets. The battery inside the tablet computer can overheat, posing a potential fire hazard. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these tablet computers in Canada. NVIDIA has received one report in Canada of a battery overheating, and four reports of batteries overheating from consumers in the United States, including two reports of damage to flooring. Approximately 5000 units of the recalled tablets were sold in Canada and 83,000 were distributed in the United States. The recalled product was sold from July 2014 to May 2015 in Canada and from July 2014 to July 2015 in the United States. Manufactured in China Distributor: NVIDIA Corporation Santa Clara California UNITED STATES Distributor: D&H Canada ULC Harrisburg Pennsylvania UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the tablets and contact NVIDIA for instructions on receiving a replacement tablet. Consumers may contact NVIDIA toll free at 1-888-943-4196 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PT, Monday through Friday or on the firm's website and click on "NVIDIA Tablet Recall Program" at the bottom center of the page in green letters. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website . You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/5AsFXY EAST CHEMICAL: Judge Gives More Time On Chemical Leak Records ------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Ward, writing for Gazette Mail, reported that a federal judge gave lawyers for Kanawha Valley residents, West Virginia American Water Co. and Eastman Chemical Co. more time to reach agreement about potentially unsealing documents in a class-action suit over the January 2014 chemical spill that contaminated drinking water supplies for hundreds of thousands of residents across the region. At U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver's request, lawyers for the parties agreed to meet again to discuss the records, which are under seal in federal court in Charleston as the case proceeds through the legal system. At issue are two sets of documents -- one filed by West Virginia American and one by the residents -- concerning a previous water company intake located upstream of the Freedom Industries leak site, near the present site of Coonskin Park, and another set of records filed by the plaintiffs about Eastman's actions regarding MCHM and its sale of the chemical to Freedom Industries. Kevin Thompson, a lawyer for the residents, told the judge that the plaintiffs' position now is that they were overly cautious in seeking to file materials about the intake about MCHM under seal as part of separate motions about whether the case would be dismissed or if it could proceed under class-action status. Thompson noted that there is a robust public discussion going on locally about West Virginia American's quality of service that includes a specific debate about the water company's response to the chemical spill. Thompson also noted that Congress continues to debate a potential rewrite of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, and that records about Eastman's handling of safety warning regarding MCHM would help inform lawmakers on that issue. "As much as we can possibly reveal to the public should be revealed," Thompson told Copenhaver. "These are all documents that are of vital importance to this public discussion." Thomas Hurney, a lawyer for the water company, complained that Thompson was discussing in open court some of the very information -- location of equipment related to the now-abandoned Coonskin intake -- that the court currently has under seal, "obliterating" the effect of the confidentiality. West Virginia American maintains that making public the information in question, including drawings and descriptions of water system equipment, would make that system vulnerable to terrorist attack. Officials from the state Bureau for Public Health and the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management submitted statements to the court supporting the general argument that such records should be kept secret. Water company lawyers indicated in a court filing on that West Virginia American had agreed to make public several short sections of a legal brief describing the Coonskin intake, but continued to argue the rest of the information under seal should stay that way. Copenhaver said that he may hold a hearing on the matter and if he does, that state officials and water company officials who support sealing the material may need to appear for potential cross- examination about their statements. Marc Williams, a lawyer for Eastman, said that the company is agreeable to most of the materials that it has sought confidentiality for being made public, including parts of a document that the plaintiffs said in a legal brief shows that MCHM was known by Eastman to be a danger to corrode Freedom's chemical storage tanks. Eastman made MCHM and sold it to Freedom, and the plaintiffs allege Eastman didn't provide Freedom with needed warnings about the product. Williams told the judge he would continue to work to finalize a deal with the plaintiffs about its documents. Also on Monday, lawyers for Freedom Industries asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Ronald Pearson to approve its hiring of a new consultant, CORE Environmental Services Inc., to help complete its cleanup of the Etowah Terminal site on the Elk River where the MCHM spill occurred. Earlier, lawyers for Freedom and the state Department of Environmental Protection told Pearson that they had been unable to reach agreement with the existing contractor ARCADIS for continuing the project. ARCADIS had complained that it was still not clear what amount of site testing the DEP would require, how well an interim cleanup plan proposed by Freedom - but not yet approved by the state - would work or what sort of "final remedy would be required by state regulators. These unknowns, ARCADIS said, combined with "the finite amount of funding and competing expenditures to collect stormwater runoff at the site, "create a substantial risk for the contractor. ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacquelyn Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00921- MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC provides collection services and operates throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A. Westshore Center 1715 N Westshore Blvd Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com EZCORP INC: Glancy Prongay Firm 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 Western District of Texas on behalf of a class (the "Class") of purchasers of the securities of EZCORP, Inc. ("EZCORP" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: EZPW) between October 27, 2014 and July 16, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have 60 days from the date of this notice to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit. EZCORP delivers cash solutions to customers across channels, products, services and markets. With approximately 1,400 locations and branches, the Company offers customers multiple ways to access instant cash, including pawn loans and consumer loans in the United States, Mexico, Canada and the United Kingdom. The Company offers these products through four primary channels: in-store, online, at the worksite, and through a mobile platform. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, 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, among others: (1) that the Company improperly recognized particular structured assets sales; (2) that the Company improperly classified certain loans; (3) that, as a result, the Company overstated its gains on assets sales and accrued interest revenue; (4) that, as such, the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Over the course of several disclosures, the Company revealed its alleged accounting and securities fraud, causing the Company's share price to decline thereby harming investors. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice 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 GPM, 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. FOREST LABORATORIES: Court Refuses To Toll Statute of Limitations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Howard M. Wexler of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Mondaq, said that in a decision worth reading for all class action practitioners, especially those who face Equal Pay Act ("EPA") issues, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied equitable tolling of the statute of limitations period in a high profile gender discrimination case. Judge Abrams' decision in Barrett, et al. v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al., 12-CV-5224 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2015), serves a great primer as to the differences between calculating the limitation periods in Title VII class actions as compared to EPA collective actions and the significant impact of these differences. Background To The Case Eleven current/former female employees brought individual and class claims under the EPA and Title VII alleging disparate pay based on their gender in July of 2012. Plaintiffs' subsequently filed a First and Second Amended Complaint, which Defendants moved to dismiss and the Court decided in August 2014. In connection with a joint report in anticipation of the parties' Initial Conference, Plaintiffs, for the first time, raised the issue of equitable tolling for their EPA claims. Notably, at no point during the entirety of the action -- dating back to the filing of the Complaint in July 2012 -- had the Court ordered or any party sought a stay of discovery. Eventually, Plaintiffs filed a formal motion in January 2015 seeking to toll the statute of limitations from April 2013 (the date Defendants filed their motion to dismiss) through the date conditional certification for the collective action is granted. The Court's Decision The Court began with a primer concerning the difference between collective actions and class actions with respect to the accrual of claims. Relevant here, under the EPA (which incorporates various provisions of the FLSA), the statute of limitations for each plaintiff runs until the individual opts into the lawsuit by filing written consent. Accordingly, such signed consent forms from class members do not relate back to the filing date of the Complaint as compared to Rule 23 class action claims, whereby "the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action." Equitable tolling creates an exception to the "potential harshness" of the FLSA's limitation period by allowing courts to extend the limitations period to avoid "inequitable circumstances," however, must be "cautious" in doing so...lest they transform it into the Rule 23 scheme." A litigant seeking equitable tolling bears a "high burden" of establishing both: "(1) that [s]she has been pursuing [her] rights diligently; and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in [her] way." Applying this "high burden" to the facts before it, the Court refused to equitably toll the statute of limitations as "Plaintiffs cannot reasonably argue that they have been diligent in pursuing their rights or that some extraordinary circumstance stood in their way to be diligent." In so holding, the Court noted that Plaintiffs' argument that discovery was "effectively stayed" based on the Defendants' motion to dismiss did not hold water since the case was never stayed, nor did either party ask the Court to do so? Accordingly, while there were delays in the briefing process and in the Court deciding Defendants' motion, Plaintiffs "failed to explain how these delays erected any barrier to their seeking the discovery necessary to pursue conditional certification." With respect to the second requirement for the Court to apply equitable tolling -- that some extraordinary circumstance stood in their way -- the Court distinguished the cases relied upon by Plaintiffs since in those cases (unlike in this case) where equitable tolling was ordered, there was "something -- whether discovery disputes, a discovery stay, or the court's election to stay a certification motion pending a motion to dismiss" which prevented plaintiffs from notifying potential collective action members. Based on Plaintiffs' failure to satisfy either required test for the application of equitable tolling, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request since "to grant the exceptional remedy of equitable tolling for the pendency of a motion to dismiss when there was nothing standing in the way of a plaintiff's pursuing collective certification would be tantamount to tolling the statute of limitations for FLSA claims as a matter of course for all potential plaintiffs whenever the first plaintiff files her complaint -- a result plainly contrary to the procedural rules that govern FLSA collective actions." Implication for Employers This decision serves as a great reminder of the differences between class action certification and collective action certification and the real world impact of these differences as it pertains to the statute of limitations period. Given such differences, employers should always be mindful of the limitations period and that short of a court order otherwise, the limitations period continues to run in collective actions under the EPA and FLSA. While equitable tolling is a powerful tool for Plaintiffs' counsel in collective actions, this decision highlights the high burden that plaintiffs' counsel must satisfy to warrant its application in a particular case. GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers Spar Over Scope of Valukas Deposition ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that General Motors Co. and plaintiffs lawyers are fighting over the scope of the upcoming deposition of the lawyer whose report on the company's ignition-switch defect blamed a handful of employees for the fiasco. Jenner & Block chairman Anton Valukas issued the 315-page report last year explaining how GM failed for more than a decade to identify a defect that causes the ignition switch to slip into the