/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150817.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 17, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 163 Headlines AECOM: Securities Class Action Remains Pending AETNA HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Capped Plans on Autism AGRO-JAL FARMING: Sued By Former Workers for Labor Violations ALLIANCE ONE: Faces "Conner" Suit in Pa. Over FDCPA Violation AMBASSADOR TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Attard" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Larson" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN GREETINGS: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in "Smith" AMERICAN GREETINGS: Faces "Michael Ackerman" Class Action APEX ASSET: Faces "Vieira" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation ARNULFO RODRIGUEZ: Sued in Texas Ct. Over Unpaid OT Wages ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Kahn" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation ASCENA RETAIL: Records $50MM Class Action-Related Pre-Tax Charge AUDIOEYE INC: No Lead Plaintiff, Counsel in Shareholder Case AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit BAC HOME: 6th Circ. Rejects Class Action Challenge BARE ELEGANCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages BLUE DIAMOND: Sued Over False Almond Breeze Advertising BRASKEM SA: August 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline BUMBLE BEE: Sued Over Packaged Seafood Products Price-Fixing CANADA: Appeals Ruling Confirms Low Threshold on Certification CANADA: CWB Class Suit Battle Continues Proceedings CANADA DRY: Recalls Heinz Rice and Mott's Fruit Products CARMAX INC: California Supreme Court Denied Petition for Review CASY INDUSTRIES: Expands Gluten-free Corn Snax Product Recall CATAMARAN CORP: Entered Into MOU With Class Action Plaintiffs CELLULAR SALES: Faces "Slawson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls Varsity Jackets Due to Choking Hazard COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Strauch" Case Has Conditional Certification CONDE NAST: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Customer Information CORRECTIONS CORP: Faces Suit Seeking Recovery of Unpaid OT Wages CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces $5MM Class Suit Over Train Derailment DAVE & BUSTER'S: Sued Over Unlawful Gift Card Redemption Policies DEFENDER SECURITY: Faces "Wade" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DELCATH SYSTEMS: Final Approval Hearing Set for October 19 DELTA AIR: Sued by Atlanta Lawyer for Ticket Overpricing DEUTSCHE BANK: Securities Class Suit Sent Back for Review DISNEY STORE: Recalls Pencil Cases Due to Perforation Hazard DOTTY'S CASINO: Agreed to Pay $375K for Class Suit Settlement ELETROBRAS: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit ENERGY TRANSFER: Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Discovery Denied ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Says ERIC CONN: Former clients to Get Help From Legal Aid Groups EXECUTIVE FIGHT: Faces Class Suit After Lemon Creek Incident EXPERIAN: Faces Class Suit Over Selling Data to Identity Thieves EZCORP INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit EZCORP INC: Sept. 18 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline EZCORP INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Suit EZCORP INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground Entered Into Class Action Settlement FLOGREAT CORP: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2011 Savanna & Express Models GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2010 Chevrolet Models Due to Injury Risk GOLD CLUB: Arb Agreement Found Unconscionable GOLDMAN SACHS: Labaton Sucharow Files Nationwide Class Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Cautions Lawyer During Suit Hearing HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Has Final Order for "Frater" Settlement HERTZ: Federal Judge Dismisses Class Suit HHGREGG INC: Ex-Manager Wins Class Suit Over Bonuses HIGHWAY EMERGENCY: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT HOT TOPIC: Oct. 26 Fairness Hearing on $14.9MM Class Suit Deal HYDRO ONE: Faces $125MM Class Suit Over Improper Billing ICONIX BRAND: August 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline IDI INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit IDI INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit JAGUAR LAND: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Electrical Systems JEFFERSON COUNTY, TX: Class Suit Filed Over Home Classification KAWASAKI KISEN: Settles in US Price Fixing Class Suit KB HOME: Trial in "Edwards" Case to Occur in 2016 or Later KEURIG GREEN: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit KEURIG GREEN: August 18 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline KEYSTONE: Recalls 2014 Avalanche Models Due to Injury Risk LIFELOCK INC: Tripp Levy Files Securities Class Suit LOEWY ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice MADISON COUNTY, IL: Petitions to Appeal Class Certification MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls Activity Toys Due to Choking Hazard MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Consumer Report MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Consumer Report MICREL INC: Executed MOU to Settle California Action MICRO BIRD: Recalls G5 School Bus Models Due to Injury Risk MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Yossef" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Kahn" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation MZB: Recalls Children's Flashing Digital Watches NEIMAN MARCUS: Data Breach Class Suit Re-opened NELSON WATSON: Faces "Maldonado" Suit Over FDCPA Violation NEWCREST MINING: Ruling Provides Meaning, Effect of s33ZF NISSAN: Recalls Armada 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk NISSIN FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Misleading Label Suit Partially OK'd OCEAN POWER: Court Appointed Five More as Lead Plaintiff PAVER DAVE: Faces "Navas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages PMFG INC: Faces "Herre" Class Action in Del. Chancery Court PUMA BIOTECH: Levi Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit RECEPTOS INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Faces "Gilmore" Suit Over FDCPA Violation RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Faces "Vieria" Suit Over FDCPA Violation REULAND ELECTRIC: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ROCCHIO TUNNEL: Faces "Holloway" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SAFEWAY GROCERY: Faces Class Suit Over Term and Conditions Notice SANFORD HEALTH: Sued Over 'Grossly Excessive' ER Charges SILVER WHEATON: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline SUSHI SAKE: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TALTECH CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TD BANK: Settles Suit for $20MM in Quality Investments Case THORATEC CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Proposed St. Jude Merger TJ MAXX: 'Compare At' Prices Deceptive Retail Trick, Suit Says TOSHIBA CORP: August 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline TOSHIBA CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Inventors Suit TOSHIBA CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Investors' Class Suit UBER: Faces $400-Mil. Class Suit in Ontario UCLA HEALTH: Class Suit Filed Over Data Breach URANIUM ENERGY: August 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline VANDER-BEND MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Time Rounding Policies VIKING RANGE: Expands Dishwasher Product Recall VOLVO: Recalls 2016 XC90 Models Due to Defective Airbag WASHINGTON: D.C. Judge Allows Some Forfeiture Claims to Proceed * Workplace Discrimination Claims to Increase, Survey Says ********* AECOM: Securities Class Action Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------- As disclosed in AECOM's prior periodic reports, in 2005 and 2006 AECOM's Australian subsidiary, AECOM Australia Pty Ltd ("AECOM Australia"), performed a traffic forecast assignment for a tolled motorway tunnel project in Australia that resulted in two separate lender lawsuits filed in 2012 against AECOM Australia in the Federal Court of Australia by RCM Services and Portigon AG. In addition, a separate securities class action lawsuit was also filed in 2012 against AECOM Australia in the Federal Court of Australia. On July 10, 2015, AECOM Australia settled the two lender lawsuits with RCM Services and Portigon AG for an amount that is not expected to have a material impact to the financial results of AECOM. The settlement does not include the securities class action lawsuit which remains pending, AECOM said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015. AETNA HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Capped Plans on Autism ---------------------------------------------------------- Jillian Singh, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Aetna illegally caps policy benefits for the "only validated treatment" for autism, a mother claims in a federal class action. Anna M. Sanzone-Ortiz sued Aetna Health of California and its corporate, on her own behalf and for her minor son. She claims that Applied Behavioral Analysis is "the only validated treatment for people with autism. The treatment approach began in the 1950s. More than 550 peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of ABA treatment for people with autism. ABA is endorsed by, among others, the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Standards Project, and the National Professional Development Center on Autism." Aetna capped her policy benefits at 20 hours of treatment per week though her son's treatment provider recommended 26 hours a week, Sanzone says in the complaint. She calls this limitation without regard for medical necessity illegal under California and federal laws. After Aetna denied her appeal, Sanzone appealed to the California Department of Managed Health Care in April, which increased her son's weekly coverage to 25 hours, Sanzone says. She claims that Aetna's cap has no support in literature that validates ABA treatment, which typically finds 30 hours a week the minimum time needed to help patients. It also violates the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act provisions of ERISA by having a separate treatment limitation applicable only in regard to mental health, according to the complaint. She seeks class certification and an injunction ordering Aetna to cover all "medically necessary" ABA treatment without regard to its arbitrary hour limit. The 13-page lawsuit does not estimate the size of the prospective class. ABA is "the process of systematically applying interventions based upon the principles of learning theory to improve socially significant behaviors and to demonstrate that the interventions employed are responsible for the improvement in behavior," the complaint states, quoting the definition without citing a source. Aetna employs almost 50,000 people and medically insures more than 23 million people, according to the complaint. Sanzone is represented by Jordan Lewis, with Kelly Uustal, of Fort Lauderdale, and Teresa Renaker, with Renaker Hasselman of San Francisco, who could not reached for comment. Aetna did not respond to a request for comment. Autism, now called autism spectrum disorder, is a developmental disorder that impairs the ability to communicate and interact. It may include repetitive behaviors, though it manifests itself in an extremely wide variety of ways, hence the name spectrum. Many autistic people are high functioning, such as Temple Grandin, a specialist in animal behavior who designs humane slaughterhouses and has written several best-selling books. A recent development is an autistic rights movement, which prefers the condition not be called a disorder at all, but one of many ways of being human. AGRO-JAL FARMING: Sued By Former Workers for Labor Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Jono Kinkade, writing for New Times, reported that a prominent Santa Maria Valley farming family is facing a class-action lawsuit filed by former employees for allegedly violating several labor laws. The complaint alleges that the agricultural businesses Agro-Jal Farming Enterprises Inc., Agro-Jal Farms Inc., Paloma Packing Inc., and the companies' owners Abel Maldonado Sr., Abel Maldonado Jr., and Frank Maldonado, violated several California labor laws regulating wages, working hours, and working conditions. The lawsuit was filed by Cipriano Ponce, employed by the defendants from 1984 to 2014, and Carlos Faria, employed by the defendants from 2008 to 2010. "Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered injury and pecuniary [monetary] loss as a result of Defendants' failure to comply with labor law," according to the complaint filed July 15 in the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. Ponce and Faria worked for the defendants in both SLO and Santa Barbara counties. The Maldonados' operations are based in Santa Maria. The complaint alleges that employees were required to report to the company offices and then go to work, but were only paid for the time they actually worked, rather than all hours they were on the clock. All in all, "plaintiffs worked approximately 13 hours per day, six days a week and six hours on the seventh day." The complaint also alleges that workers weren't given appropriate break and meal periods, were denied overtime and double time, and weren't reimbursed for work-related expenses such as mileage, gas, tools, and equipment. A class-action lawsuit is appropriate, the complaint argues, "because defendants have implemented a scheme that is generally applicable to the plaintiff class." Allen Hutkin, the San Luis Obispo-based labor law attorney representing Ponce and Faria told New Times that they believe these practices harmed hundreds of employees, primarily field workers. The California Labor Workforce Development Agency will review the complaint, and if it declines to pursue the matter, Hutkin and his clients will continue the matter in court. Frank Maldonado, president of Agro-Jal, couldn't be reached for comment. The Maldonados are a well-known agricultural family in the Santa Maria Valley, in part because of the political career of Abel Jr. He began as a Santa Maria City Council member before becoming the city's mayor, and was then elected to the California Assembly and the state Senate. In 2009, he was appointed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to fill a vacant Lt. Governor seat. Abel Jr. subsequently lost the seat in a failed 2010 re-election bid to Gavin Newsom. Maldonado also unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) in 2012. ALLIANCE ONE: Faces "Conner" Suit in Pa. Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Beverly E. Conner, On Behalf Of Herself And All Others Similarly Situated v. Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04261-JHS (E.D. Pa., August 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Deliberty, Esq. THE DELIBERTY LAW FIRM 2809 W. Chester Pike, Suite 100 Broomall, PA 19008 Telephone: (610) 353-0322 E-mail: dan@delibertylaw.com AMBASSADOR TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Michelle Spencer, Nicole Gonzalez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Ambassador Transportation Group, Inc. and Jessie F. Fonseca, Case No. 2015-017792-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an airport transportation services company in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Attard" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexia Attard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-03197- DWF-BRT (D. Minn., August 3, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of domestic airfare in the United States. The Defendants operate the largest commercial airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlobby@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com - and - Natasha A. Naraghi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK 16870 W. Bernardo Drive, #400 San Diego, CA 92128 Telephone: (858) 485-6535 Facsimile: (858) 485-0608 E-mail: natashanaraghi@amslawoffice.