accessory position, shutting down engines and disabling airbags. The defect prompted recalls of 2.6 million cars and trucks worldwide and has been linked to 124 deaths. Valukas is scheduled to give a deposition on Sept. 24. His report, which included 350 witness interviews, largely absolved senior management and GM's board of directors. Fifteen employees were fired over the ordeal. Plaintiffs lawyers now want to question Valukas about the report's accuracy. GM has insisted that those topics are privileged given that Valukas represents the automaker in criminal and regulatory investigations. "GM has affirmatively used this report all over the world as part of their transparency, and it's ironic that now they want to be opaque," said plaintiffs co-lead counsel Robert Hilliard, a partner at Hilliard Mu¤oz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas. "They say we have to take the report on its face." GM spokesman James Cain declined to comment. Mr. Valukas did not respond to a request for comment. In addition to the civil cases, the Justice Department is pursuing potential criminal wrongdoing against GM, which also faces investigations from attorneys general and, in May, paid a $35 million fine to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for failing to report the defects in a timely manner. The Valukas report is the latest discovery dispute between plaintiffs lawyers and GM, which is scheduled to go to trial over the ignition switch on Jan. 11. Since May 7, more than 200 people have been deposed, including current and former GM employees. In addition to Valukas, former GM general counsel Michael Millikin and GM chief executive officer Mary Barra have upcoming deposition dates scheduled. On July 24, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman rejected GM's request for a blanket protective order over all pretrial discovery after the automaker alleged that Hilliard disclosed discovery materials, such as deposition names and dates, "to garner sensational press coverage, rather than preparing for a trial on the merits." Judge Furman found that "the public interest in this case weighs heavily against an order as broad as that" but he also cautioned lawyers to follow the state of New York's rules of professional conduct pertaining to statements made outside of court. Judge Furman also is weighing plaintiffs lawyers' request to access the privileged internal memos and notes of GM's lawyers at King & Spalding, which represented the automaker in lawsuits filed over accidents linked to the defect. As to the Valukas deposition, plaintiffs lawyers wrote in briefs filed last month that they need at least seven hours to question Mr. Valukas about "multiple witnesses" in recent depositions who have contradicted the report's facts or claimed that Mr. Valukas misrepresented their statements to him. "This ranges from witnesses failing to recall whether they actually attended the meetings listed in the Valukas report, to witnesses outright disagreeing with Mr. Valukas's conclusions and characterization of their statements," according to one brief. GM, in its own briefs, has maintained that plaintiffs lawyers are merely attempting to skirt Furman's Jan. 15 order rejecting their request for notes and memos associated with witness interviews in the report. GM also said that a deposition of Mr. Valukas is unnecessary or, at the very least, should be limited to two hours. Richard Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago, wrote in one brief that questioning Mr. Valukas' "mental impressions" is privileged. "Plaintiffs have yet to identify a single topic of examination that would be appropriate to cover with Mr. Valukas," he wrote. GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Johnson v. Gentiva Health Services, LLC, Case No. 3:15- cv-02474-L (N.D. Tex., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Gentiva Health Services, LLC operates a home healthcare facility in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tom A. Carse, Esq. CARSE LAW FIRM 6220 Campbell Road, Suite 401 Dallas, TX 75248 Telephone: (972) 503-6338 Facsimile: (972) 503-6348 E-mail: service@carselaw.com GERMAINE LAW: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit in Ariz. Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Germaine Law Office PLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01427-ROS (D. Ariz., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Lee Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com HARBOR RAIL: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Wilson and Anthony Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of the other members of the general public similarly situated v. Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc., Case No. BC589348 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc. operates a railroad equipment services company in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 HERCULES TIRE: Recalls Multiple Tire Models ------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 31, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Tire Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Tires Units affected: 10000 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015346TC ID number: 2015346 Certain tires may experience tread separation, which could result in a loss of vehicle control and a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Hercules dealers will replace affected tires. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HERCULES 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009 HORIZON HEALTH: Class Suit Continues Despite Dr. Menon's Death -------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reported that a class-action lawsuit against Dr. Rajgopal Menon and the Horizon Health Network will proceed, despite the recent death of the disgraced Miramichi pathologist, says one of the lawyers representing the patients. "It does cause complications to the case," said Ray Wagner, of the Halifax-based serious injury law firm Wagners. But Horizon, which absorbed the former Miramichi Regional Health Authority years ago, is now the target, he said. "The focus, really, is that they did nothing when they were aware that there were serious issues in the pathology lab," he sa"And they didn't do what they were supposed to do to ensure they had a competent pathologist working in that lab." Menon died on April 21. The class-action lawsuit against him and the Miramichi Regional Health Authority dates back to 2008. It was filed after a public inquiry found Menon partially or fully misdiagnosed thousands of pathology samples in New Brunswick between 1995 and 2007. The certification order issued by the court defines the "class" in the lawsuit as including: More than 15,000 patients whose tissue samples underwent pathology testing by Menon between Jan. 1, 1995 and Feb. 7, 2007. The estates, children, parents and spouses of deceased patients." 'Somebody has to be held accountable' About 100 former patients have signed up for the class action. Jim Wilson is among them. Wilson was misdiagnosed for almost three years. "Finally after the third set of biopsies, I was diagnosed with cancer. And by then, it was on both sides of my prostate," he said. Wilson is cancer-free, but is pleased to see the lawsuit go ahead, even with Menon gone. "Somebody has to be held accountable for what happened up there," he said. Horizon officials declined to comment. The lawyer for Menon's estate was unavailable for an interview on. Wagners was only advised on Menon's death on May 6, about one week after his passing, said Wagner. Schedule to deal with continuance matters A case management conference was held on June 2 before Justice Jean-Paul Ouellette to set up a schedule to deal with various matters concerning the continuance of the class action The schedule extends until March 31, 2016, with another case management call slated for Aug. 19, 2015. The Court of Appeal agreed in February 2014, to allow the class- action lawsuit against Menon and the Miramichi health authority to go ahead, making it the first class-action lawsuit to be certified in New Brunswick since legislation in 1982 was enacted to allow such lawsuits. In a 2-1 decision, the province's highest court overruled the lower court decision that struck down the class action brought by former patients. Menon worked as a pathologist at the Miramichi Regional Health Authority from 1995 until February 2007, when he was suspended after complaints about incomplete diagnoses and delayed lab results. Former health minister Michael Murphy called a formal public inquiry into the pathology work at the Miramichi hospital after an independent audit of 227 cases of breast and prostate cancer biopsies from 2004-05 found 18 per cent had incomplete results and three per cent had been misdiagnosed. Justice Paul Creaghan found that Menon should have been fired two years before he was suspended. Creaghan's final report offered 52 recommendations to improve pathology services in the province. HOWARD S. SCHNEIDER: Judge Weighs in on Abuse Suit -------------------------------------------------- Vic Micolucci, writing for News4Jax, reported that the case against a former pediatric dentist accused of abusing children moved out of the streets and before a judge. The attorney for Howard S. Schneider asked the judge to dismiss a potential class action lawsuit against him and to issue sanctions against the attorney who filed it. But after hearing from both sides, Judge Kevin Blazs allowed the suit to continue if some inflammatory language is removed. Dozens of parents and former patients began coming forward in April with allegations of abuse and neglect from Schneider, who for decades ran a dental clinic on University Boulevard North. They claimed he intentionally abused his patients and did unnecessary work in the name of profit. The state of Florida opened an investigation into his Medicaid billing that amounted to more than $5 million over the last five years. About about a month of daily protests outside his practice, an online petition that drew more than 78,000 supporters, and local, state and national news converge, Schneider relinquished his license and closed his practice for good. Schneider's attorney, Richard Ramsey, claims that attorney for many of the dentists' accusers, Gust Sarris, wrongly filed the suit. "Anybody who's injured by a dentist or physician has a right to bring a claim, but there has to be due process it is filed," Ramsey sa"There are procedures are in place. People can't be defaming other people improperly and our courts. It is not permitted, and that's what my primary argument was." Among the claims in the lawsuit are that Schneider is "a pathological sadist" with a "psycho-sexual disorder." "I have never in 28 years seeing a complaint with these types of personal attacks," Ramsey sa"Horrible, vicious comments that are being made about this dentist who is entitled to his day in court if, in fact, a valid lawsuit is brought against him." Attorney Gust Sarris represents nearly 100 plaintiffs who brought the suit. "We will see the things that I have alleged in the complaint will come out to be true and that this case will proceed," Sarris said. While Sarris stands behind the lawsuit was filed, he agreed to change the complaint at the judge's request. "All you have to do is alleged the necessary facts without inflammatory language, and then you don't have these problems," Blazs said. Blazs told both attorneys they had 10 days to submit written opinions on why the lawsuit should or shouldn't be dismissed. IDAHO: Inmate Can Move Forward with Heart Attack Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Boone, writing for San Francisco Gate, reported that a federal judge says an Idaho inmate can move forward with his lawsuit against the state even though he has already won a six- figure settlement from the state's prison health care provider. William Bown, an inmate at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution south of Boise, filed the lawsuit against Idaho prison officials and the prison health care contractor Corizon in 2012 after he had a heart attack. Bown contended that the prison guards and the medical care providers failed to realize the seriousness of his condition and sent him to an observation cell instead of calling for emergency care. Bown says that as a result, his heart attack went untreated for roughly eight hours despite his screams for help, leaving him with severe and irreversible heart damage. Bown named several Idaho prison officials, Corizon Inc. and several Corizon employees as defendants in the case. Corizon agreed to pay Bown more than $670,000 to settle its portion of the case. In a statement, Corizon Health officials declined to comment on the settlement because of a confidentiality agreement. But the company said its top priority was providing skilled and compassionate health care to patients. The inmate asked to modify his lawsuit to remove Corizon and its employees from the defendant list, leaving just the state officials. The state of Idaho, which has denied any liability in the case, then asked the federal judge to toss out the case entirely. Idaho's attorneys said that the settlement with Corizon rendered the remaining lawsuit moot. But in a sharply worded order issued late, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill said Bown's lawsuit against the state would stand. Just because Bown agreed to release the Corizon defendants from the lawsuit doesn't mean the Idaho Department of Corrections defendants are automatically released as well, the judge said. "This conclusion is so patently clear, that the Defendants' opposition to the Motion to amend borders on being frivolous," Winmill wrote. In his lawsuit, Bown contends that the state should have better trained Department of Corrections employees to recognize the signs and symptoms of a heart attack, and that the state failed to ensure that its medical care provider had adequate policies in place to treat medical emergencies. The state should have known that Corizon wasn't providing adequate care, Bown says in the lawsuit, because Idaho officials had fined Corizon and CMS -- a company that formerly held the state prison health care contract, and that Corizon later merged with -- hundreds of thousands of dollars for not meeting the terms of the contract. Bown also cited a class-action lawsuit over medical care at a neighboring prison that has spanned more than three decades. Bown says the Department of Corrections had long abandoned its obligation to preserve the physical safety and constitutional rights of its inmates, and that the state "allowed and even fostered systemic conditions evidencing a deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of those individuals in their custody, including Mr. Bown." Bown is asking for damages in an amount to be proven at trial. INNOVATE LOGISTICS: Removed "Torres" Suit to New Jersey Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Jorge Torres and Luis Rivera, for themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly situated workers v. Innovate Logistics, LLC and Matthew Kim, Case No. MID-L-00573- 15, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Middlesex County, New Jersey to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15- cv-05770-WHW-CLW to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Tykulsker, Esq. TYKULSKER & ASSOCIATES 161 Walnut Street Montclair, NJ 07042 Telephone: (973) 509-9292 E-mail: david@dtesq.com The Defendant is represented by: Haejin A. Shim, Esq. FRECKER & SHIM LLC 2160 North Central Road Suite 112 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: (855) 373-2537 Facsimile: (212) 352-0204 E-mail: haejin@freckershim.com JB HUNT: Removes "Silfani" Class Suit to Massachusetts Dist. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Abe Silfani, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Case No. 1581cv04837 was removed from the Middlesex Superior Court to the United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-13019-RGS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brant Casavant, Esq. Hillary A. Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 231-6777 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: brant@fairworklaw.com hillary@fairworklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephen T. Melnick III, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. One International Place Suite 2700 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 378-6000 Facsimile: (617) 737-0052 E-mail: smelnick@littler.com JOHN DEERE: Recalls Lawn Tractors Due to Crash Hazard ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 4, 2015 Posting date: August 4, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Outdoor Living Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Physical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54464 This recall involves John Deere lawn tractors with model numbers D110, D125, D130, D140, D155, D160 and D170 with serial numbers beginning with 1GXD. A complete list of serial numbers included in this recall can be found on the firm's website. The model number can be found on the bottom left and right of the hood in yellow. The serial number is located on the left side of tractor, under the fender, above the left rear tire. The brake arm on the lawn tractor can fail, posing a crash hazard that could result in serious injury or death. Neither Health Canada nor Deere & Company has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these lawn tractors. Approximately 370 of the recalled lawn tractors were sold in Canada at John Deere dealers, Lowe's and The Home Depot stores. Approximately 1,700 products were distributed in the United States. The recalled products were sold from May 2015 to August 2015 in Canada and the United States. Manufactured in the United States Manufacturer: Deere & Company Moline Illinois UNITED STATES Distributor: John Deere Canada ULC Grimsby Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lawn tractors and contact the nearest John Deere dealer to make arrangements for a free repair. For more information, consumers may contact Deere & Company at 1- 800-537-8233 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. ET Saturday, or visit the firm's website and select Product Recall Information on the drop-down menu under Services & Support. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/mXPnIn JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Carmen Terry, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated and the general public v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01666-DMS-KSC (S.D. Cal., July 27, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful debt collection practices in connection with their attempt to collect residential purchase or refinancing loans. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a Delaware banking corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. is a Texas corporation that operates a full service debt collection agency specializing in mortgage loans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. Paula M. Roach, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com proach@bholaw.com - and - Daniel Forde, Esq. Schuyler Hoffman, Esq. HOFFMAN & FORDE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3033 Fifth Avenue, Suite 225 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 546-7880 Facsimile: (619) 546-7881 E-mail: dforde@hoffmanforde.com shoffman@hoffmanforde.com KAMBOUSI RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Paola Sanchez, Arturo Cuautle, Josias Rumbo, and Sergio Ramirez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kambousi Restaurant Partners, Llc, Kopy Diner LLC, and/or any other business entity doing business as "Royal Coach Diner", and Konstantinos Paxos, Case No. 1:15-cv-05880 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the food service employees time and one-half for their overtime hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate the Royal Coach Diner in the Bronx, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan Hudson-Plush, Esq. COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON 330 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 563-4100 Facsimile: (212) 695-5436 E-mail: ehudson-plush@cwsny.com KEURIG GREEN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. securities from February 4, 2015 through May 14, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Keurig Green Mountain investors under the federal securities laws. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants' projections for sales were unrealistic and unattainable given the continuing consumer confusion over Keurig Green Mountain's Keurig 2.0 brewing system; (2) the retail distribution of Keurig Green Mountain's new cold brewing system, Keurig Kold, would be delayed; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Keurig Green Mountain's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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 18, 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 litigation, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-616.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. LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Derek Palaschuk Agrees to $2.3MM Class Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP regarding the In re Longtop Financial Technologies Limited Securities Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE LONGTOP FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. 11-cv-3658-SAS SUMMARY NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS OF PROPOSED $2.3 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANT DEREK PALASCHUK, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING, AND MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Longtop Financial Technologies, Ltd. ("Longtop") American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") during the period from February 21, 2008 through May 17, 2011, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). Certain Persons are excluded from the definition of the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 18, 2015 (the "Stipulation"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a settlement of the above-captioned litigation ("Action") has been proposed with defendant Derek Palaschuk ("Palaschuk") for $2.3 million in cash ("Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15C, New York, NY 10007- 1312 at 2:30 p.m., on October 13, 2015 to determine whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Palaschuk, and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation should be granted; (3) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved; (4) Lead Counsel's application for reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and (5) Lead Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and expenses (including lost wages) in connection with their representation of the Class should be approved. The proposed Settlement follows the November 2014 trial against Palaschuk, whereby a jury found Palaschuk liable for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") between February 10, 2010 and May 17, 2011. Further, as required under the Exchange Act, the jury apportioned liability for total damages determined at trial amongst the three named defendants in the Action as follows: Longtop (49%), Wai Chau Lin a/k/a Lian Weizhou ("Lin") (50%) and Palaschuk (1%). In addition to the jury verdict against Palaschuk, the Court previously entered a default judgment against Longtop and Lin, for violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act between February 21, 2008 and May 17, 2011. Pursuant to the default judgment, Longtop and Lin are jointly and severally liable to Lead Plaintiffs and the Class for damages totaling $882,300,000 plus 9% interest on such amount from February 21, 2008, through the date of payment. This amount is the maximum amount of damages available to the Class. Lead Plaintiffs' efforts to collect this judgment remain ongoing; however, given the complexities of the international laws implicated, Longtop's corporate structure and its potential lack of financial resources, the likelihood of Lead Plaintiffs collecting this judgment or any portion thereof is uncertain. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. A detailed Notice to Class Members of Proposed $2.3 Million Settlement with Defendant Derek Palaschuk, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Reimbursement of Litigation Expense ("Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") are currently being mailed to Class Members explaining Class Members' rights in connection with the Settlement and the process for submitting a claim. If you have not received a Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents, and other information about the Settlement and the Action, at www.longtopclassaction.com or by calling (855) 382-6454. In order to be eligible to share in the Settlement, you must submit a valid Claim Form postmarked no later than November 10, 2015, to Longtop Financial Technologies Securities Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10149, Dublin, OH 43017-3149. Please Note: As discussed in the previously disseminated Notice of Pendency of Class Action dated July 29, 2014 ("Class Notice"), at trial, Lead Plaintiffs pursued claims based on Palaschuk's alleged misrepresentations during the period February 10, 2010 through May 17, 2011 (the "Trial Class Period"). Accordingly, only those Class Members who purchased or otherwise acquired Longtop ADS during the Trial Class Period and submit valid Claim Forms will be potentially eligible to share in the Settlement. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in this Action. If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice and you wish to remain excluded from the Class, no further action is required. If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice and you want to opt-back into the Class and be potentially eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a request to opt-back into the Class in writing such that it is received no later than September 22, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice and do not opt-back into the Class in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, you will not be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the net proceeds of the Settlement. If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the requests by Lead Counsel and Lead Plaintiffs for reimbursement of expenses. Any objections must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and counsel for the Settling Defendant such that they are received no later than September 22, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel: Gregory M. Castaldo and Kimberly A. Justice of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, (610) 667-7706, info@ktmc.com. Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry in writing to the Claims Administrator, GCG, at the address and phone number listed above. LOUISIANA: Retirement System Sued Over Reimbursement Failure ------------------------------------------------------------ Kyle Barnett, writing for Louisiana Record, reported that a former bus driver for the Jefferson Parish School Board claims that the state school retirement system has failed to reimburse him for funds that were improperly paid into the system. Joyle Pertuit filed suit against The Louisiana School Employees Retirement System and The Jefferson Parish School Board in the 24th Judicial District Court on May 29. Pertuit claims he was employed by the Jefferson Parish School Board a bus driver for over 30 years during which time he made required contributions to the Louisiana School Employees Retirement System program. The plaintiff alleges that near the end of his employment he was making a base salary of $29,800 plus $7,050 in operation expenses as well as $1.37 per mile driven. Pertuit contends he was notified in 2007 that The Louisiana School Employees Retirement System had been improperly taking funds for his retirement from only his base pay when it should have been requiring him to submit part of his operational pay in which Jefferson Parish School Board included his per mile payments. However, on Jan. 15, 2008 the plaintiff asserts he was informed The Louisiana School Employees Retirement System had incorrectly withheld funds from his operational expenses and he should have received a refund. During the time his income was improperly reported to The Louisiana School Employees Retirement System Pertuit claims he received $12,179.71 in operational and mileage reimbursement part of which was wrongfully taken from his pay to go towards his retirement fund. The plaintiff alleges that despite making numerous demands The Jefferson Parish School Board has failed to reimburse him for the funds improperly paid to The Louisiana School Employees Retirement System. In addition, Pertuit contends the overcharges were spread amongst other drivers employed by the Jefferson Parish School Board who were similarly affected as a class. The defendant is accused of breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and breach of contract. An unspecified amount in damages is sought for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Pertuit is represented by James F. Willeford of New Orleans-based Willeford & Toledano. The case has been assigned to Division L Judge Donald A. Rowan Jr. Case no. 750-170. MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls Activity Toys Due to Choking Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: August 4, 2015 Posting date: August 4, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54474 This recall involves the My Snuggly Ellie Activity Toy. The toy is a plush brown elephant with white crinkle ears. The green hanging loop on top of its head can attach to a stroller or crib. On the stomach, there is a mini mirror while a teether and wooden ring hang below its body. Item number 12520 can be found on the small white tag sewn into the bottom of the toy. The wooden ring can break into small pieces, posing a choking hazard to young children. Neither Health Canada nor Manhattan Group has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada. Manhattan Group has received one report of the wooden ring breaking in Norway. No injuries were reported. The company has not received any reports of injuries in the United States. For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy Safety Tips. Approximately 100 units of the recalled toys were distributed in Canada, and approximately 2,700 units were distributed in the United States at specialty toy and baby stores, and online at www.manhattantoy.com. The recalled toys were distributed from February 2014 to May 2015. Manufactured in China. Distributor: Manhattan Group LLC Minneapolis Minnesota UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away from children and return the toy where it was purchased for a full refund. For more information, consumers may contact Manhattan Group toll- free at 1-800-541-1345 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT, Monday through Friday. Consumers may also visit the firm's website and click on "Recalls" for additional information. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/j5N0k0 MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Sequential Merger Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al., Case No. 11340-VCN (Del. Ch., July 27, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., to enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed process and for an inadequate price. Headquartered in New York, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. is a globally recognized lifestyle company committed to providing consumers with inspiring content and well-designed, high-quality products. Sequential Brands is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 5 Bryant Park, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10018. Sequential Brands owns, promotes, markets, and licenses a portfolio of consumer brands in the fashion, active, and lifestyle categories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrick B. Farrell, Esq. James R. Banko, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 20 Montchanin Road Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 Facsimile: (302) 482-3612 E-mail: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com jbanko@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Innessa S. Melamed, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com innessamelamed@faruqilaw.com MERRILL LYNCH: Sued in Florida Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Fernandez, Gustavo Martinez, Oscar Luzuriaga, and Daniel Araujo as trustees of and on behalf of the LAAD Retirement Plan, and as trustees of and on behalf of the LAAD Corporation S.A. Money Purchase Retirement Plan, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Case No. 1:15-cv-22782-MGC (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed to the Class under Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by failing to provide the information necessary for mutual fund companies to give the Plans the Class A mutual fund share sales charge waiver discounts that the Plans were entitled to receive. Based in New York, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated operates a global investment banking and brokerage firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank R. Rodriguez, Esq. Paulino A. Nunez Jr., Esq. RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUNEZ P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 350-2300 Facsimile: (305) 350-2525 E-mail: frr@rtgn-law.com pan@rtgn-law.com - and - Lawrence A. Kellogg, P.A. Jason Kellogg, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami Center, 22nd Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789 E-mail: lak@lklsg.com jk@lklsg.com MF GLOBAL: Corzine Must Face Commodities Customer Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Stempel, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reported that MF Global Holdings Ltd. commodities customers may pursue their lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from former chief executive Jon Corzine and other officials over the brokerage's bankruptcy as a class action, a federal judge said. U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in Manhattan said it was desirable to let the roughly 25,200 customers sue as a group rather than require a "plethora" of individual lawsuits, a process he said would be "wholly inefficient and wasteful." The lawsuit seeks at least $820 million, comprising at least $350 million of prejudgment interest, and $470 million to repay advances from MF Global brokerage trustee James Giddens, which he could not recover in the bankruptcy proceedings, according to Merrill Davidoff, a lawyer for the customers. MF Global filed for Chapter 11 protection on Oct. 31, 2011, in a collapse that left $1.6 billion missing from customer accounts. The customers recouped that sum in exchange for assigning some of their claims to Giddens. "We were expecting a favorable decision," Davidoff, a partner at Berger & Montague, said in an interview. "They all had their money raided and stolen and dipped into illegally, and still have important claims that need to be pursued." Corzine is also a former New Jersey governor and senator, and co- chairman at Goldman Sachs. His lawyer Jonathan Streeter, a partner at the Dechert law firm, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. MF Global is now defunct. Former MF Global investors have separately reached $204.4 million of settlements with the company's former banks, auditor and officials. These include a $64.5 million accord with Corzine and other executives and directors, which would be covered by insurance. Marrero designated the law firms Berger & Montague and Entwistle & Cappucci as co-lead counsel of the commodities customer class action. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is separately suing Corzine over MF Global's collapse. MF Global settled related CFTC claims for $100 million. MICROSOFT: May Face Class Suit Over Xbox 360 Defective Discs ------------------------------------------------------------ Wesley Copeland, writing for IGN News, reported that Microsoft may be on the verge of a class-action lawsuit following a recurring claim that an Xbox 360 defect gouges discs. As Arstechnica reports, a decision was made by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals on that says Microsoft should either face litigation regarding the claims or face a Supreme Court showdown. Throughout the lifespan of the Xbox 360, Microsoft maintained that scratched discs were the result of consumer misuse, most of which were caused by customers moving the console with a disc in the tray. That said, if it was a Microsoft-published game, customers did have the option of getting the disc replaced for free. One of the arguments put forth draws on the case of Kenneth Gable and Brian Wolin vs Land Rover. Both Gable and Wolin purchased Land Rover's LR3 vehicles, which allegedly suffered from an alignment geometry defect that causes the tires to wear out prematurely. In the case of Gable/Wolin, the class-action was eventually dropped. As for the scratched disc lawsuit, the plan was to enforce the Gable/Wolin ruling, thus ending the class-action. Judge Martinez, however, doesn't think the two cases are similar enough make the same ruling. "Judge Martinez concluded that the presumption had not been rebutted because the Gable/Wolin Land Rover litigation was distinguishable from the scratched disc litigation," reads the court document. The class-action against Microsoft aims to establish whether disc scratches were made due to consumer misuse, or because the Xbox 360 suffered a design flaw. "[. . . ] although individual factors may affect the timing and extent of the disc scratching, they do not affect whether the Xboxes were sold with a defective disc system. Plaintiffs contend that (1) whether the Xbox is defectively designed and (2) whether such design defect breaches an express or an implied warranty are both issues capable of common proof." In an earlier court document, the suit claims that Microsoft saw some 55,000 complaints regarding disc scratching. "As of April 30, 2008, Microsoft Manager Douglas Park estimates that Microsoft's customer service department has received approximately 55,000 complaints from consumers regarding disc scratches." NAT'L FOOTBALL: Seau Family Seeks Trial in Concussions Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Noreen O'Donnell, writing for NBC News, reported that three years after legendary San Diego Chargers linebacker Junior Seau shot himself in the chest with a .357 Magnum revolver, his relatives continue to battle the National Football League over what they say was a decades-long deception about concussions and brain injuries. His former wife, Gina, and his four children opted out of a settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit in January because they want more information to emerge about the debilitating effects of head injuries, according to their lawyer, Steven M. Strauss, a partner with the Cooley law firm in San Diego. The Seaus are trying to get their case returned to a California state court for a trial, Strauss said. Seau is to be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Aug. 8. Before his death in May 2012 at age 43, he had become erratic and short-tempered, according to legal papers. He was depressed, drank heavily and gambled millions compulsively. But his family was as stunned by his suicide as everyone else and wanted answers, Gina Seau told The Associated Press. Throughout his long career -- he played 20 seasons with the NFL, with the Miami Dolphins and the New England Patriots in addition to the Chargers -- Seau had had concussions, but he always kept playing, she said. "That didn't stop him," she sa"I don't know what football player hasn't. It's not ballet. It's part of the game." When doctors at the National Institutes of Health examined tissue samples from his brain, they discovered that he was suffering from the degenerative brain disease, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, found in athletes with a history of brain trauma. The challenge for the Seaus will be to show that his injuries were caused by football he played in the NFL and not before, whether in high school or at the University of Southern California, said Scott Rosner, a sports business professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Trying to draw that link will be risky, he said. "It might be there but my sense is that there would be a pretty strong case to be presented to a jury that maybe it was another injury that caused this, maybe it was before he got to the NFL," Rosner said. The January following his suicide, Seau's family sued the NFL and the helmet maker Riddell in California Superior Court in San Diego. The lawsuit alleged that Seau had killed himself because of his injuries, and that the NFL had long been aware that head injuries from violent collisions on the field could have long- term, debilitating effects on players. It ignored the link, falsified research and tried to repress the findings of other studies, the lawsuit said. The family -- including Seau's four children, Tyler, Sydney, Jake and Hunter -- became part of the federal class-action lawsuit filed in June 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint also alleged that the NFL fraudulently concealed the link between football-related head impacts and long-term neurological injuries from its players -- a charge the NFL denied. The NFL had argued that safety and health rules were covered by the league's collective bargaining agreement with its players. It also said that the lawsuits lacked any proof that it concealed the risk of head trauma. Brought by more than 5,000 former players or their families, the lawsuit was settled in April. The settlement provides payments of up to $5 million to players with such neurological conditions as dementia and Alzheimer's and Parkinson diseases, plus money for medical research and monitoring. It covers about 21,000 former NFL