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Larson" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Larson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc. Delta Air Lines, Inc., United Continental Holdings, Inc., United Airlines, Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 0:15-cv-03202-PJS-BRT (D. Minn., August 3, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of domestic airfare in the United States. The Defendants operate the largest commercial airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlobby@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com - and - Simon Bahne Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. Charles J. Kocher, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3986 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com ckocher@smbb.com AMERICAN GREETINGS: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in "Smith" --------------------------------------------------------------- American Greetings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 29, 2015, that the court has held a preliminary approval hearing of the settlement in the case, Al Smith et al. v. American Greetings Corporation. On June 4, 2014, Al Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade, former fixture installation crew members for special projects, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit against American Greetings Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Plaintiffs claim that the Corporation violated certain rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law, including the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. For themselves and the proposed classes, plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of general and special damages, including but not limited to minimum wages, agreed upon wages and overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, statutory penalties (including penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), unpaid benefits, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and interest). In addition, plaintiffs request disgorgement of all funds the Corporation acquired by means of any act or practice that constitutes unfair competition and restoration of such funds to the plaintiffs and the proposed classes. On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint to add claims for reimbursement of business expenses and failure to provide meal periods in violation of California Law and on December 12, 2014, amended their PAGA notice to include the newly added claims. On January 20, 2015, the parties reached a settlement in principle that, if approved by the Court, will fully and finally resolve the claims brought by Smith and Hourcade, as well as the classes they seek to represent. The settlement was a product of extensive negotiations and a private mediation, which was finalized and memorialized in a Stipulation and Class Action Settlement Agreement signed March 30, 2015. The proposed settlement establishes a settlement fund of $4.0 million to pay claims from current and former employees who worked at least one day for American Greetings Corporation and/or certain of its subsidiaries in any hourly non-exempt position in California between June 4, 2010 and the date of the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement. On March 31, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On April 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint to which American Greetings Corporation filed its answer on May 19, 2015. On April 30, 2015, the Court held a preliminary approval hearing. If the settlement is preliminarily approved, notice and claim forms will be mailed to class members and class members will have an opportunity to submit claims, to opt-out of the settlement, and/or to object to the settlement. As part of a Preliminary Approval Order, the Court will set a Final Approval Hearing to occur after the notice process, at which point the Court will consider the notice process and results, any objections, and other relevant information. The Court will then decide whether to finally approve the class settlement. If the settlement is finally approved, American Greetings will fund the settlement within twenty (20) days after passage of all appeal periods. Thereafter, the settlement funds will be disbursed as provided in the settlement agreement and the Court's orders. AMERICAN GREETINGS: Faces "Michael Ackerman" Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- American Greetings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 29, 2015, that the Company faces Michael Ackerman v. American Greetings Corporation, et al. On March 6, 2015, plaintiff Michael Ackerman, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court of New Jersey alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by American Greetings Corporation and its subsidiary, AG Interactive, Inc. The plaintiff claims that defendants (1) sent plaintiff an unsolicited text message notifying plaintiff that he had received an ecard; and (2) knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA, which prohibits unsolicited automated or prerecorded telephone calls, including faxes and text messages, sent to cellular telephones. Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class based on unsolicited text messages sent by defendants during the period February 8, 2011 through February 8, 2015. The plaintiff seeks damages in the statutory amount of $500 for each and every violation of the TCPA and $1,500 for each and every willful violation of the TCPA. The Corporation believes the plaintiff's allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously. With respect to the Ackerman case, management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses as (i) the aggregate damages have not been specified, (ii) the proceeding is in the early stages, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of anticipated motions, and/or (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. However, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the Corporation's business, consolidated financial position or results of operations, although the outcome could be material to the Corporation's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. APEX ASSET: Faces "Vieira" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Stephanie Vieira, on hehalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Apex Asset Management, LLC and John Doe 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-05966-ES-MAH (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 ARNULFO RODRIGUEZ: Sued in Texas Ct. Over Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Juan Mendoza Caballero and Arturo Rubio v. Arnulfo Rodriguez Roofing Co., Inc., Arnulfo Rodriguez Construction LLC, arnulfo Rodriguez and Maria Acevedo, Case No. 4:15-cv-02229 (S.D. Tex., August 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a construction company with a principal place of business at 6811 Theall Road, Suite A, Houston Texas 77066. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef Franz Buenker, Esq. 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Kahn" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Larry Kahn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ARS National Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-05967-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (347) 526-4093 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com ASCENA RETAIL: Records $50MM Class Action-Related Pre-Tax Charge ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, that the Company expects to record a pre-tax charge of approximately $50 million related to class action lawsuit. The Company is a party to lawsuits related to pricing practices at its Justice reporting unit. In early July 2015, based on recent developments in the cases, the Company determined that it is required to record a reserve for the future settlement of the Cases in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 450-20-25. As a result, the Company currently expects to record a pre-tax charge of approximately $50 million during the fourth quarter of its fiscal year ending July 25, 2015. AUDIOEYE INC: No Lead Plaintiff, Counsel in Shareholder Case ------------------------------------------------------------ AudioEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff or lead counsel in the shareholder class action lawsuits. "In April 2015, two purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against us and our officer Nathaniel Bradley and former officer Edward O'Donnell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona," the Company said. "The plaintiffs allege various causes of action against the defendants arising from our announcement that our previously issued financial results for the first three quarters of 2014 and the guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014 and the full year of 2014 could no longer be relied upon. The complaints seek, among other relief, compensatory damages and plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees." "The Court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff or lead counsel, and we have not yet responded to the complaints. We believe that the lawsuits have no merit and intend to mount a vigorous defense. Given the current stage of the proceedings in this case, our management currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or reasonably estimate the range of losses, related to these matters." AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ tHE law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a shareholder class action has been filed against Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. ("Avalanche" or "The Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Avalanche, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses on discovering and developing novel gene therapies for the treatment of ophthalmic diseases based on its Ocular BioFactory platform. The Company's lead product candidate is AVA-101, which was undergoing a Phase 2a trial for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration during the Class Period. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Avalanche and certain of its executive officers made a series of materially false and/or misleading statements to investors, and failed to disclose that the Phase 2a study of AVA-101 had not been designed to show statistical significance for the study's secondary endpoints between the active and control study groups. After the market closed on June 15, 2015, the Company issued a press release entitled "Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. Announces Positive Top-Line Phase 2a Results for AVA-101 in Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration." That press release disclosed that the Phase 2a study was significantly more limited than investors were previously lead to believe. On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $21.83 per share, or over 56%, to close at $17.05 per share on June 16, 2015, thereby damaging investors. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 -- 7706 or (610) 667 -- 7706, or via e- mail at info@ktmc.com. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For additional information about the lawsuit, or to request information about the action, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/avalanche- biotechnologies-inc. Members of the class may,no later than September 8, 2015, petition the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.ktmc.com BAC HOME: 6th Circ. Rejects Class Action Challenge -------------------------------------------------- Kentucky Business Entity Law reported that in the decision authored by Judge Rogers, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the MERS system and the assertion that it's operation violated Kentucky law with respect to recording mortgage assignments. The Sixth Circuit held that, while the assignment of a mortgage may, under Kentucky law, be required to be of record with the county clerk, there is no parallel requirement for recording assignments of the related promissory notes. Higgins v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, __F.3d __, 2015 WL 4289804 (6th Cir. July 16, 2015). Under the MERS system, when a home is financed through a note and mortgage, the lender on the note is identified as the issuing bank. In turn, the mortgagee is identified as MERS, as nominee of the mortgagee and its successors. When in turn the note and the related mortgage are sold or resold, such as takes place during securitization, no further recordation is made with the county clerk. Rather, the note is transferred to the purchaser thereof, and assuming they are a member of the MERS system the related interest in the mortgage is assigned to the acquirers benefit. Or at least that is how it was intended to operate. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that the MERS system was improper in that it violated KRS Section 382.360(3) which requires that "When a mortgage is assigned to another person, the assignation will file the assignment for recording with the county clerk within thirty (30) days of the assignment." Certain penalties are imposed upon an assignee who fails to make this required recording. In that the assignment in the MERS system of the promissory notes carried with it an interest in the related mortgage, the plaintiffs posited that damages were owing because the transfers of those interests in the mortgages were never recorded with the county clerk. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the banks and other lending institutions named as defendants, finding, inter alia, that the transfer of the notes which were secured by the mortgages in effect constituted an assignment of the underlying mortgage, and that assignment required a filing with the County Clerk. The Sixth Circuit granted an interlocutory appeal to that determination. Coincidentally, the same day that the District Court (Judge Caldwell) denied the motion for summary judgment, a near identical challenge to the MERS system was considered and rejected in Ellington v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 13 F.Supp.3d 723 (W. D. Ky. 2014) (Judge McKinley). Much of the Sixth Circuit's analysis in this case would "piggyback" on the Ellington decision. The question came down to one of statutory interpretation. Parsing the statute, the Sixth Circuit focused upon statutory distinctions between the treatment of mortgage instruments and promissory notes, particularly focusing on the fact that while assignment of the former must be recorded, recordation of assignments of the latter are merely permissive. Further: "Adopting plaintiffs' interpretation of the recording statutes would also render the statutory scheme somewhat incoherent. Plaintiffs concede that their interpretation would mandate recording of note assignments. But Kentucky's recording statutes pointedly distinguish between mortgage assignments -- which must be recorded, see KRS 382.360(3) -- and note transfers -- for which recording is optional, see KRS 382.290(2). If every note transfer operated as a mortgage assignment, and every mortgage assignment must be recorded, then every note transfer would have to be recorded, albeit as a mortgage assignment. It would be strange for Kentucky's legislature to require recording of note transfers as mortgage assignments while elsewhere in the same statutes providing the note transfers need not be recorded. 2015 WL 4289804,*4. Ultimately: In sum, KRS 382.360(3) applies to those instances in which a transferee fails to record a transfer of a mortgage deed. It does not require recording of transfers of promissory notes. Because it is undisputed that defendants transferred only promissory notes and did not fail to record any transfers of mortgage deeds, defendants did not violate KRS 382.360(3) and the district court should have dismissed plaintiffs' action on that basis. BARE ELEGANCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Ember Knight, and Haley Hyden-Soffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bare Elegance Management, LLC, and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-05854 (C.D. Cal., August 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Bare Elegance Management, LLC owns and operates an adult entertainment business located in Inglewood, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Morris Rose, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT STARR 23277 Ventura Blvd Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com BLUE DIAMOND: Sued Over False Almond Breeze Advertising ------------------------------------------------------- Ed Cara, writing for Medical Daily, reported that a pair of brave citizens are squaring off against Blue Diamond Growers, the largest processor and marketer of almonds in the world (according to their company website) in civil court. The plaintiffs, Tracy Albert and Dimitrios Malaxianis, are claiming that Blue Diamond's almond milk brand, Almond Breeze, has been fraudulently advertising itself as primarily containing almonds, when in actuality, it only contains about two percent. According to the amended complaint, available to the public, Albert and Malaxianis were avid almond milk lovers -- Albert even residing in California, where Blue Diamond helps produce a significant amount of the almonds grown in the U.S. every year. However, they became shocked when they learned that their Almond Breeze, according to nutritional information displayed by its UK counterpart, only contained two percent real almond. No such disclosure exists on the U.S. side of the almond milk aisle. "Defendant is using its website to lead distributors, grocery stores, restaurants, consumers and other buyers and resellers of almond milk in the United States to believe that their almond milk branded products are primarily made from almonds," read their complaint. "Said information from Defendant's website has created a false perception amongst the public that Defendant's almond milk labeled products are premium products that are healthy for you because they are primarily made from almonds." Regardless of the outcome, the civil case, filed in New York because of Malaxianis's residency there, is coming at a time when almond milk has become incredibly popular. An article referenced by the complaint notes that sales of almond milk cleared over $700 million, with Blue Diamond the top dog (the original suit also named Whitewave Foods, which produces Silk, a brand that now includes almond milk). According to research they conducted online, the average amount of almond that should be found in almond milk is around 25 to 35 percent. The two, fighting on behalf of themselves and "all other persons in the United States" who have ever purchased Almond Breeze, are claiming the company has committed unfair and deceptive business practices, false advertising, fraud, and unjust enrichment. It's tough to say whether their effort will bear any fruit (juice), but the debacle does seem fairly reminiscent of past labeling battles, such as sugary cereal advertisements that claimed health benefits and Coca Cola's attempt to market a juice drink as filled with pomegranate and blueberry when it actually only contained about 0.3 and 0.2 percent of each, respectively. In the meantime, it's at least a piece of ammunition that you can throw out in an argument about why you don't like almond milk. BRASKEM SA: August 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired American Depositary Receipts of Braskem S.A. ("Braskem") (NYSE:BAK) between June 1, 2010 and March 11, 2015. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Braskem ADRs between June 1, 2010 and March 11, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/braskem- bak or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. On March 11, 2015, a report from the Sao Paulo newspaper Folha de S. Paolo implicated Braskem in the corruption scandal surrounding Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras. The article alleges that Braskem paid at least $5 million annually to Petrobras between 2006 and 2012 to acquire crude derivative contracts at cheaper prices, according to testimony made by former Petrobras executive Paulo Roberto Costa and self-confessed money launderer Alberto Youssef. If you suffered a loss in Braskem you have until August 31, 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. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. BUMBLE BEE: Sued Over Packaged Seafood Products Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, and Starkist Company, Case No. 3:15-cv- 01714-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal., August 3, 2015), arises from the Defendants' unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for packaged seafood products within the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia. The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com CANADA: Appeals Ruling Confirms Low Threshold on Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- Gillian Scott, Esq. -- gscott@osler.com -- and Aislinn E. Reid, Esq. -- areid@osler.com -- at Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, reported that we have previously commented on the relatively low evidentiary threshold at the certification stage of class actions in Canada. The Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Condon v Canada, a privacy class action, continues this theme as a recent example of Canadian courts' liberal and purposive approach to class action certification. Background: The Certification Requirement -- A Reasonable Cause of Action Among the criteria required to certify a class action is that the pleadings must disclose a reasonable cause of action. While a proposed plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to show some factual basis for each of the other certification requirements, the same is not required to prove the existence of a cause of action. Rather, a pleading will be found to disclose a cause of action unless it is plain and obvious that no such claim exists. Federal Court Partially Certifies Class Action In July 2014, the Federal Court certified in part a class proceeding for damages arising out of the loss by the Ministry of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada of a hard drive containing personal information of 583,000 student loan recipients. Our post regarding the certification decision can be found here. At the certification stage, the class action was allowed to proceed based on breach of contract and the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The certification judge denied certification of the claims for breach of confidence and negligence, finding, based on a "summary review of the evidence", that the plaintiff had not suffered any compensable damages, and therefore negligence and breach of confidence (both of which have damages as an essential element) could not be certified. Appeal Allowed: Reasonable Cause of Action Not Determined By Evaluating Evidence on Certification Motion Allowing the Appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal referred the matter back to the Federal Court to determine the common issues in the class action in relation to the claims for negligence and breach of confidence. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the certification judge erred in evaluating the affidavit evidence filed by the parties to determine the merits of the claims for negligence and breach of confidence. The Court reinforced that at the certification stage of class actions, the determination of whether pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action is based on an assumption that the facts as pleaded are true, not on a review of evidence adduced in support of the motion. Condon serves as a reminder of the proper purpose of evidence on certification motions, and reaffirms that the certification stage is not intended to be a test of the merits of a proposed class action. CANADA: CWB Class Suit Battle Continues Proceedings --------------------------------------------------- Jocelyn Turner, writing for PR Record Gazette, reported that Supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) are continuing their court proceedings. 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 said. 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 said. "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 its 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 miss-allocated 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 said. "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. CANADA DRY: Recalls Heinz Rice and Mott's Fruit Products -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 7, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage) Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Canada Dry Mott's Inc., Heinz Canada Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9950 Industry is recalling Heinz Apple broccoli, pea & brown rice and Mott's Fruitsations Fruit Rockets - Unsweetened Strawberry from the marketplace due to potential loss of seal, causing spoilage. Consumers 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 an infant or child has been fed the products described above, discontinue use and monitor for symptoms. Consumption of spoiled food may cause symptoms such as upset stomach, vomiting and diarrhea. If you have any concerns, please seek medical attention. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC ---------- ----------- ---- product --- ---------- Heinz Apple, 128 ml 2016 MR 03 0 57000 02990 6 broccoli, 2016 MR 04 pea & brown rice Mott's Fruitsations 90 g NO2615 G5 0 65912 00019 7 Fruit Rockets - Unsweetened Strawberry - Apple Strawberry Fruit Blend Mott's Fruitsations 4 x 90 g NO2615 0 65912 00020 0 Fruit Rockets - Unsweetened Strawberry - Apple Strawberry Fruit Blend Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/2lI7r4 CARMAX INC: California Supreme Court Denied Petition for Review --------------------------------------------------------------- The California Supreme Court has denied CarMax, Inc.'s petition for review in the Fowler class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015. On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two other lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case. The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The putative class consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present. On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class. On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions. The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant putative class. The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. On November 21, 2011, the court granted CarMax's motion to compel the plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individual basis. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling and on March 26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting CarMax's motion to compel arbitration. On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court. On February 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted CarMax's petition for certiorari, vacated the California Court of Appeal decision and remanded the case to the California Court of Appeal for further consideration. The California Court of Appeal determined that the plaintiffs' Labor Code Private Attorney General Act claim is not subject to arbitration, but the remaining claims are subject to arbitration on an individual basis. CarMax appealed this decision on March 9, 2015 by filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. On April 22, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees. "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in this matter," the Company said. CASY INDUSTRIES: Expands Gluten-free Corn Snax Product Recall ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 5, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Casy Industries Ltd. Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9973 The food recall warning issued on August 4, 2015 has been updated to include additional allergens. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Casy Industries Ltd. is recalling Casy's Kwik brand Gluten-free Corn Snax from the marketplace because they may contain hazelnut, almond, cashew and pistachio which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to hazelnut, almond, cashew or pistachio 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 almond, hazelnut, cashew or pistachio, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There has been one reported reaction associated with the consumption of these products. Background This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. 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 products from the marketplace. Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC ---------- ----------- ---- product --- ---------- Casy's Kwik Gluten-free 150 g All codes 8 38222- Corn Snax box where almond, 00111 2 with (contains hazelnut, Chocolate 12 x 2 cashew and Filling stick pistachio do packages) not appear on the label. Casy's Kwik Gluten-free 12 g All codes 8 38222- Corn Snax (2 where almond, 00101 3 with sticks) hazelnut, Chocolate cashew and Filling pistachio do not appear on the label. Casy's Kwik Gluten-free 150 g All codes 8 38222- Corn Snax box where almond, 00112 9 with (contains hazelnut, Vanilla 12 x 2 cashew and Filling stick pistachio do packages) not appear on the label. Casy's Kwik Gluten-free 12 g All codes 8 38222- Corn Snax (2 where almond, 00102 0 with sticks) hazelnut, Vanilla cashew and Filling pistachio do not appear on the label. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/TZFcCl CATAMARAN CORP: Entered Into MOU With Class Action Plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------------- Catamaran Corporation, UnitedHealth Group and 1031387 B.C. Unlimited Liability Company have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits providing for the settlement of the litigation, Catamaran said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 2, 2015. On March 29, 2015, Catamaran (the "Company") entered into an Arrangement Agreement (the "Arrangement Agreement") with UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA ("UnitedHealth Group"), and 1031387 B.C. Unlimited Liability Company, an unlimited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Province of British Columbia, Canada, and a wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group ("Purchaser"). The Arrangement Agreement provides, among other things, that, in accordance with a Plan of Arrangement and the transactions contemplated thereby, UnitedHealth Group will acquire, directly or indirectly, all of the issued and outstanding common shares of the Company pursuant to a statutory "arrangement" (the "Arrangement") under Section 195 of the Business Corporations Act (Yukon), resulting in the Company becoming an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group. Four purported common shareholders of the Company filed four putative class action complaints in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, each on behalf of a purported class of common shareholders. Subject to court approval, the parties in all four lawsuits have agreed to consolidate the lawsuits in their entirety in the Cook County Circuit Court in the State of Illinois (the "State Litigation"). In addition, two purported common shareholders of the Company filed putative class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, each on behalf of a purported class of common shareholders (the "Federal Litigation" and, together with the State Litigation, the "Litigation"). On July 2, 2015, the Company, UnitedHealth Group and Purchaser entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Litigation providing for the settlement of the Litigation (the "Memorandum of Understanding"). In the Memorandum of Understanding, the Company agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy circular and proxy statement of the Company dated June 8, 2015 relating to the Arrangement (the "Proxy Circular and Proxy Statement"). The Company believes that no additional disclosure is required to supplement the Proxy Circular and Proxy Statement under applicable laws. However, to avoid the risk that the Litigation may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Arrangement, and to minimize the expense of defending the Litigation, the Company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Circular and Proxy Statement. The supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Circular and Proxy Statement are set forth below. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that, subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The settlement contemplated by the parties will be subject to customary conditions, including consummation of the Arrangement, certification of the class, and court approval following notice to the Company's shareholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the presiding court, such settlement will resolve and release all claims that were, or could have been, brought in any of the actions challenging any aspect of the Arrangement, the Arrangement Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for dissent rights made by shareholders of the Company in accordance with the Arrangement Agreement and the related Plan of Arrangement), pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders of the Company prior to final approval of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. If the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois does not approve the settlement, such proposed settlement, as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding, may be terminated. CELLULAR SALES: Faces "Slawson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Slawson v. Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc., Case No. 2:15- cv-03191 (E.D. La., August 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. is an authorized retailer of Verizon Wireless products and services, operating over 600 stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan F. Kansas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN KANSAS, LLC 1801 Carol Sue Ave. Terrytown, LA 70056 Telephone: (504) 210-1150 E-mail: alan@alankansaslaw.com CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls Varsity Jackets Due to Choking Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 6, 2015 Posting date: August 6, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54504 This voluntary recall involves boys knitted fleece varsity jacket. The jacket is blue and grey in colour with a baseball and bats embroidered on the front upper right side. The recalled jackets can be identified by the following: Style Number Vendor PO Number CA Number Affected ------------ Number --------- --------- Sizes ------ -------- 2033450 1408 158805 40465 6-24 months 158806 2T to 5T 158807 The Style number can be found on a price ticket/hangtag. The Vendor, PO and CA numbers can be found on sewn-in clothing tags at the side seam. The metal snaps on the jackets may detach when pulled, posing a choking hazard. Neither Health Canada nor The Children's Place (Canada) has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada. In the United States, The Children's Place received one report of the metal snap detaching. No injuries were reported. Approximately 2,200 units were sold in Canada, and approximately 13,700 units were sold in the United States. The recalled products were sold from December 2014 to July 2015 online and at various retail locations across Canada. Manufactured in Pakistan. Manufacturer: Masood Textile Mills Ltd. Faisalabad PAKISTAN Distributor: The Children's Place (Canada) LP Mississauga Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled jackets and contact The Children's Place (Canada) LP for a full refund. For more information, consumers may contact The Children's Place customer service toll-free at 1-877-827-7895, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Consumers may also visit The Children's Place website and click on the 'Recall Information' link at the bottom of the page. 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/SLWhJ9 COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Strauch" Case Has Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Computer Sciences Government Services Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, that the court has granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of system administrators in the case, Strauch et al. Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action. On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that CSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at any time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSC improperly classified its system administrators as exempt from the FLSA and that CSC therefore owes them overtime wages. Plaintiffs have also asserted similar claims under state law. CSC's position is that its system administrators have the job duties, responsibilities, and salaries of exempt employees and are properly classified as exempt from overtime compensation requirements. CSC's Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in February 2015. On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of system administrators. The Strauch putative class includes more than 4,000 system administrators, of whom 1,865 are employed by us and the remainder of whom are employed by CSC. Courts typically undertake a two-stage review in determining whether a suit may proceed as a class action under the FLSA. In its order, the Court noted that, as a first step, the Court examines pleadings and affidavits, and if it finds that proposed class members are similarly situated, the class is conditionally certified. Potential class members are then notified and given an opportunity to opt in to the action. The second step of the class certification analysis occurs upon completion of discovery. At that point, the Court will examine all evidence then in the record to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to conclude that the proposed class members are similarly situated. If it is determined that they are, the case will proceed to trial; if it is determined they are not, the class is decertified and only the individual claims of the purported class representatives proceed. CONDE NAST: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Customer Information -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc., d/b/a Conde Nast ("Conde Nast"), alleging that the magazine publisher sells the personally identifiable information ("PII") of its customers to third-party "data miners" in violation of Michigan State law. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Conde Nast has violated Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act ("VRPA") prohibition against companies disclosing without permission any record or information concerning a Michigan customer's purchase of written materials, if the record contains PII. According to the complaint, Conde Nast sold lists containing PII at a rate of approximately $180 per thousand subscribers. The complaint seeks to certify a class of all Michigan residents who had their PII disclosed to third parties by Conde Nast without consent. Does Selling PII Without Customer Consent Violate Michigan Law? Conde Naste Sued for Selling Personally Identifiable Information According to the complaint, the named plaintiff is a Conde Nast magazine subscriber. The plaintiff alleges that he was never provided with written notice that Conde Nast sells its customers' PII and failed to provide a means of opting-out from such practices. The complaint further alleges that "[c]onsumers can sign up for Conde Nast subscriptions through numerous media outlets . . . . Regardless of how the consumer subscribes, Conde Nast never requires the individual to read or agree to any terms of service, privacy policy, or information-sharing policy." This practice, according to the complaint, violates Michigan's VRPA. The VRPA, passed in or about 1988, states in part that: "a person, or an employee or agent of the person, engaged in the business of selling at retail, renting, or lending books or other written materials . . . shall not disclose to any person, other than the customer, a record or information concerning the purchase . . . of those materials by a customer that indicates the identity of the customer." The complaint seeks to enjoin Conde Nast from violating that provision of the VRPA, as well as disgorgement of all profits made by Conde Nast from the sale of customer PII or $5,000.00 per class member, whichever is greater. Conde Nast must respond to the complaint. Protect Yourself The class action complaint filed against Conde Nast alleges that it sold customer PII without disclosing such practices in its terms of service or privacy policy, and did not make an information sharing policy available to prospective and existing subscribers. While laws regulating the sale of PII may vary from state to state, providing conspicuous disclosures and obtaining consumer prior express informed consent before selling such data is always a must. If you are interested in learning more about this topic or if you have been served with process concerning your data sharing practices, please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com or call us at (212) 246-0900. CORRECTIONS CORP: Faces Suit Seeking Recovery of Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Bowman, Danny Childers, Terry A. Fultz, Sammy Herald, Fred Mularz, Archie Moore, Nathan Mullins, Thomas Reese, Roy Terry, and Richard Woodward, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Corrections Corporation of America, Case No. 5:15-cv-00223-KKC (E.D. Ky., August 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Corrections Corporation of America is a Maryland corporation with headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee. CCA owns and manages private prisons and detention centers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Catesby Woodford, Esq. Thomas Walcutt Miller, Esq. MILLER, GRIFFIN & MARKS, P.S.C. 271 W. Short Street Suite 600, Security Trust Building Lexington, KY 40507-1292 Telephone: (859) 255-6676 Facsimile: (859) 259-1562 E-mail: ewoodford@kentuckylaw.com twm@kentuckylaw.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces $5MM Class Suit Over Train Derailment --------------------------------------------------------------- Wate.com, reported that a class action lawsuit seeking $5 million has been filed naming four Maryville residents after the CSX train derailment and fire earlier. The suit was filed in federal court on behalf of Charles Tipton, Billy Tipton, and husband and wife Travis and Elizabeth Pruett. The plaintiffs are seeking $5 million from train operator CSX and rail car owner Union Tank Car Company. According to the suit, Charles Tipton was evacuated from his home around 1 a.m. on July 2, shortly after the derailment. He was in sight of the fire and inhaled smoke and fumes. He was unable to return home until after the evacuation was lifted and according to the suit, missed a day of work. Billy Tipton, according to the suit, was evacuated from his home around 2 a.m. and also breathed in smoke and fumes, complaining of watery eyes and a burning sensation in his mouth and throat. The suit also says Travis and Elisabeth Pruett were also evacuated from their homes for more than 24 hours. The suit does not say whether Charles Tipton or Billy Tipton sought medical help. The suit alleges all four suffered property damages, aggravation and inconvenience, fear, anxiety and mental anguish and out-of- pocket expenses. The suit says Charles Tipton also lost income. The plaintiffs are represented by five separate law firms, including Knoxville-based Hagood Moody Hodge and Kramer Rayson, as well as Maryville-based Craig L. Garrett. Another lawsuit was filed earlier by Kevin W. Shepherd naming husband and wife Aaron and Kelli Johnson as plaintiffs. That suit alleges CSX was "negligent and caused a nuisance resulting in evacuation." Around 5,000 people had to evacuate their homes for more than 24 hours when a train car containing toxic chemical acrylonitrile derailed in the early morning hours of July 2. Residents were allowed to return home in the afternoon of July 4, but concerns continued about well water and the presence of the chemical in a nearby creek. DAVE & BUSTER'S: Sued Over Unlawful Gift Card Redemption Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Skinner, on behalf of himself, the General Public, and all others similarly situated v. Dave & Buster's, Inc., Case No. BC590241 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide cash to consumers wishing to redeem a gift card with a cash value less than $10.00. Dave & Buster's, Inc. owns and operates restaurants in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip R. Polinerm, Esq. FINEMAN & POLINER LLP 155 North Riverview Drive Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 Telephone: (714) 620-1125 Facsimile: (714) 701-0155 E-mail: phillip@finemanpoliner.com DEFENDER SECURITY: Faces "Wade" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Iyon Wade, Vincent Espinoza, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Defender Security Co. and Does 1-100, Case No. BC590356 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Defender Security Co. is an Indiana corporation that provides professional security guard, investigative, and security consultation services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lonnie C. Blanchard III, Esq. THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC 3311 East Pico Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90023 Telephone: (213) 599-8255 Facsimile: (213) 402-3949 E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com DELCATH SYSTEMS: Final Approval Hearing Set for October 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- Delcath Systems, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 7, 2015, that the Court granted Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and set a Final Approval Hearing for October 19, 2015, in the case, In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 13-cv-3116). On May 8, 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bryan Green, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Green"), Case No. 1:13-cv- 03116-LGS. On June 14, 2013, a substantially similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Joseph Connico, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Connico"), Case No. 1:13-cv-04131-LGS. The parties have reached a settlement in principle that, if approved by the Court, will fully and finally resolve the claims brought by Lead Plaintiff on behalf of the class it seeks to represent. The proposed settlement establishes a settlement fund of $8,500,000 in return for a release of all claims in this litigation, which is not expected to result in any additional expense in the Company's financial statements. On June 24, 2015, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and set a Final Approval Hearing for October 19, 2015. Pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, notice and claim forms will be mailed to class members and class members will have an opportunity to submit claims, to opt-out of the settlement, and/or to object to the settlement. At the Final Approval Hearing the Court will consider the notice process and results, any objections, and other relevant information. The Court will then decide whether to finally approve the class settlement. If the settlement is finally approved, the settlement funds will be disbursed as provided in the settlement agreement and the Court's orders. DELTA AIR: Sued by Atlanta Lawyer for Ticket Overpricing -------------------------------------------------------- Judd Hickinbotham, writing for WSB, reported that an Atlanta lawyer is the latest to file suit against several airlines, accusing them of colluding to keep ticket prices sky high. The class-action suit filed by attorney David Bain lists Delta, American, Southwest, and United Airlines as defendants. He filed it on behalf of a Massachusetts traveler. The suit, filed in the Northern District of Georgia, says the airlines conspired to fix, raise and maintain ticket prices. A Delta spokesman, once again, denied the claims in a statement released. The Department of Justice is looking into the accusations. Lawyers in other states have filed similar suits, with the goal of a class-action case that would include millions of fliers. They could consolidate the suits. DEUTSCHE BANK: Securities Class Suit Sent Back for Review --------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent a securities class action against Deutsche Bank and several underwriters back to U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts of Manhattan for reconsideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's March 2015 decision in Omnicare v. Laborers District Council. Judge Batts had tossed the case in 2013, ruling that under 2nd Circuit precedent in Fait v. Regions Financial, Deutsche Bank's estimation of its exposure to mortgage-backed securities in offering materials for a stock issue was an opinion that could not give rise to securities fraud liability. After Omnicare, in which the Supreme Court set new rules for when opinions are actionable, the Supreme Court remanded the Deutsche Bank case to the 2nd Circuit, which, in turn, passed it to Judge Batts. The appeals court was apparently unpersuaded by the banks' argument that it should just reaffirm the case's dismissal because Omnicare is consistent with Fait. (As you may recall, the Supreme Court took the Omnicare case to resolve a split between the 6th Circuit, which had said opinions can be actionable if they contain factual statements that turn out to have been false, and the 2nd Circuit, which said in Fait that defendants can only be liable if they didn't actually believe the opinion when they expressed it.) The 2nd Circuit seems to want to hear from trial judges before it weighs in on Omnicare and Fait; in May, it sent a class action against ING Group to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan of Manhattan after the ING case, like the Deutsche Bank case, was remanded to the 2nd Circuit by the Supreme Court. The 2nd Circuit's remands made me curious about how much impact Omnicare has had so far in the lower courts. Obviously, these are early days: The Supreme Court decision is just four months old, and according to Westlaw, it has been cited in only about 15 decisions. That said, it appears Omnicare has benefited both securities plaintiffs and defendants -- but only a little bit. For plaintiffs, the good news is that trial judges are applying Omnicare not just in Securities Act cases but also in class actions asserting fraud under the Exchange Act. In Omnicare, the Supreme Court opened the door to investor claims based on corporate statements of opinion that neglect to mention key contrary facts. Two trial judges in federal court, one in a New Jersey case against Merck and the other in Richmond, Virginia, in a class action against Genworth Financial, used the same framework to analyze defendants' fraudulent intent under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act -- and both found scienter under the Omnicare standard. In another boon to plaintiffs, a Colorado federal judge ruled that the FDIC can go ahead with a mortgage-backed securities case against Morgan Stanley, holding that the agency had shown factual underpinnings of the bank's "opinions" were false, so, under Omnicare, "the general rule that statements of opinion are not actionable does not bar the FDIC's claims." But as the Supreme Court anticipated in the Omnicare opinion, investors still face "no small task" to show defendants' opinions are actionable. In a case against the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, for instance, a federal judge in Harrisburg said Omnicare couldn't transform corporate puffery into falsely stated opinions. A Massachusetts federal judge ruled investors suing Sarepta Therapeutics couldn't meet the Omnicare standard, as did the 10th Circuit in affirming the dismissal of a claim against an executive of Delta Petroleum. In