players. Since the settlement was approved, about 90 former players have appealed. The Seau family is among about 200 who opted out of the settlement. The Seaus in a "60 Minutes Sports" segment objected that the NFL took no responsibility for policies that led to the brain injuries. "Since this litigation started, there hasn't been one document produced, there hasn't been one deposition taken," Strauss said in a statement to ESPN. "It seems very clearly designed to nip this in the bud and not have the truth come out, and that's not acceptable to the Seau family, and it's not acceptable to Junior's legacy." A lawyer who negotiated the settlement on behalf of the players, Chris Seeger, a partner at Seeger Weiss, has said in a statement that if Strauss thought the $4 million the Seaus were eligible for was insufficient he could forfeit the money and face the significant risks associated with continuing litigation. Rosner said Seau was in a category different from many other players. "His earning capacity was greater, his earning capacity after the game was different because of his Hall of Fame status so you could see monetarily why they would go down this road," he said. Seau's attorneys also will have to address an outstanding question of the care that the NFL owed to its players at a time when they were represented by a union, said Marc Edelman, an associate professor of law at the Zicklin School of Business of Baruch College, City University of New York. And the attorneys will have to show that Seau's injuries led to his death, he said. NAT'L MILK: Retailers Expand Dairy Antitrust Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Matersz Perkowski, writing for Capital Press, reported that retailers are expanding antitrust litigation against dairy cooperatives. Two retail companies are accusing a national dairy organization of manipulating milk prices, opening a new front in litigation over a herd retirement program. Piggly Wiggly Midwest, a grocery chain, and Kinney Drugs, a pharmacy chain, have filed an antitrust complaint against the National Milk Producers Federation and associated dairy cooperatives. The lawsuit claims that NMPF's "Cooperatives Working Together" program repeatedly paid farmers to send their herds to slaughter between 2003 and 2010, thereby reducing milk output and inflating prices for dairy products. The plaintiffs characterize the program as an unlawfully anti- competitive "conspiracy" and have requested class action status that would allow other direct dairy purchasers to join in the lawsuit to seek compensation. NMPF has been battling similar allegations for the past four years, but that class action case was brought on behalf of consumers rather than retailers. Chris Galen, senior vice president of communications for NMPF, said the group could not yet comment on the latest complaint. "We just learned of this litigation and we're still consulting with our attorneys," he said. According to NMPF, the herd retirements were protected by the Capper-Volstead Act, which provides farm cooperatives with some exemptions from antitrust liability. Since the original antitrust lawsuit was filed in 2011, NMPF has continued defending the program despite suffering two significant legal setbacks. The organization asked U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White to dismiss the case on the grounds that USDA and not the federal court has jurisdiction over the controversy. In 2012, White rejected that argument as well as the claim that plaintiffs were barred from filing the lawsuit by the statute of limitations. The judge dealt NMPF another blow by certifying the consumer case as a class action -- a step that often exposes defendants to greater financial losses and thus creates pressure to settle. A jury trial in the consumer case is scheduled for February 2016. It's likely that NMPF will again ask the judge to throw out the case before it goes to trial, based on the theory the cooperatives are protected by Capper-Volstead, said Peter Carstensen, a law professor specializing in agricultural antitrust at the University of Wisconsin Law School. If the judge agrees that NMPF is shielded by that law, it would effectively end the case and foreclose the plaintiffs from filing a similar lawsuit, he said. "You won't be able to come back and have another crack at it," Carstensen said. As for the new retailer lawsuit, it could be an attempt by other attorneys to join the dispute in the hope of eventually winning a share of the fees, he said. The latest complaint could also be strategically aimed at expanding the class of plaintiffs, Carstensen sa"It's possible this is a way of adding another component to the litigation." Aside from milk, similar lawsuits have targeted volume-control systems for potatoes, eggs and mushrooms in recent years, he said. Given the legal uncertainty about such programs and their vulnerability to litigation, other farm sectors will likely think twice about trying to limit production, Carstensen sa"My advice would be, 'Don't do it.'" NEW JERSEY: 150 Hurricane Sandy Insurance Cases Await Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that The New Jersey federal judge overseeing mass insurance litigation over Hurricane Sandy flood damage is attempting to light a fire under plaintiffs who have yet to declare war or peace. In a July 30 order, U.S. District Chief Judge Jerome Simandle of the District of New Jersey indicated that there have been promising signs since he first issued stays of the litigation earlier this year in order to encourage settlement: More than 350 cases have been resolved in recent months. About 150 others are amidst or awaiting settlement negotiations, Judge Simandle said. But for the roughly 350 cases that have been "silent," meaning no settlement materials have been submitted, Simandle directed attorneys to indicate their intentions. "The court is concerned that plaintiffs in this latter group of 'silent' cases are neither litigating their claims nor pursuing the settlement of their claims despite the passage of more than 120 days since the stay was entered," the judge wrote. "Obviously, by not submitting the materials necessary for the settlement process, while also not requesting relief from the stay (which was the procedure offered in each of the stay orders) such a case becomes dormant due to nonprosecution." Judge Simandle, at the urging of the district court's Hurricane Sandy Litigation Committee, issued "one last" stay, of 30 days, during which plaintiffs must either participate in the expedited settlement process or seek to move forward with litigation. Judge Simandle said litigants who do neither will have their cases dismissed, albeit without prejudice "only for good cause shown." The case is In re Hurricane Sandy WYO Carrier Flood Litigation. "WYO" refers to "write your own" -- meaning National Flood Insurance Program policies that are issued and serviced by private insurers but underwritten by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA -- after announcing earlier this year that it would review all Sandy-related claims, whether litigated or not -- has been negotiating settlements in the Sandy flood litigation in connection with both WYO policies and policies that originated with FEMA. Though there is Sandy flood litigation in other jurisdictions, primarily in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Simandle is overseeing only cases filed by New Jersey property owners, according to Christopher Gerold -- cgerold@csglaw.com -- of Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi in West Orange, counsel to about 140 New Jersey plaintiffs. "These settlements are proceeding fairly quickly," Mr. Gerold said. "The vast majority of our cases have reached tentative settlements. "To FEMA's credit . . . the cases are moving . . . . It's been working out for the homeowners; it's been working out for the court." "None of my cases are dormant, although some of them do appear on that list" because Judge Simandle hasn't yet been notified of settlement talks, Mr. Gerold said, adding that he'll do so soon in keeping with the order. "I can tell you there have been some problems in New Jersey where some cases have been taken and not litigated." Charles Mathis IV -- cmathis@merlinlawgroup.com -- of the Merlin Law Group in Red Bank, which also represents a share of the plaintiffs, painted a somewhat different picture. "I'm glad to see that they are starting to resolve-there's been a little bit of delay," he said. "Things have been sort of sitting for four months with little or no movement." Negotiations with FEMA have been smooth, but "getting paid is an issue," Mr. Mathis added. "Even when we do have a check, the next fight is with the banks, getting the banks to [process] the checks." FEMA spokesman Rafael Lemaitre said the agency is "going to do everything we can to make sure policyholders get every dollar they deserve." "The settlement program is one component of that," Mr. Lemaitre said. FEMA, aside from deploying its own lawyers, has been represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, whose spokesman didn't respond to an email seeking comment on the progression of the litigation. NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Discrimination Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on July 31 that there could be circumstances where a putative class action suit alleging employment discrimination could rely on statistics alone to show discriminatory intent. But the statistics that New York City sanitation employees cited on racial make-up in the top ranks did not convince the panel that there was discriminatory intent in the department's promotional practices. As a result, the panel on July 31 upheld a lower court's dismissal of the employees' case. Southern District Judge Jed Rakoff, sitting by designation, said the case presented a matter of first impression for the circuit "in the context of a putative class action alleging employment discrimination under [42 U.S.C.] [Section]1981 and/or the Equal Protection Clause." As some of the circuit's employment discrimination cases "have hinted, in certain circumstances . . . statistics alone may be sufficient," Judge Rakoff said. But to make the showing on statistics alone, he said, the figures "must not only not only be statistically significant in the mathematical sense, but they must also be of a level that makes other plausible non-discriminatory explanations very unlikely." Second Circuit Judges Guido Calabresi and Peter Hall joined Judge Rakoff in Burgis v. New York City Department of Sanitation, 14-1640. The plaintiffs contended the Department of Sanitation's promotion practices made for a predominantly white supervisory staff that did not reflect the composition of its workforce. Within the department, employees were first promoted from sanitation worker to supervisor. The next promotional step was becoming general superintendent. The general superintendent position has four levels, and the fourth level is the most superior. Promotions for general superintendent levels two through four are based on recommendations. All the plaintiffs, black and Hispanic men and women, were promoted to supervisor, but have not gotten higher than general superintendent level one. They sued the department in 2013. In their papers, they cited publicly available fiscal year 2011 racial makeup statistics for the percentages of whites, blacks and Hispanics filling the various ranks. The numbers showed 56 percent of sanitation workers were white, 23.5 percent were black and 18 percent were Hispanic. However, 81 percent of supervisors were white, 11 percent were black and 10 percent were Hispanic. Eighty-one percent of level one general superintendents were white, 13 percent were black and 9 percent were Hispanic. For general superintendent levels two and three, 91 percent were white. Four percent were black and 3 percent were Hispanic. At the fourth level, 80 percent were white while blacks and Hispanics equally constituted the remaining 20 percent. In March 2014, Southern District Judge Thomas Griesa dismissed the case before it could get to discovery. He said the plaintiffs' Equal Protection and Sec. 1981 claims did not sufficiently allege discriminatory intent, and dismissed the Title VII disparate impact claim for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a state action alleging disparate impact in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. The matter is pending before Acting Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Margaret Pui Yee Chan. The appeal in the federal case was argued March 5. In his decision, Judge Rakoff said even apart from failing to show discriminatory intent, the plaintiffs failed to give "meaningful specifics" on claimed qualification differences between the whites who landed promotions and seven of the plaintiffs who were purportedly passed over. The plaintiffs said the statistics alone could be enough to warrant a "plausible inference of discriminatory intent" if they showed a pattern or practice, which could not be explained except by intentional discrimination. Judge Rakoff said the proffered information fell short. "Among other shortcomings, the statistics provided by plaintiffs show only the raw percentages of white, black, and Hispanic individuals at each employment level, without providing any detail as to the number of individuals at each level, the qualifications of individuals in the applicant pool and of those hired for each position, or the number of openings at each level," he said. The judge said claims of discrimination also were undercut by the fact that each plaintiff had been promoted to a supervisor position. Judge Rakoff acknowledged there was an increased disparity between the racial and nation origin makeup of the level one general superintendents and level two and three general superintendents. But he said by level four, the composition returned "to essentially the same percentage as at level 1." Arthur Schwartz, principal attorney at Advocates for Justice Chartered Attorneys, represented the plaintiffs. Apart from pressing the state case, Mr. Schwartz said he planned to ask the Second Circuit for an en banc review. He said the July 31 ruling held him "to a standard of proof on a motion to dismiss that should have only been applied on summary judgment or at trial. The level of statistical proof that the court was demanding at the pleading stage was unprecedented." Mr. Schwartz said, "there is no question in our mind that there is gross discrimination in promotions" at the Sanitation Department. The plaintiffs were also represented by Tracey Kiernan, an associate at the firm. Nicholas Paolucci, a Law Department spokesman, said "this decision makes clear that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to establish a claim that [the Sanitation Department] discriminated when promoting staff." Assistant Corporation Counsels Fay Ng and Pamela Seider Dolgow appeared for the city. NISSAN: Court Approves Deal in Leaf Misleading Advertising Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Edelstein, writing for Green Car Reports, reported that Nissan appears to have reached a final settlement with plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit over Nissan Leaf electric-car batteries that now goes back almost three years. The suit was filed in California in 2012 on behalf of all Leaf owners in that state and in Arizona. Nissan was accused of not accurately describing the Leaf's real- world range in advertising. After an initial settlement was rejected, Nissan will now have to compensate owners and potentially replace more battery packs, according to InsideEVs. The suit accused Nissan of misleading customers about the Leaf's real-world range. It claimed figures used in advertising for the 2011 and 2012 Leaf were based on battery packs charged to levels beyond what Nissan itself recommended to customers. A previous settlement with a reported value of $38 million was rejected by Alex Kozinski, 2011 Leaf owner and Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Kozinski reportedly referred to the arrangement as a sweetheart deal for the class council that negotiated it, with less real benefit for the bulk of Leaf owners affected by the issue. Those objections caused the legal process to stall for roughly two years. Now it appears all parties have agreed on a final settlement. Under the new terms, Nissan will no longer have the option to repair a battery pack that shows less than nine "bars" of indicated capacity on the dashboard gauge. Instead, it will have to replace those packs with updated versions identical to those used in the 2015 Leaf, which use a newer and more heat-tolerant cell chemistry. Nissan will also provide 90 days of free access to DC fast- charging through its EZ Charge card program. Already offered to buyers of new Leafs, the EZ Charge card provides access to stations on the NRG eVgo, Aerovironment, and Car Charging Group networks. The card is only available in certain markets, though. Class members outside of those markets--or those not interested in the charging program--can get a $50 check instead. PENNSYLVANIA: Four-Time Killer's Death Penalty Delayed ------------------------------------------------------ Rudy Miller, writing for Lehigh Valley, reported that a Northampton County judge is due to hear arguments on whether to continue to postpone the execution of quadruple murderer Michael Ballard. Ballard is part of a class-action lawsuit seeking to throw out the death penalty against 184 Pennsylvania death row inmates. Philadelphia attorney David Rudovsky argues in the suit that the death penalty can't be carried out in Pennsylvania because the drugs to be administered under state Department of Corrections policy fail to meet specifications outlined in the state's death penalty law. Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli, however, filed court papers noting a similar argument made in Oklahoma was dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Morganelli noted in a supplemental brief on that being named in the class-action suit does not automatically guarantee a stay of your execution. Morganelli said he will make further arguments at the hearing before County Judge Emil Giordano at 10 a.m.. He'll be opposed by Ballard attorneys James Connell and Michael Corriere. Connell and Corriere filed papers arguing in part that the death penalty should be thrown out in Pennsylvania because the procedures for administering lethal injections weren't open to public debate. They were formulated by a closed group of corrections officials, they argue. The registered nurses who administer the lethal drugs do so without the direction of a doctor and without a prescription for the person to be executed, both in violation of state law, the class action suit says. Ballard, 42, had recently been released from state prison for an Allentown murder when he killed his ex-girlfriend, her father, her grandfather and a neighbor in Northampton in 2010. He was sentenced to death in 2011. PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Aug. 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that a securities class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of those who purchased shares of Puma Biotechnology, Inc. ("Puma" or the "Company") during the period between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015 inclusive. (The "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's NDA filing would be for a positive early stage breast cancer indication, instead of the previously announced metastatic breast cancer; (ii) Puma would need to submit additional safety data from preclinical carcinogenicity studies with its NDA filing, which Puma did not have; (iii) the additional required studies would necessarily push the timeline for filing the NDA into the first quarter of 2016; (iv) the Company overstated results from its Phase III ExteNET Trial; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its outlook, including in its financial statements and about the ongoing ExteNET trial. No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss in Puma you have until August 3, 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. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Kadin" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Kadin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Receptos, Inc., et al., Case No. 11337-CB (Del. Ch., July 27, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Receptos, Inc., to enjoin the agreement to sell the Company to Celgene Corporation, for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Receptos, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing therapeutic candidates for the treatment of immune and metabolic diseases. Celgene Corporation is an integrated global biopharmaceutical company engaged primarily in the discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for cancer and inflammatory diseases. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com mrogovin@weisslawllp.com kkeenan@weisslawllp.com ROWAN COUNTY, KY: Judge Hears Testimony in Licensing Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Lana Bellamy, writing for The Independent, reported that during testimony on the witness stand, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis told the court she has been considering how her office would handle marriage licenses since she took her oath in January. Rowan County Judge-Executive Walter "Doc" Blevins, Jr., said during his testimony before U.S. District Judge David Bunning that he and Davis had "talked for a while" about her potential conflict with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that would uphold the constitutionality of gay marriage. "She's very religious and she said she would not be issuing licenses to anyone because she didn't want to only do for one group," Blevins said, adding Davis later voiced concern of the narrow 5-4 margin of the Supreme Court decision and possibility that the decision could be changed within 30 days. Blevins said, despite his personal religious objection, he would issue a license based on the law. Bunning did not make a decision on whether or not to make Davis' office issue licenses to the four couples named in a federal class-action lawsuit. He said a decision would come as early as the week of Aug. 11. Davis and Rowan County government are being sued by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky on behalf of four Rowan couples -- two same-sex, two opposite-sex -- that were denied licenses either by her or by her county clerk office. Davis said she has ordered her office to stop issuing any marriage licenses because she did not want to violate her religious beliefs of discriminating against same-sex couples and does not want to be seen as approving of their marriages. Davis said during the hearing she had only spoken directly with one couple named in the suit, which was same-sex couple Jody Fernandez and Kevin Holloway. Davis said she and other county clerks wrote to as many state legislators as they could find addresses for in January, asking for a bill to be drafted in order to protect clerks from issuing licenses that conflicted with their religious convictions. "It was not a spur-of-the-moment thing for me," she said in court. "I prayed and fasted weekly before the (Supreme Court) decision." Davis' attorney, Roger Gannam, submitted a copy of the letter written on behalf of 57 county clerks, addressed to Gov. Steve Beshear, into evidence during the hearing. The letter said the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states caused a "dramatic and sudden change" in clerks offices, but Davis said clerks had met in January to form a committee focused on the outcomes of the federal decision handed down in late June. Davis said six full-time clerks and another employee operating on alternative hours work in her office. She testified that four of these clerks told her they had religious objections to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, one person was "ambiguous" with their views, and one was willing to issue licenses. Bunning asked Davis if she would fire, or otherwise discipline, a clerk who issued a license. She said the license would still have her name on it. The judge repeated his question and then she answered, "They would not be able to without my authority." Bunning repeated his question to Davis a third time, but she then refused to answer because she said the question was based off speculation and she was unsure of how to appropriately respond. Davis later clarified she did not have any intention to discipline this employee based on his or her beliefs and described the deputy clerk as "loyal" and "very dedicated" to the job. When Davis was questioned about her oath to uphold the U.S. and Kentucky Constitutions, she defended her decision by saying it was covered federally under the First Amendment's freedom of religion. "The Kentucky Constitution, so far, hasn't been re-written. That takes an act of legislation," she said, and therefore, she believes she is still upholding state law. When ACLU Cooperating Attorney Dan Canon asked Davis if she made a conscious decision not to follow the U.S. Constitution in not issuing licenses, she paused, then said no. Near the end of the hearing, Canon asked Davis who she believed had the "final say" in interpreting the U.S. Constitution. To this, Casey County Clerk Casey Davis, who has also halted the issuance of marriage licenses in the county he serves, whispered from his front row seat in the gallery, "God." "I don't know," Davis answered. Rowan County gay couple David V. Moore and David Ermold, who were denied a license in her office earlier, has also sued Davis. Canon said the couple has not become part of the class-action suit at this time. Casey Davis said he has not been sued over his office's non- issuance of licenses and marriage license requests have only been made to his office over the phone. SANDHURST-WICKHAM: Class Action Has First Court Hearing ------------------------------------------------------- Jason Spits, writing for Money Management, reported that a class action worth up to $32 million being brought against Sandhurst Trustees, which acted as trustee for failed property lender Wickham Securities, will proceed with the first court date set for. The action, which will have its first hearing in the Federal Court of Australia on July 27, will include around 150 investors with the lead plantiff -- Graeme and Marion Clark -- seeking to recover $220,000 in lost funds. However the head of Shine Lawyers Professional Negligence team Jan Saddler said the total claims against Sandhurst would be much higher with Wickham liquidators PBB Advisory estimating total losses suffered by investors to be between $28 million and $32 million. Saddler said the 150 investors had signed funding agreements with more investors expressing interest now that a court date has been confirmed. In a 70 page statement of claim Shine stated it would seek to show that Sandhurst failed to act as a prudent trustee and exercised appropriate diligence regarding its oversight of Wickham's borrowing, lending and business management. The class action will take place after Shine was able to secure access to 39 different categories of documents which they claimed were necessary for the action to proceed. The documents -- in paper and electronic form -- detailed Sandhurst's role as trustee of Wickham Securities and include trustee reports, financial statements, trust deeds and communication with the liquidators which eventually wrapped up the Wickham business. Sandhurst was ordered by the court in March of to hand over the documents which were necessary for Shine and the investors to ascertain whether they could obtain relief through the courts. Saddler said Shine and the investors expected a favourable hearing and that Sandhurst was financially capable of meeting the claim and it had given no reason to Shine or the investors no reason to believe the claim would not be met in the event of successful case. Brisbane-based Wickham Securities collapsed in 2013 owing $27 million to 300 investors with director Bradley Sherwin appointing PPB Advisory as voluntary administrator. Sherwin also operated Sherwin Financial Planners and DIY Superannuation Services out of the same office as Wickham Securities. Sherwin was subsequently banned by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission for a period of two years and seven months from September 2013. SCHUMACHER & SEILER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Charles Handley v. Schumacher & Seiler, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 02182 (D. Md., July 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Schumacher & Seiler, Inc. is engaged in the business of selling bathroom, kitchen, and plumbing supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Lanier, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 S Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: jlanier@nicholllaw.com SMKH LLC: Removes "Sobrino" Class Suit to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit entitled Augustin Sobrino and other similarly situated service advisors v. SMKH, LLC d/b/a South Miami Kia, Case No. 15-011148-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22781-CMA to the proceeding. The case asserts claim for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Rene J. Gonzalez-Llorens, Esq. Paul Jonathan Scheck, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN 201 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1500 Miami Center Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 347-7337 Facsimile: (305) 347-7837 E-mail: rgl@shutts.com pscheck@shutts.com SOLAZYME INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminds purchasers of Solazyme, Inc. securities from February 27, 2014 through November 5, 2014, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") including its March 27, 2014 follow-on public stock offerings ("the Offerings") of the important August 24, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Solazyme investors under the federal securities laws. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period, Solazyme misstated and/or failed or disclose unfavorable news about its new renewable oils production facility in Moema, Brazil. Solazyme initially failed to report that the Moema Facility suffered construction delays stemming from the inadequate availability of electricity and steam utilities. As a result, the lawsuit claims that Solazyme was prevented from increasing output to its previously projected levels. When the true details entered the market, the complaint asserts that Solazyme's share price declined and 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 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-650.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. STABIL DRILL: "Veillon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Terry J. Veillon, III v. Stabil Drill Specialties, LLC and Superior Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-02102 (W.D. La., July 27, 2015), seeks to recover overtime pay and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing rental tools for down-hole assembly usage. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Leonard Zaunbrecher, Esq. BRINEY FORET CORRY LLP P.O. Drawer 51367 Lafayette, LA 70505 Telephone: (337) 237-4070 Facsimile: (337) 233-8719 E-mail: zaunbrecher@brineyforet.com US HEALTHWORKS: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. HealthWorks Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 2:15- cv-05689 (C.D. Cal., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to disclose its intent to use and obtain consumer-background reports as a factor in their decision to hire, promote, reassign, or terminate employees. U.S. HealthWorks Inc. is a California corporation that operates health care clinics throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Devin H. Fok, Esq. DHF LAW, P.C. 234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (310) 430-9933 Facsimile: (818) 484-2023 E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com - and - Joshua E. Kim, Esq. A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT 9512 S. Central Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90002 Telephone: (323) 563-3575 Ext. 34 Facsimile: (323) 563-3445 E-mail: joshua@anewwayoflife.org VALENCIA HOLDING: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, Court Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that ruling in a closely watched case, the California Supreme Court made clear on Aug. 3 that consumers trying to escape arbitration agreements must do more than show the contract favored the other side. A six-justice majority reversed the Second District Court of Appeal, which ruled in 2011 that an arbitration agreement in a sales contract for a used Mercedes-Benz could not be enforced because it favored the car dealer. However, the court stopped short of adopting a new, possibly more rigorous, standard for proving unconscionability. Writing for the majority in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding, Justice Goodwin Liu said not all one-sided contract provisions can be struck down. "Commerce depends on the enforceability, in most instances, of a duly executed written contract," he wrote. "A party cannot avoid a contractual obligation merely by complaining that the deal, in retrospect, was unfair or a bad bargain." Justice Ming Chin issued a dissenting and concurring opinion, agreeing with the majority's conclusion but challenging its reasoning. Justice Liu's opinion follows a period of tension between the pro- arbitration U.S. Supreme Court and the more plaintiff-friendly California Supreme Court. The Aug. 3 ruling could signal the two courts are falling more in sync, said Rex Heinke -- rheinke@akingump.com -- co-head of the Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Supreme Court and appellate practice. "I think there has been a shift," he said, "and the California Supreme Court is coming more in line with the U.S. Supreme Court." The decision is a win for Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland partner Robert Olson, who argued for Southern California car dealership Valencia Holding. "I don't think it's going to make it easier for a company to uphold a truly oppressive arbitration provision," Mr. Olson said. "But I think it's going to make it easier to uphold most arbitration provisions, which do have a modicum of fairness." Rosner, Barry & Babbitt partner Hallen Rosner, an auto fraud attorney who argued for plaintiffs, did not return a phone call seeking comment. In oral arguments, Mr. Rosner claimed his client wasn't given a chance to read the sale agreement and wasn't alerted to the arbitration agreement on the back page. But the justices wrote that "Valencia was under no obligation to highlight the arbitration clause of its contract, nor was it required to specifically call that clause to Sanchez's attention." Mr. Rosner also argued the agreement was unfairly one-sided because it stipulated an arbitration award only could be appealed by either party if the award was $0 or more than $100,000, or if it included injunctive relief. The justices were not persuaded. Appealing a $0 award would favor the buyer just as much as appealing a $100,000 award would favor the seller, they wrote. The justices agreed the ability to appeal injunctive relief has a greater chance of benefiting the dealership, but they found that one-sided aspect to be merited. "We find significant Valencia's concern that the scope of an injunction can extend well beyond the transaction at issue and can compel a car seller to change its business practices," Justice Liu wrote. Lastly, the justices addressed Mr. Rosner's argument that the agreement would force the buyer to front all costs for an appeal. "Sanchez does not claim, and no evidence in the record suggests, that the cost of appellate arbitration filing fees were unaffordable for him," Justice Liu wrote, pointing out that the car at issue in this case, a Mercedes-Benz, is a high-end luxury item. Liu conceded his decision might have been different if the arbitration agreement instead was part of an employment contract signed by a worker in need of a job. Plaintiff Gil Sanchez filed a putative class action against Valencia Holding alleging the dealership made false representations about the condition of its cars and charged customers unauthorized fees. Valencia moved to compel arbitration, but the Los Angeles County Superior Court tossed the dealership's arbitration agreement because it contained a class waiver, which was prohibited by California law. Shortly after, the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling in Concepcion, found the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of class waivers. On appeal, the Second District panel rejected the arbitration agreement on separate grounds, ruling it was unfairly one-sided in favor of Valencia. During oral arguments in May, the justices had discussed whether they needed to clarify the standard for determining unconscionability. In the past the high court has used a variety of terms to describe such agreements: "unreasonably favorable" to one party, "unfairly one-sided," "overly harsh," "unduly oppressive," or "so one-sided as to shock the conscience." But the justices ultimately decided there was no need to come up with one overarching term, concluding that the prior expressions "all mean the same thing." Judge Chin's dissenting and concurring opinion challenged that decision. Using multiple phrases "has generated confusion and uncertainty," Judge Chin wrote, "because our lower courts have understood these different formulations as stating a lower standard for substantive unconscionability than 'shock the conscience.'" Justice Liu rejected Judge Chin's view that "shock the conscience" sets a higher standard than any other language the high court has used. "Adopting [Chin's] approach, however, would call into question a number of cases where we have found substantive unconscionability under other formulations," Justice Liu wrote. "We see no reason to disturb our precedents." Mr. Heinke said the court may only have temporarily dodged a bullet by declining to pick one universal phrase. "What I think is going to be difficult going forward is there doesn't seem to be any clear rule as to what is or is not substantively unconscionable," he said. "It's very much a provision-by-provision review of the arbitration agreement." Contact the reporter at mkendall@alm.com. VICE MEDIA: Faces "Ruiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gerardo Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vice Media, Inc., Case No. BC589379 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Vice Media, Inc. operates a youth media company and digital content creation studio in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Ricasa, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RICASA 2341 Westwood Blvd., Suite 7 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (424) 248-0510 Facsimile: (424) 204-0652 E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 31, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 250000 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015344TC ID number: 2015344 On certain vehicles, the steering wheel clock spring could become contaminated with long hair or long fibers which may cause a displacement of the internal guide loops. When the guide loops are dragged out of position, they may apply tension to the internal flat cable and cause it to tear. Should the cable tear, the electrical connection to the driver's front airbag may be lost, causing the airbag monitoring indicator light to illuminate. Failure of the driver's airbag to deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Correction: To be determined. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- VOLKSWAGEN JETTA 2010, 2010 VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 2011 VOLKSWAGEN PASSAT 2010 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2011 VOLKSWAGEN EOS 2011 VOLKSWAGEN TIGUAN 2010 VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 31, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 250000 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015344TC ID number:2015344 On certain vehicles, the steering wheel clock spring could become contaminated with long hair or long fibers which may cause a displacement of the internal guide loops. When the guide loops are dragged out of position, they may apply tension to the internal flat cable and cause it to tear. Should the cable tear, the electrical connection to the driver's front airbag may be lost, causing the airbag monitoring indicator light to illuminate. Failure of the driver's airbag to deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Correction: To be determined. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- VOLKSWAGEN JETTA 2010, 2010 VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 2011 VOLKSWAGEN PASSAT 2010 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2011 VOLKSWAGEN EOS 2011 VOLKSWAGEN TIGUAN 2010 WASHINGTON: Tardy Toll Payers Given Break From Late Penalties ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Lindblom, writing for The Seattle Times, reported that the state will offer one-time forgiveness to drivers who rack up civil penalties of $40 for failing to pay toll bills on time. After three years of enforcing overdue fees of $40 per unpaid toll, the state is offering drivers a second chance when they don't pay their Highway 520 or Tacoma Narrows Bridge tolls on time. Thousands of people have faced civil penalties since the current electronic toll system began at the end of 2011, and the state estimates there are 300,000 vehicles right now whose drivers owe unpaid penalties and tolls. But most people who've already paid their penalty won't get refunds, the state says. Under the new law, which took effect Monday, drivers can get their civil penalties waived one time if they arrange to pay off their tolls. Or they can establish a Good to Go debit account that electronically collects the toll using a vehicle-mounted chip, so there's no need to mail the driver a bill. It's not really an amnesty. Unlike a temporary reprieve, the new policy is permanent, for the sake of newcomers who drive through a toll area and miss a bill, said Patty Rubstello, toll-operations director for the Washington State Department of Transportation. "That first time, we want to help them, educate them, collect the toll, and hopefully that puts them in a better place next time they use our facilities," she said. The law, Senate Bill 5481 sponsored by Sen. Andy Hill, R-Redmond, calls the first-time forgiveness "an educational opportunity." Another reason is the Interstate 405 expansion, to start late, where one- or two-person vehicles can pay a toll to use the uncrowded high-occupancy lanes, saving minutes between Lynnwood and Bellevue. That means thousands more drivers will face toll bills. Without some leniency, many drivers would wind up with civil penalties as they encounter the new toll lanes and rules. Civil penalties do not apply on Highway 167, where solo drivers can pay to use the HOV lanes. Under the new law, the first time a vehicle owner owes penalties, a simple phone call or visit within 20 days should erase them -- but the toll portion must be paid before the state will renew license tabs. The second time, WSDOT will require the motorist to establish an electronic Good to Go account, or else the civil penalties would be retained. If there's a third time, the motorist would have to see a toll- court judge to ask for the penalties to be waived. The new law was praised by attorney Catherine Clark, who filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of penalized drivers who are demanding refunds. About 100 people have joined the suit, but Clark said the real purpose was to change the toll regime on behalf of the state's motorists. "I couldn't be more pleased that people are being relieved of a situation that has caused financial terror for so many people," Clark said. Those 300,000 currently delinquent accounts involve $10.8 million in unpaid tolls, and $78.7 million more in civil penalties and administrative fees, Rubstello said. So the average vehicle owner owes about $300, mostly in penalties. The new law doesn't apply to vehicle owners who paid off their bills or lost their challenges in toll court before Feb. 19, said toll spokeswoman Patty Michaud. However, there is a provision that allows a judge to review a past case. It's fairly easy to get in trouble for failure to pay toll bills within 80 days. Car owners might move without updating a mailing address in the state licensing database, so bills don't arrive. They might misunderstand or ignore the bills. They might fail to stock enough money in a Good to Go account. Or they might sell a car and be billed for trips the new owner made. "We had a customer who had her mail stolen, for months," Rubstello sa"We were able to help her and get her on her way." The new law is designed to prevent what happened to Scott Tourville, of Redmond, two years ago. He said he changed debit cards but forgot to file the numbers with Good to Go, and a few dozen 520 trips mushroomed into $2,500 in tolls and penalties. He said police pulled him over for expired tabs, after he lost in toll court and the state put a hold on his car-license renewal. Tourville said he finally sold personal items to pay off the bill, and still crosses the bridge four days a week. "I think it's a corrupt system. They're just trying to get money out of people. But I've paid off my account. It's behind me. Now I watch it like a hawk," he said. "I'd be really happy for people to not have to go through what I went through." WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Rejects EPA Pre-emption Claim in Washer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a class action claiming Whirlpool Corp. falsely labeled appliances with the Energy Star insignia is not pre-empted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's failure to impose penalties in the case, a federal judge in Newark has ruled. The EPA's decision not to order Whirlpool to compensate buyers of the mislabeled washing machines does not rise to the level of a federal law that can be given pre-emptive effect, U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty of the District of New Jersey ruled in Dzielak v. Whirlpool. While the judge denied motions to dismiss state-law consumer fraud and breach of warranty claims, he granted dismissal of a claim under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because the act does not apply to warranties that are governed by other federal laws. He also granted dismissal of a claim for unjust enrichment against Whirlpool, since the plaintiffs bought their appliances at various retailers that are co-defendants in the case, rather than from the manufacturer. The U.S. Department of Energy, which runs the Energy Star program in conjunction with the EPA, determined in May 2012 that three models of Maytag washers, made by Whirlpool, did not comply with the program's efficiency standards. The plaintiffs claim the EPA allowed Whirlpool to stop making the mislabeled washing machines, but people who bought those models, who paid more based on the Energy Star status, were not notified of their noncompliance, the suit claims. The plaintiffs sued Whirlpool as well as five retailers selling the appliances-Lowe's, The Home Depot, Sears Holdings Corp., Fry's Electronics and Appliance Recycling Centers of America. In rejecting the defendants' pre-emption claim, Judge McNulty said the case does not "involve the sort of formalized agency action that is capable of pre-empting a state law." Federal agencies can take actions that pre-empt state law, but not every agency action holds such weight, Judge McNulty said. Actions by federal agencies can pre-empt state law, particularly where formal notice-and-comment rulemaking is involved, or where an adjudication creates binding rules, Judge McNulty said. But less formal actions require case-by-case analysis, examining whether the agency's action "attained a level of fairness and deliberation that suggests Congress intended it to constitute a pronouncement of federal law." On the other hand, he said, informal agency proceedings should not have pre-emptive effect where they lack "fairness and deliberation." Whirlpool argued that the lack of a penalty represented the EPA's balancing of three objectives: keeping participation in the Energy Star program inexpensive, protecting integrity of the Energy Star logo, and treating parties fairly. But Judge McNulty said there was no evidence to support the claim that the EPA's inaction reflects such an analysis. The agency is not required to weigh such factors and render a decision, and it can do nothing without triggering an obligation to explain itself, he said. "That is a far cry from the kind of pervasive regulatory regime that would displace state law," the judge said. Judge McNulty dismissed the plaintiffs' Magnuson-Moss warranty count based on case law finding that statute is pre-empted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in suits claiming that consumer products were sold with misleading labels. While the FDCA is mandatory and participating in the Energy Star program is voluntary, the specific criteria for a product to earn the Energy Star logo can be considered a warranty and therefore the contents of that warranty are governed by federal law, Judge McNulty said. Magnuson-Moss claims in the case were dismissed without prejudice to permit the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint addressing the defects in the plaintiffs' theory of liability, Judge McNulty said. David Kott -- dkott@mccarter.com -- of McCarter & English in Newark, representing the defendants, did not return a call about the case. Yitzchak Kopel -- ykopel@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher in New York and Lindsey Taylor of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello in Roseland, representing the plaintiffs, also did not return calls. YINGLI GREEN: Goldberg Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Goldberg Law PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd. (NYSE: YGE) ("Yingli" or the "Company"), for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased shares between March 18, 2014 and May 15, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until July 27, 2015 to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at info@goldberglawpc.com. The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. Yingli is a supplier of vertically integrated photovoltaic (PV) modules based in the People's Republic of China. According to the complaint, the Company made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose: (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 Yingli's inability to raise additional capital or borrow funds from commercial banks threatened the Company's 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 emerged, the stock dropped harming investors. If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401, or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us at info@goldberglawpc.com. Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights litigation. * FCRA Class Action Suits Rise Sharply in June 2015 --------------------------------------------------- Thomas Aheam, writing for ESR Check, reported that Fair Credit reporting Act (FCRA) class action lawsuits rose 26.8 percent from May 2015 to June 2015, and FCRA class action lawsuits rose 67.4 percent in June 2015 over June 2014, according Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Complaint Statistics available on the WebRecon LLC website. CFPB Complaint Statistics show 298 FCRA class action lawsuits were filed between June 1, 2015 and June 30, 2015 while 235 FCRA class action lawsuits were filed between May 1, 2015 and May 31, 2015, a rise of 26.8 percent rise from May 2015 to June 2015. CFPB Complaint Statistics reveal that 178 FCRA class action lawsuits were filed between June 1, 2014 and June 30, 2014 while 298 FCRA class action lawsuits were filed between June 1, 2015 and June 30, 2015, a rise of 67.4 percent rise from June 2014 to June 2015. Year to Date (YTD), FCRA class action lawsuits were up 22.7 percent with 1514 filed from January 2015 to June 2015 and 1234 filed from January 2014 to June 2014. The complete CFPB Complaint Statistics are at http://dev.webrecon.com/debt-collection- litigation-cfpb-complaint-statistics-june-2015/ * U.S. Securities Class Actions Against Chinese Companies Rise -------------------------------------------------------------- Anna Zhang and Zoe Ferguson, writing for The Asian Lawyer, report that Chinese companies were the biggest foreign target of U.S. securities class actions during the first half of 2015, a new study finds. A report released on July 30 by litigation research group Cornerstone Research and Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse found that just over half of the 20 securities litigation cases filed in the first two quarters this year were against Asian companies, almost all of them Chinese. The increase in filings against Asian companies reflects a general trend of more U.S. securities class actions being filed against foreign issuers. In the first half of 2015, cases against foreign issuers accounts for 24 percent of 85 filings, up from 20 percent in 2014. This year foreign issuers, which account for about 18 percent of U.S.-listed companies, were more likely to be sued in shareholder class actions than U.S.-based issuers, the report found. In April, The Asian Lawyer reported that several newly listed Chinese companies, such as ecommerce giant Alibaba Group Holdings Ltd., internet cosmetics seller Jumei International Holding Ltd., online retailer LightInTheBox Holdings Co. Ltd. and mobile gaming company iDreamSky Technology Ltd., have all been sued by shareholders over investment losses. More cases have been filed since the publication of the article. Video streaming site Youku Toudou Inc., retailer Vipshop Holdings, software developer Xunlei Ltd. and financial data provider China Finance Online Co. Ltd.-all U.S.-listed-have been since sued in securities class actions. This spate of cases is not the first time Chinese issuers have faced a wave of shareholder litigation in the U.S. As Cornerstone's report points out, securities class actions against Chinese companies that went public via reverse merger -- also known as backdoor listing, allowing them to bypass a normal disclosure and auditing process -- peaked at 31 in 2011. That year, a reverse-merger Toronto-listed Chinese forestry company, Sino Forest Corp., was accused by short seller Muddy Waters Research of inflating assets and earnings. The allegations led to Sino Forest's bankruptcy in 2012 and triggered a flurry of government investigations and shareholder lawsuits against U.S.- listed Chinese companies. Since then, filings against Chinese reverse-merger companies have decreased, dropping to three last year, as more Chinese issuers -- mostly internet and technology companies -- have chosen to go through a conventional initial public offering to list on U.S. exchanges. Indeed, the recent increase in class actions against Chinese issuers follows a surge of U.S. IPOs by Chinese companies in the past two years. In the 18 months starting June 2013, a total of 20 Chinese companies IPOed on either the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq. That compares to 16 in the previous 30 months. Lawyers differentiate the current Chinese targets of shareholder litigation from the reverse takeover issuers, noting that companies such as Alibaba have been sued because their prices fell below investors' high expectations, not because of questionable business operations. "This could be viewed as an indication that Chinese companies have entered a more 'mature' phase of development where they are essentially no different than other listed companies," said Brian Burke -- brian.burke@shearman.com -- a Hong Kong-based disputes partner at Shearman & Sterling. ********* 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 * * *