Manhattan, U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty reconsidered his dismissal of a securities class action against Tremor Video after Omnicare came out but said the Supreme Court opinion just "reaffirmed" his original conclusion that the defendants' statements of opinion were not actionable. The most thorough examination of Omnicare's impact came from U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan in In re Bioscrip. After supplemental briefing from both sides, Judge Nathan agreed that Omnicare seemed to call the 2nd Circuit's Fait standard into question, "to the extent Fait has been construed to mean that there is liability for legal compliance opinions only in the context of statements subjectively disbelieved when made, but not in instances where a speaker's statement, although sincerely believed, failed to make clear the factual basis for that statement." She analyzed the Bioscrip defendants' allegedly false opinions under the Omnicare framework and found them to fit the hypothetical the Supreme Court posited, in which a company states an "opinion" but fails to disclose important contrary information. Judge Nathan said investors could sue over the misstatement under Omnicare -- but she also held they could have sued even under the 2nd Circuit's old Fait standard. I said when the Omnicare decision came out that the Supreme Court seemed to be tinkering at the margins of securities law, not making big changes. I've seen some commentary to the contrary, but so far, in these early cases, judges haven't given me much reason to reassess my initial reaction. DISNEY STORE: Recalls Pencil Cases Due to Perforation Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: August 5, 2015 Posting date: August 5, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Physical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54470 This recall involves the following themed pencil cases: --- Avengers: UPC 464592508298 --- Multi-Princess: UPC 464592507956 --- Miles from Tomorrowland: UPC 464592508038 --- CARS: UPC 464592508113 The pencil cases have spring loaded compartments for scissors, tape, ruler and erasers. The lid is held closed by two magnets. These magnets can become loose posing a perforation hazard to young children. Neither Health Canada nor Disney Store has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of the product in Canada. Additionally, no consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of the product have been reported in the United States. Approximately 16 units were sold in Canada and 300 units in the United States at Disney Store locations. The recall cases were sold between June 3, 2015 and June 12, 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Disney Store USA, LLC Pasadena California UNITED STATES Consumers should take the case away from children and return it to a Disney Store for a full refund. For more information, call the Disney Store at 1-866-902-2798, 8:30am to 5 pm PST Monday-Friday. 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/nxWPbm DOTTY'S CASINO: Agreed to Pay $375K for Class Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Law, writing for Portland Tribune, reported that the state's largest lottery cafe chain has agreed to reimburse 700 of its current and past employees for making them cover shortfalls in the till at the end of their shifts. Oregon Restaurant Services Inc., which owns Dotty's and other lottery businesses, recently settled a class-action lawsuit filed in 2013 by Portland attorney Paul Breed on behalf of the affected employees. Breed contends the practice meant Dotty's employees earned less than minimum wage, and violated state law. Nevada-based Oregon Restaurant Services agreed to pay $375,000 plus attorney fees, Breed says. "We've had some class members get as much as $5, 000," he says. Oregon Restaurant Services, while not acknowledging any wrongdoing, agreed to reimburse the employees for 100 percent of the money they paid out, plus 9 percent annual interest. Some also received additional penalties. The minimum payment for each member of the class is $100. "We're just happy to see that a mutually agreeable resolution was reached and we're happy that everybody can move on with their lives and their business," says Will Rasmusssen, an attorney at Portland's Miller Nash law firm who represents Oregon Restaurant Services. Jeff Chicoine, a Miller Nash colleague who also represents Oregon Restaurant Services, previously maintained the company did nothing illegal, because it didn't deduct the payments from workers' pay. However, he said the company changed its policy in 2011 after a lawsuit was filed by Breed on behalf of former employee Patrick Burns. Burns, who won $8,500 in an out-of-court settlement that preceded Breed's class-action filing, said he would typically handle $8,500 to $13,500 in cash each day, He would unload money from the six Oregon State Lottery machines, pay prize money to winners, and sell alcohol, food, keno and scratch tickets and lots of cartons of cigarettes. "Anyone handling cash, you're human, you're going to make a mistake one way or another," he said. Burns said he didn't mind reimbursing the till for small shortfalls, but complained when the company began charging him for $50 or $100 shortfalls which he didn't think were his fault. Oregon Restaurant Services pioneered bare-bones cafes in Oregon that derive their profits from hosting six state lottery terminals. Dotty's and similar outlets offer low-price cigarettes, food and alcohol, to lure gamblers and comply with the Oregon State Lottery requirement that they collect more than half their gross revenues -- not profits -- from non-gambling business. If they don't meet that threshold, the state maintains, they'd run afoul of the Oregon Constitution's ban on non-tribal casinos. Burns said he'd sometimes sell $1,000 worth of cigarettes per day, including to other retailers who'd then take the cartons to their stores and mark up the prices. Oregon Restaurant Services also is the lead company in creating "Lottery Row," a casino-style complex of small cafes and bars in a Jantzen Beach strip retail center. Chicoine, who represented Oregon Restaurant Services in the dispute, was on vacation and could not be reached for comment on the class-action settlement. Earlier he argued that Dotty's employees were earning minimum wage because they also get tips. However, tips don't count against Oregon's minimum wage, now set at $9.25 an hour, under state law. It took a couple years for the courts to certify the class of employees entitled to benefits under the class-action suit. That occurred several months ago. "We went into settlement talks pretty soon after we got the class certified," Breed says. In the settlement talks, he agreed to lower the penalty payments class members would get, which could have been up to 30 days' pay. That might have dragged the case on several more years, Breed says, and the longer cases drag on in class-action suits, the fewer people get reimbursed. "To me, we accomplished everything we set out to," Breed says. The final settlement was sealed in May and he began doling out payments to employees. His law firm still is holding a trust fund with nearly $100,000. That money is due to class members who haven't responded to his communications or moved and he has no new contact information. Eligible employees must have worked for one or more of Oregon Restaurant Services' 40 or so lottery outlets sometime between Oct. 1, 2007 and Oct. 31, 2013. Workers who want to get their payments are encouraged to contact Breed at 503-226-1403. Any money that's left over after November will go to a nonprofit, the Oregon Council on Problem Gambling. "That actually was suggested by Dotty's," Breed says. "I didn't have any problem with that. It's connected to the business that they do." ELETROBRAS: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. ("Eletrobras") from February 10, 2014 through April 29, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Eletrobras investors under the federal securities laws. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's senior officials were in non-compliance with the Company's corporate governance directives and Code of Ethics; (2) as a result, the Company was subject to investigation and disciplinary action by various governmental and regulatory authorities; (3) the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading as they contained direct references to the Company's Code of Ethics, and statements regarding its compliance with regulations and internal governance policies; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; (5) the SOX certifications signed by Eletrobras' senior management were materially false and misleading as senior management was aware of "any fraud, whether or not material"; and (6), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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 September 21, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-665.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. ENERGY TRANSFER: Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Discovery Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, that the court has denied plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery in the ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation. Following the January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive merger agreement with ETP, purported Partnership unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas, Texas asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction. On February 3, 2015, William Engel and Enno Seago, purported Partnership unitholders, filed a class action petition on behalf of the Partnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of the Partnership in the 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the "Engel Lawsuit"). The lawsuit names as defendants the General Partner, the members of the General Partner's board of directors, ETP, ETP GP, ETE, and, as a nominal party, the Partnership. The Engel Lawsuit alleges that (1) the General Partner's directors breached duties to the Partnership and the Partnership's unitholders by employing a conflicted and unfair process and failing to maximize the merger consideration; (2) the General Partner's directors breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by engaging in a flawed merger process; and (3) the non-director defendants aided and abetted in these claimed breaches. The plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing the defendants from closing the proposed transaction or an order rescinding the transaction if it has already been completed. The plaintiffs also seek money damages and court costs, including attorney's fees. On February 9, 2015, Stuart Yeager, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the Partnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of the Partnership in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the "Yeager Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Yeager Lawsuit are nearly identical to those in the Engel Lawsuit. On February 10, 2015, Lucien Coggia a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the Partnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of the Partnership in the 192nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the "Coggia Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Coggia Lawsuit are nearly identical to those in the Engel Lawsuit. On February 3, 2015, Linda Blankman, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Blankman Lawsuit"). The allegations and claims in the Blankman Lawsuit are similar to those in the Engel Lawsuit. However, the Blankman Lawsuit does not allege any derivative claims and includes the Partnership as a defendant rather than a nominal party. The lawsuit also omits one of the General Partner's directors, Richard Brannon, who was named in the Engel Lawsuit. The Blankman Lawsuit alleges that the General Partner's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the unitholders by failing to maximize the value of the Partnership, failing to properly value the Partnership, and ignoring conflicts of interest. The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the non- director defendants for aiding and abetting the directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The Blankman Lawsuit seeks the same relief that the plaintiffs seek in the Engel Lawsuit. On February 6, 2015, Edwin Bazini, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Bazini Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Bazini Lawsuit are nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit. On March 27, 2015, Plaintiff Bazini filed an amended complaint asserting additional claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 11, 2015, Mark Hinnau, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Hinnau Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Hinnau Lawsuit are nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit. On February 11, 2015, Stephen Weaver, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Weaver Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Weaver Lawsuit are nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit. On February 11, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Dieckman Lawsuit are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit, except that the Dieckman Lawsuit does not assert an aiding and abetting claim. On February 13, 2015, Irwin Berlin, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Berlin Lawsuit are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit. On March 13, 2015, the Court in the 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas transferred and consolidated the Yeager and Coggia Lawsuits into the Engel Lawsuit and captioned the consolidated lawsuit as Engel v. Regency GP, LP, et al. (the "Consolidated State Lawsuit"). On March 30, 2015, Leonard Cooperman, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Cooperman Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Cooperman Lawsuit are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit. On March 31, 2015, the Court in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas consolidated the Blankman, Bazini, Hinnau, Weaver, Dieckman, and Berlin Lawsuits into a consolidated lawsuit captioned Bazini v. Bradley, et al. (the "Consolidated Federal Lawsuit"). On April 1, 2015, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Lawsuit filed an Emergency Motion to Expedite Discovery. On April 9, 2015, by order of the Court, the parties submitted a joint submission wherein defendants opposed plaintiffs request to expedite discovery. On April 17, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery. Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. The Partnership cannot predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnership and the other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend vigorously against these and any other actions. ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Enterprise Financial Group, Inc. and National Repair Protection, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00463-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., August 3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all the persons injured by their conduct. Enterprise Financial Group, Inc. is a company that sells a variety of consumer-related products and services for automobile dealers and manufacturers, credit unions, banks, and retailers. National Repair Protection, LLC operates a call center that sells Enterprise products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. Suite 1030, 125 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 E-mail: edward@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE Suite 3, 1 South Avenue Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 Facsimile: (508) 319-3077 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net - and - Scott David Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S Ocean Dr Ste 235 Hollywood, FL 33019-2930 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com ERIC CONN: Former clients to Get Help From Legal Aid Groups ----------------------------------------------------------- Sheldon Compton, writing for Hazard- Herald, reported that with some of the 1,500 former clients of Eric C. Conn receiving letters that their cases have been referred for hearings, the pressing issue has become finding legal representation for all of them. According to Ned Pillersdorf, though, there is recourse for many. The Prestonsburg attorney said earlier that Legal Aid in Prestonsburg and other legal aid groups have been pulling together a list of those wishing to have a lawyer represent them during the hearings to come. But their claims must be justified, Pillersdorf says. "The way we have been addressing this is that Legal Aid in Prestonsburg and other legal aid groups have been assembling a list of those who desire representation," Pillersdorf said. "Feel free to contact other counsel. Also, if your claim for benefits is not justified, we will not assist you. Don't ask." The Social Security Administration (SSA) has continued to insist on hearings, Pillersdorf has said. He has filed a motion for a class action lawsuit on behalf of Conn's former clients who lost their benefits for a time following an investigation in the Stanville disability attorney for alleged fraud. A conference has been scheduled in federal court on Aug. 10 in the class action injunction motion asking that there be no hearings until the SSA can certify that the hearing process will be fair, Pillersdorf said, adding that under their own regulations, it would seem they are to held to certain standards for hearings. "It's complicated, but we do not believe the SSA has the right under their own regulations to commence with 1,500 reevaluation hearings, when there is no evidence the recipients engaged in any wrongdoing," Pillersdorf said. And the Prestonsburg attorney is not mincing words when it comes to his view of the SSA as it pertains to the needs of his clients. "In my view they (SSA) are an arrogant bureaucracy who are indifferent to the pain and anguish they are causing in our communities," he said. The SSA has threatened, according to Pillersdorf, to file a motion to dismiss the class action but have been ordered to first respond to the motion for preliminary injunction before filing for a dismissal. Sheldon Compton is a staff writer at The Floyd County Times. He can be reached at (606) 886-8506. EXECUTIVE FIGHT: Faces Class Suit After Lemon Creek Incident ------------------------------------------------------------ Shelby Thom, writing for CKNW News, reported that another class- action lawsuit has been filed against the company whose fuel tanker truck overturned in Lemon Creek, spilling more than 30,000 litres of jet fuel and prompting thousands of evacuations two years ago. Slocan Park resident James Ross has launched a class action, naming Executive Fight Centre Fuel Services, TransWest Helicopters, driver Danny LaSante and the provincial government in the suit. The company was hired by the province to supply fuel to helicopters battling a wildfire in the Slocan Valley, before the driver lost control and dumped his load into the creek- prompting the health authority to evacuate nearby homes. Ross alleges the fuel exposure burned his eyes, throat and nose, and he had difficulty breathing, as well as a headache. He wants the class action certified to include his neighbours who also allegedly suffered personal injury. None of those allegations have been proven in court. EXPERIAN: Faces Class Suit Over Selling Data to Identity Thieves ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Abel, writing for Consumer Affairs, reported that it's been almost two years since word first leaked out that the massive data broker Experian had, through a subsidiary known as Court Ventures, allowed a Vietnamese identity thief to buy access to databases containing the personal and confidential information on up to 5 out of every 6 American adults -- 200 million people in all. The identity thief in question, Hieu Minh Ngo, was sentenced to 13 years in prison. Law suit cites negligence A couple days later, on July 17, three plaintiffs filed a federal class action suit against Experian in California, alleging that the company was negligent in allowing an identity thief to buy access to its data for nearly 10 months. Security expert Brian Krebs (who first broke word of the Experian breach in October 2013) announced the lawsuit. The 38-page suit, which is available as a .pdf here, seeks statutory damages for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, declaratory and injunctive relief, and reimbursement of the plaintiffs' court costs and litigation expenses. The suit also claims that "Experian refuses to notify the victims of Ngo's identity fraud operation or provide them with protection even though Experian knows their identities, and its senior vice president promised Congress [that] Experian would 'make sure they're protected'." Therefore, the plaintiffs have asked the court to force Experian to notify all consumers who were affected by Ngo's actions. They're also pushing for Experian to provide everyone who was affected with free credit monitoring services. Incidentally, in American English, the phrase "make a federal case" is a common idiomatic phrase used to indicate that somebody is overreacting: "Dude, he didn't intend to spill your drink! There's no need to make a federal case out of this." But in other contexts, it's not an idiom but a straightforward description, as in "Apparently you do need to make a federal case out of it, if you want Experian to notify the victims of its own negligence." EZCORP INC: 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 investors of EZCORP, Inc. (NASDAQ:EZPW) securities from October 27, 2014 through July 16, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for EZCORP investors under the federal securities laws. To join the EZCORP class action, go to the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-340.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. 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 misleading statements and failed to divulge material information, including with respect to the Company's accounting of Grupo Finmart's structured asset sales. Consequently, on July 17, 2015, EZCORP announced that it will restate its financial statements for fiscal year 2014 (including the interim periods during that year) and the first quarter of fiscal year 2015. On this news, shares of EZCORP fell $11.51 per share or over 24% to close at $35.54 per share on July 17, 2015. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 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 class action and recover your losses, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-340.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. The firm may reached at: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com EZCORP INC: Sept. 18 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------ Ryan & Maniskas, LLP that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of EZCORP, Inc. ("EZCORP" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EZPW) between October 27, 2014 and July 16, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). EZCORP shareholders may, no later than September 18, 2015, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of EZCORP and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ezpw. 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. On April 30, 2015, EZCORP announced a delay in its earnings release for the second quarter of fiscal 2015 due to an ongoing review of the Company's Grupo Finmart loan portfolio. On this news, shares of EZCORP fell from $9.20 to close at $8.41, representing a decline of $0.79 per share, or 8.59%. Subsequently, on May 20, 2015, the Company announced it had received a notice of noncompliance with NASDAQ's listing requirements due to its failure to timely file its 10Q, causing the stock price to fall 7.3% to close at $8.33 on May 21, 2015. Then, on July 17, 2015, EZCORP announced it will restate its financial statements for fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015. The restatement pertains to six structured asset sales, pursuant to which a portion of the Grupo Finmart loan portfolio was sold to a special purpose trust (the "Asset Sales"). Due to certain control rights that Grupo Finmart retained as servicer of the loans, the trusts should have been accounted for as "variable interest entities" and, thus, the Asset Sales should not have been accounted for as sales. Approximately $40 million in gain will be eliminated. EZCORP also failed to adequately identify out-of-payroll loans and to track the aging of non- performing loans. According to the Company, the foregoing issues indicate material weaknesses in EZCORP's internal control over financial reporting and deficiencies in the Company's disclosure controls and procedures. On this news, shares of EZCORP fell from $6.72 to $6.48, representing a loss of $0.24 per share or approximately 3.57%. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than September 18, 2015, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information regarding this, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ezpw. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. The firm may be reached at: Richard A. Maniskas, Esq RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP 995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 484-588-5516 877-316-3218 Email: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com EZCORP INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing investors nationwide, announces that a class action case alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 has been commenced against EZCORP, Inc. ("EZCORP" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EZPW) and two of its officers, who are also members of the board of directors. The case, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, has been brought on behalf of investors who purchased EZCORP's securities (the "Class") between October 27, 2014 and July 16, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and omitted to disclose material information, including with respect to the Company's accounting of Grupo Finmart's structured asset sales. As a result, on July 17, 2015, the Company announced that it would restate its financial statements for fiscal 2014 (including the interim periods within that year) and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and that the previously issued financial statements for those periods should no longer be relied upon. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members. If you are a shareholder who purchased securities of EZCORP during the Class Period, you only have until September 18, 2015 to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in this action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. If you have questions about the lawsuit, possess information relevant to this investigation, or seek information about any of the foregoing, please contact attorney Steven Harte, at (617) 398- 5600 or email him at Steven@blockesq.com Block & Leviton is also experienced at representing whistleblowers and encourages any insiders with information about the allegations to contact them. Confidentiality is assured. EZCORP INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against EZCORP, Inc. (NASDAQ: EZPW). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is October 27, 2014 through July 16, 2015. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all EZCORP, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than, September 18, 2015 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground Entered Into Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 8, 2015, that on July 2, 2015, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), a wholly owned subsidiary of FedEx Corporation, entered into a class action settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Dean Alexander, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Case No. 3:05-CV-38-EMC (the "Lawsuit"), currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court"). In this action, a class was certified consisting of approximately 2,300 persons who (1) entered into an operating agreement with FedEx Ground between November 17, 2000 and October 15, 2007 to perform pick-up and delivery services, (2) drove a vehicle on a full-time basis and (3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of California. Plaintiffs allege that they were misclassified as independent contractors and assert various claims on behalf of themselves and the class, primarily arising under the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek to recover business expenses, deductions from compensation, unpaid overtime wages, penalties for late payment of wages, penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act and other relief. The seventeen named plaintiffs also assert a claim for failure to provide meal and rest breaks under the California Labor Code. Under the settlement agreement, FedEx Ground has agreed to pay $228 million to resolve the Lawsuit and obtain a release of claims that were asserted or could be asserted in the Lawsuit or that are related to or arise from the employment classification of the class members. The release of claims includes alleged damages incurred from November 17, 2000 through the date of preliminary approval by the District Court. Any attorneys' fees awarded by the District Court and all costs of notice and claims administration will be paid from the $228 million settlement fund. Each class member's settlement payment will be determined by a formula based on the dates and duration of contracting with FedEx Ground, the hours and days of work, vehicles used and miles driven by those vehicles and other relevant factors. The settlement agreement is subject to approval by the District Court. If the District Court preliminarily approves the settlement, the agreement provides for a period of time during which class members will be notified of the settlement and given an opportunity to file a claim form to receive a settlement payment, object to the settlement or do nothing. We expect that the District Court will schedule a Fairness Hearing to occur after the notice period, at which the parties will request final approval of the settlement and at which any objectors to the settlement will be heard. If the District Court gives final approval to the settlement, the release will be effective as to all class members regardless of whether they filed a claim form and received a payment. FLOGREAT CORP: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Juarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Flogreat Corp. d/b/a Rey's Pizzeria & Restaurant, Flomark Corporation d/b/a Rey's Pizzeria & Restaurant, Reynaldo Flores, and Luis Flores, Case No. 1:15-cv-04511 (E.D.N.Y., August 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Rey's Pizza and Restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2011 Savanna & Express Models ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 5, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety TC System: Brakes Units affected: 442 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015352TC ID number: 2015352 Manufacturer recall number: 15588 Certain vehicles equipped with a hinged left side rear door may have a condition where inadequate clearance between the rear brake lines and the lower fuel filler hose clamp may result in abrasion to one or both rear brake lines. This condition could cause brake fluid loss which could result in decreased brake line pressure, increased brake pedal travel and increased stopping distance, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. This condition could cause various warning lights to illuminate in the instrument panel of the vehicle such the red "BRAKE" telltale symbol; illumination of the Stabilitrak telltale symbol; scrolling display of "Service Brake", "Service Stabilitrak," and "Service Traction Control" messages in the Driver Information Centre (DIC); and audible alerts/chimes. Correction: Dealers will inspect the brake lines. If the clearance is found to be below specification, the brake lines will be replaced with a new part design that provides adequate clearance. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- GMC SAVANA 2011 CHEVROLET EXPRESS 2011 GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2010 Chevrolet Models Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 5, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 13950 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015354TC ID number: 2015354 Manufacturer recall number: 15075 On certain vehicles, the side-impact sensor wire harness in the driver-side front door may have been improperly routed. If the wire harness was improperly routed, the window regulator could contact the harness when the window is fully lowered and, over time, chafe the harness insulation. If the regulator penetrates the insulation, a short could occur in the side-impact sensor circuit, which could prevent the driver-side roof-rail airbag from deploying during a crash, potentially increasing the risk of injury to the seat occupant. If this condition were present, the vehicles airbag warning light would illuminate for the duration of the ignition cycle. Correction: Dealers will inspect the side impact sensor wiring in the front left doors. If the condition is present, they will repair damaged wires, correct the clip orientation, and correct the wire routing. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- CHEVROLET COBALT 2010 GOLD CLUB: Arb Agreement Found Unconscionable --------------------------------------------- Gina Passarella, wrriting for The Legal Intellegencer, reported that an arbitration agreement a stripper was allegedly told to sign right before her shift started was unconscionable because it barred her ability to bring her wage-and-hour collective and class actions in the arbitration setting, a Pennsylvania federal judge has ruled. In determining whether the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff Jessica Herzfeld allowed for class and collective arbitration, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Kearney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania had to rely on the thin amount of case law available since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in 2014 in Opalinski v. Robert Half International that district courts must decide if arbitration clauses allow for class arbitration. "Due to Opalinski's recent vintage, we have minimal guidance in deciding whether the 2013 agreement [Herzfeld signed] could be interpreted to allow for collective FLSA or class arbitration," Kearney said in Herzfeld v. 1416 Chancellor. "As the Supreme Court has not as yet required the arbitration agreement to expressly recite an agreement to class arbitration, it is possible to find an implicit agreement to authorize class arbitration but such an agreement cannot be 'inferred solely from the fact of the parties' agreement to arbitrate.'" Kearney found the agreement Herzfeld signed with the Gold Club in Philadelphia did not expressly or implicitly show an agreement to allow for collective or class arbitration. The agreement refers only to arbitration affecting "both parties," and does not mention parties of any other type. Kearney found there was thus no meeting of the minds on a "monumental change" to the agreement such as allowing not just for individual arbitration but for class arbitration or collective arbitration. He said a simple mention in the arbitration agreement of the American Arbitration Association rules and regulations also does not expand the agreement to include class or collective actions. After finding the arbitration agreement did not allow for Herzfeld's collective action, Kearney looked to whether it was unconscionable. "Courts have viewed the loss of a statutory right to a collective action permissible, but only in the context of a contractual waiver," Kearney said, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. Kearney said Herzfeld did not waive her collective or class action right, but rather lost it under operation of law because the arbitration clause does not recite that right. "Paradoxically, by not including language addressing a collective or class action in arbitration, Gold Club is able to now argue Herzfeld loses her statutory right to a collective action and ability to bring her class claims in arbitration," Kearney said. Because the arbitration agreement does not allow for class or collective arbitration, an arbitrator would not be able to give Herzfeld the full scope of Fair Labor Standards Act remedies, he said. "Consequently, we find the arbitration provision imposing an involuntary, unknowing loss of FLSA collective action and class action rights is substantively unconscionable," Kearney said. Gold Club had argued Herzfeld ratified the arbitration clause when she took it home for her "mother/attorney's" review and returned to work for almost a year before filing the suit. But Kearney said he was shown no case law that allowed for the ratification of an unconscionable clause. Kearney denied Gold Club's motion to compel arbitration in the case. Herzfeld sued Gold Club under the FLSA on behalf of herself and those similarly situated. She is seeking unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week and liquidated damages. She also seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all Gold Club dancers under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Edwin Kilpela of Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela in Pittsburgh represented Herzfeld and the putative class. Bradley J. Shafer and Matthew Hoffer of Shafer & Associates in Lansing, Michigan, along with Pasquale J. Colavita of Philadelphia, represented Gold Club. None of the attorneys were immediately available for comment. GOLDMAN SACHS: Labaton Sucharow Files Nationwide Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP filed the first nationwide class action alleging a conspiracy by prominent financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, and JPMorgan, among others, to manipulate auctions for U.S. treasury bills, notes, and bonds (collectively, "treasury securities"). Gregory Asciolla, Co-Chair of Firm's Antitrust & Competition Litigation Practice, noted, "Treasury securities are the bedrock of this nation's financial security. This is a cause for great concern as investors worldwide are being injured and deceived." Treasury securities -- debt instruments issued by the U.S. Treasury Department -- are not only used to help finance U.S. government operations, but are also used by state and local municipalities, corporations, investment funds, hedge funds, pension funds and individuals for investing and hedging purposes. Interest rates set by auctions for treasury securities are also used as benchmarks for many other types of debt and debt-related instruments, including student loan debt, bonds, interest rate swaps, and exchange-traded treasury futures and options. The plaintiff claims that the defendants employed a multi-pronged scheme to effectively "sell high and buy low," colluding to induce investors to pay high prices for debt securities purchased from defendants in the pre-auction market, called the "when issued market," and to depress the price of the securities that the defendants themselves bought at auction to cover these sales, pocketing the difference. According to the complaint, the defendants manipulated the treasury securities market by using chat rooms, instant messaging, and other methods to exchange confidential customer information and coordinate trading strategies. "The defendants' scheme struck at the heart of the U.S. economy: the ability of the government to efficiently raise capital via Treasury auctions," said Labaton Sucharow partner Michael W. Stocker. "This collusion not only robbed investors participating in the 'when issued' market for these auction securities, but imposed billions in additional costs on borrowers ranging from students to municipalities." The firm may be reached at: LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Tel: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-818-0477 Email: info@labaton.com Settlement Helpline: 888-219-6877 settlementquestions@labaton.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Cautions Lawyer During Suit Hearing -------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Dugon, writing for New York Post, reported that Goldman Sachs is good at getting what it wants -- but it may backfire this time. A federal magistrate judge warned a Goldman lawyer to "be careful what you wish for" during a hearing on an explosive sexual discrimination lawsuit, since trying to prevent a class action could lead to more litigation. The hearing was the latest twist in a five-year-old suit that alleges a "boys club" atmosphere rife with client meetings at strip clubs, golf outings that excluded women execs, and female associates and vice presidents getting paid less than their male colleagues. Lawyers for the plaintiffs are seeking to add two women to the lawsuit -- Allison Gamba, a former VP in the securities division, and Mary De Luis, who's currently in investment management -- in order to satisfy a rule for class-action certification that one of the plaintiffs is currently an employee. The original plaintiffs, Cristina Chen-Oster, a former VP, and Shanna Orlich, who was an associate, are seeking unspecified damages and an order requiring the bank to fix its alleged frat- house culture. Goldman has denied the allegations. Its lawyer, Robert Giuffra, said during the latest hearing that the court should deny the class-action certification in part because Gamba knew about the case since at least 2012 and only sought to join it after the judge had ruled against certification in March. Giuffra cited a sexual discrimination case against Walmart where a West Coast appeals court ruled said that 1.6 million women didn't make up a class. Goldman is seeking to have Gamba and De Luis file separate lawsuits in the same court. But while Judge James Francis seemed to lean toward ruling in Goldman's favor, he warned the bank of its consequences. "Be careful what you wish for," Francis said. "I'm not sure Walmart did the right thing," he said, adding the decision ended up "spawning" multiple lawsuits. HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Has Final Order for "Frater" Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Hemispherx Biopharma (NYSE: HEB) announced that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued an order granting final approval of a settlement of the securities class action, Frater v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. A final settlement hearing was conducted on July 22, 2015. No Company funds were used to pay the settlement, the settlement was funded by the insurance company for Hemispherx. The settlement expressly is not an admission of fault or wrongdoing by Hemispherx or any of the individual defendants. Thomas K. Equels, General Counsel, stated: "Our team will be glad to have this class action behind us so that we can focus our time and resources on the important work of new drug development related to Ampligen(R) and the manufacturing and marketing of our FDA approved anti-viral Alferon(R)." HERTZ: Federal Judge Dismisses Class Suit ----------------------------------------- Laura Layden, writing for Naples Daily News, reported that a class-action lawsuit accusing Hertz and two of its former executives of misleading investors has been tossed out -- again. In an order dated July 22, a federal judge in New Jersey granted Hertz's motion to dismiss the complaint. A Hertz spokesman declined to comment. The original lawsuit, filed in November 2013, was thrown out by another federal judge late last year after Hertz argued the plaintiffs took a "kitchen sink" approach in their pleadings and their claims were based on "legally flawed criticisms." After dismissing the first complaint, U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended lawsuit if they wanted to continue their battle -- and they did. Following a second complaint filed in November of last year, Hertz argued the plaintiffs had "resubmitted essentially the same allegations that the court already dismissed," and once again failed to support their claims for securities fraud. The original lawsuit came after Hertz reported disappointing third-quarter earnings in the fall of 2013, which it partly attributed to weaker demand for car rentals at U.S. airports. The company's stock price fell by more than $4 a share on the news. In her ruling, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Madeline Cox Arleo, found the allegations in the amended suit were insufficient and failed "on a number of grounds" to demonstrate that Hertz, its former CEO, Mark Frissora, and a former chief financial officer, Elyse Douglas, gave investors financial information "with actual knowledge of its falsity." The judge said she was convinced Hertz adequately cautioned investors about the potential risks it faced due to a government sequester, its Dollar Thrifty acquisition, declining market values for its rental cars and its ability to manage its fleet size. She also said the allegations failed to show evidence of "conscious misbehavior and recklessness," or "fraudulent intent." Pedro Ramirez Jr., who lives in Riverside, Connecticut, was the first to sue, though he was just a small investor. His case was later combined with a similar one and the Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 80 became the lead plaintiff. According to court documents, the trust fund purchased tens of thousands of Hertz shares during the months covered by the complaint. An attorney for the plaintiffs could not be reached for comment. In her order, Judge Arleo gave the plaintiffs until Aug. 22 to file an amended complaint, or the case will be dismissed. HHGREGG INC: Ex-Manager Wins Class Suit Over Bonuses ---------------------------------------------------- Scott Olson, writing for IBJ.com, reported that a former HHGregg Inc. manager has won his lawsuit charging that the company failed to pay incentive bonuses after reaching certain financial goals, potentially leading to millions of dollars in damages. Marion Superior Court Judge Robert R. Altice Jr. issued his ruling and set a Nov. 12 hearing to determine damages. The judge granted the suit class-action status in 2014. Former accounting manager Dwain Underwood filed his complaint in March 2013, claiming that the Indianapolis-based appliance and electronics retailer failed to factor a $40 million payout into the calculation used to determine whether employees were entitled to incentive bonuses. The company collected the $40 million life insurance payout after Executive Chairman Jerry Throgmartin died in 2012. Underwood claimed HHGregg should have paid him a $25,000 bonus based on the company's fiscal 2012 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITA, of $144.4 million. Instead, HHGregg based bonuses on "adjusted EBITA," which excluded the life insurance payout. "Nowhere in the statement does HHGregg reserve the right to only issue a bonus in its discretion; rather, HHGregg is offering a performance-based bonus, which is to be paid if certain financial standards are met in a fiscal year," Altice wrote in his decision. Eric Pavlack, attorney for the approximately 50 current and former HHGregg employees in the class action, said the judge's decision supported their argument that they should have been paid the bonuses. "We're extremely pleased with the results and think it's the right decision," he said. Counting pre-judgment interest, total damages could exceed $3 million, Pavlack said. An HHGregg official told IBJ on that the company was disappointed by the ruling. "We are committed to always acting with integrity and conducting business in an ethical and legal manner," said Heather Greenawald, vice president and general counsel. "We are disappointed with the decision and will explore all legal avenues at our disposal in response. We remain proud of our employment record and our position as an employer of choice in Indianapolis and across the U.S." Underwood voluntarily left the company in January 2013, two months before he filed suit. He sued the company for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. HIGHWAY EMERGENCY: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Highway Emergency Local Patrol, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv- 02742-MHC (N.D. Ga., August 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Highway Emergency Local Patrol, LLC provides emergency roadside services to its customers in the State of Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda A. Farahany, Esq. Victor Severin Roberts, Esq. BARRETT & FARAHANY, LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 214-0120 Facsimile: (404) 214-0125 E-mail: amanda@bf-llp.com vsroberts@bf-llp.com HOT TOPIC: Oct. 26 Fairness Hearing on $14.9MM Class Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the Hot Topic, Inc. Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION In re HOT TOPIC, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Lead Case No. 2:13-cv-02939-SJO(JCx) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IF YOU HELD HOT TOPIC, INC. ("HOT TOPIC") COMMON STOCK ON THE RECORD DATE, MAY 3, 2013, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS"), YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS AS SET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY 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 Central District of California, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified as a class action and that a Settlement has been proposed for $14,900,000 in cash. A hearing will be held on October 26, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable S. James Otero at the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, for the purpose of determining whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; and (2) the application of Lead Plaintiff's counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses, including Lead Plaintiff's expenses incurred in connection with the Litigation, should be approved. If you are a Class Member described above, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of the Litigation and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: Hot Topic, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040, 1-877-203-8900. You may also obtain copies of the Stipulation of Settlement, Notice and Proof of Claim and Release at www.hottopicsecuritiessettlement.com. If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than October 12, 2015. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a valid Proof of Claim and Release, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund but you will still be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the releases provided for therein). To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked by September 7, 2015, and in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the releases provided for therein), whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim and Release. If you submit a written request for exclusion, you will have no right to recover money pursuant to the Settlement. Any objection to the proposed Settlement or the request for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered such that it is received by each of the following no later than September 7, 2015: Danielle S. Myers, Esq Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 T: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900 F: (619) 231-7423 -- and -- Meryl L. Young, Esq GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612 Email: myoung@gibsondunn.com HYDRO ONE: Faces $125MM Class Suit Over Improper Billing -------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reported that a $125 million class action lawsuit has been filed against Hydro One over alleged improper billing and account management practices. Koskie Minsky LLP and Lax O'Sullivan Scott Lisus LLP filed the suit against Hydro One, as well as four of its subsidiaries, on at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The law firms say the claim is being brought on behalf of all Hydro One customers who have used the service since May of 2013. Hydro One customer Paul Foster is set to be the representative plaintiff in the case. Ontario's Ombudsman Andre Marin blasted Hydro One in a May report that found some 100,000 households had massive billing errors, which were attributed to a new billing system. Marin said his office received more than 10,000 complaints from Hydro One customers about over-billing. The class action lawsuit focuses on the problems surrounding the rollout of the new billing system. The lawsuit alleges: Thousands of customers stopped receiving bills. Others received bills based on estimates, then later received "massive 'catch-up' bills." Hydro One automatically withdrew large quantities of money from customers' accounts without notice or explanation. Thousands of customers dealt with billing and administrative errors, including "bills that did not reflect the electricity actually consumed." "Hydro One customers are particularly vulnerable to Hydro One's administration and billing abuses as a result of its near monopolistic nature and the importance of the services it renders to customers," said Kirk M. Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP, in a news release about the court filing. Eric R. Hoaken, a partner at Lax O'Sullivan Scott Lisus LLP said, in the same release, "It's time that Hydro One accounted for the billing abuses it has perpetrated on its customers." In the wake of the ombudsman's report, Hydro One officials said the utility has fixed its billing issues and said the company is working to improve its customer service. ICONIX BRAND: August 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline --------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Iconix shares between February 20, 2013 and April 17, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/iconix-brand-iconor contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had underreported the cost basis of its brands; (b) the Company engaged in irregular accounting practices related to the booking of its joint venture revenues and profits, free-cash flow, and organic growth; and (c) as a result of the aforementioned, the Company's earnings and revenues were overstated. On April 17, 2015, Iconix announced that the Company's Chief Operating Officer had resigned. Then on April 20, 2015, Roth Capital Partners published an Equity Research Note criticizing the Company's alleged accounting irregularities. If you suffered a loss in Iconix you have until August 24, 2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. IDI INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased IDI, Inc. ("IDI" or the "Company") (NYSE:IDI) securities between April 30, 2015 and July 21, 2015, inclusive ("Class Period"), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Chairman Michael Brauser was named as a defendant in multiple civil fraud litigations; (b) Chairman Michael Brauser was co-owner of a company that filed for bankruptcy and was sued as an adversary in that bankruptcy proceeding; and (c) the lawsuit filed by Transunion against the Company over intellectual property rights could render IDI's stock worthless. When the true details entered the market, the Complaint alleges that the stock dropped 46% and caused damage to investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 21, 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, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com IDI INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of IDI, Inc. (IDI) securities from April 30, 2015 through July 21, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for IDI investors under the federal securities laws. To join the IDI class action, go to the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-672.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chairman Michael Brauser was named as a defendant in multiple civil fraud litigation; (2) Chairman Michael Brauser was co-owner of a company that filed for bankruptcy and was sued as an adversary in that bankruptcy proceeding; and (3) IDI's Transunion lawsuit could render IDI's stock worthless. 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 September 21, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-672.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. The firm may be reached at: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-686-1060 Fax: 212-202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com JAGUAR LAND: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Electrical Systems ----------------------------------------------------------- Amy Block, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Case No. 2:15- cv-05957-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the individuals and entities who own or have owned Land Rover LR2 vehicles manufactured and sold by the Defendant, containing defective electrical systems which cause the battery to drain and cause the vehicle to have starting problems. Headquartered in Mahwah, New Jersey, Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, distributes, markets, sells, and services luxury cars and sport utility vehicles, and related parts and accessories in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com JEFFERSON COUNTY, TX: Class Suit Filed Over Home Classification --------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Heath, writing for Beaumont Enterprise, reported that a class action suit filed alleges the Jefferson County Appraisal District and its chief appraiser "unilaterally and fraudulently" reclassified almost 8,000 homes from one-and-half stories to two stories for the purpose of increasing tax revenue. The lawsuit asserts that the homeowners were unaware of any change in classification of their homes by Chief Appraiser Angela Bellard. Beaumont Homeowner Elaine Henderson filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and the other homeowners. The filing also asks the court to temporarily prevent the appraisal district from sending the new, higher values to the Jefferson County Tax Office, said Bailey Wingate, who is representing Henderson along with Beaumont attorney Brent Coon. The lawsuit contends that Bellard did not notify the homeowners or the appraisal district's board of directors when the market value was raised. Bellard "took it upon herself to combine the one and one half story classification with the two story classification," according to the lawsuit. The homeowners learned of the change when they received a tax notice in April, Wingate said. According to the lawsuit, "long-time distinctions" between one- and-half and two-story houses "were eviscerated for nearly 8,000 homeowners by the unilateral change." Bellard said a change in price per square foot was made for one- and-half story houses, but no "reclassifiication" was done. "We were noticing that sales were indicating the same price per square foot in a one-and-a-half story as a two-story," Bellard said. The appraisal district changed the price per square foot in one- and-a-half story homes to reflect the market value, she said. "It's not different than anything we've done before," she said. "It could change -- it just depends on what the sales reflect." Henderson was denied relief at a JCAD protest hearing on. Coon also filed a protest because he saw that his market value had increased. After the hearing, Coon and Wingate became partners in Henderson's case and spoke to the JCAD board at meeting. The board told the attorneys that the matter would be investigated. Wingate said he would like to settle the matter out of court and filed the lawsuit as a "backup." Bellard believes there's a "misunderstanding" since she says the classification of homes never changed. "I think there could be a misconception about what our office is charged with," she said. KAWASAKI KISEN: Settles in US Price Fixing Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Marcus hand, writing for Seatrade Maritime News, reported that Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (K-Line) has reached a settlement in a class action suit in the US over price fixing in the car carrier business. K-Line is the first to settle in the class action suit brought by a group of consumers and auto and truck and equipment dealerships in antitrust claims against more than 12 international shipping firms. "We are delighted to announce the first major settlement in the vehicle carriers case with K-Line," said attorney Warren T. Burns of Burns Charest, interim co-lead counsel for the end-payor plaintiffs. "This is a very significant and substantial first step to assure that American consumers are compensated for the conspiracy to fix the price of international car-shipping services. We expect to make the dollar amount public very soon as we file for preliminary approval of the class settlement." Details of the settlement were not released. Among the other shipping companies involved in the class action suit are Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK) and CSAV. KB HOME: Trial in "Edwards" Case to Occur in 2016 or Later ---------------------------------------------------------- KB Home said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that a trial, or trials, involving other plaintiffs in the Edwards class action is (are) expected to be scheduled to occur in 2016 or later. "We, together with certain of our subsidiaries, are a defendant in lawsuits that allege violations of federal and state wage and hour statutes," the Company said. "In May 2011, a group of current and former sales representatives filed a collective action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division entitled Edwards, K. v. KB Home. The lawsuit alleges that we misclassified sales representatives and failed to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07). In September 2012, the Edwards court conditionally certified a nationwide class that, as of the date of this report, consists of 409 plaintiffs. On May 21, 2015, the Edwards court scheduled an initial trial involving a portion of the plaintiffs in that case for December 2015. A trial, or trials, involving other plaintiffs in the Edwards case is (are) expected to be scheduled to occur in 2016 or later." "In September 2013, 11 of the plaintiffs in the Edwards case filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court entitled Andrea L. Bejenaru, et al. v. KB Home, et al. The lawsuit alleges violations of California laws relating to overtime, meal period and rest break pay, itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties and unfair business practices for a class of sales representatives. "As of the date of this report, the putative class consists of 241 members, some of whom are plaintiffs in the Edwards case, who were sales representatives from September 2009 to the present. The Bejenaru court has not certified the case as a class action. Depending on the Bejenaru court's decisions in the matter, the putative class could increase in size and include other individuals, and the case could be certified as a class action. "In the second quarter of 2015, plaintiffs in the Edwards case and the Bejenaru case claimed $66 million in compensatory damages, penalties and interest, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs for both matters. We deny the allegations in the lawsuits and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. The ultimate outcome of these matters is uncertain and we are unable to estimate the amount or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. However, we believe we have meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs' claims." KEURIG GREEN: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces a class action lawsuit has been filed against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. ("Keurig" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Keurig securities between February 4, 2015 and May 14, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Keurig securities during the Class Period, you have until August 18, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Keurig produces and sells specialty coffee, coffeemakers, teas, and other beverages in the United States and Canada. It sources, produces, and sells coffee, hot cocoa, teas, and other beverages under various brands in K-Cup, Vue, Rivo, K-Carafe, and Bolt portion packs brands; and coffee in traditional packaging, including bags and fractional packs, as well as offers whole bean and ground coffee in bags, fractional packages, and cans. 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 that: (1) Defendants' projections for sales were unrealistic and unattainable given the continuing consumer confusion over the Company's Keurig 2.0 brewing system; (2) the retail distribution of Company's new cold brewing system, Keurig Kold, would be delayed; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Keurig's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On May 6, 2015, the Company issued a press release aftermarket announcing its financial results for the fiscal second quarter of 2015. The press release revealed that the Company's sales growth for the quarter fell below its previously stated expectations. On that same day, Bloomberg Business published an article concerning the slow sales of the Keurig 2.0 brewing system for the quarter. On this news, shares of Keurig fell $9.92 per share, or over 9%, to close at $98.16 per share on May 7, 2015. On May 14, 2015, the Company held a webcast aftermarket concerning Keurig Kold. During the webcast, Defendant Kelley revealed Keurig Kold will be sold online and in certain stores starting this fall, but won't be available in all its retail outlets until. On this news, shares of Keurig fell $8.82 per share, or over 8%, to close at $94.26 per share on May 15, 2015, damaging investors. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. The firm may be reached at: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212.661.1100 Fax: 212.661.8665 Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com KEURIG GREEN: August 18 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline --------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. ("Keurig") (nasdaqgs:GMCR) between February 4, 2015 and May 14, 2015. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Keurig shares between February 4, 2015 and May 14, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/keurig-green-mountain-gmcror contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) projections for sales were unrealistic and unattainable given the continuing consumer confusion over Keurig's 2.0 brewing system; (b) retail distribution of the new cold brewing system Keurig Kold would be delayed; and (c) as a result, statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you suffered a loss in Keurig you have until August 18, 2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. KEYSTONE: Recalls 2014 Avalanche Models Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 5, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 19 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015353TC ID number: 2015353 Manufacturer recall number: 15-233 On certain travel trailers, windows which are identified as emergency exits may not be designed for this purpose, or may be blocked by rear roof access ladders. This could prevent egress from the vehicle in an emergency situation, increasing the risk of injury. Correction: Owners will be given instructions on how to remove the labels. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- KEYSTONE AVALANCHE 2014 LIFELOCK INC: Tripp Levy Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Tripp Levy PLLC, a leading national securities law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of a class (the "Class") of purchasers of the securities LifeLock, Inc. ("LifeLock" or the "Company") between July 30, 2014 and July 20, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit 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 had failed to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect its users' sensitive personal data, including credit card, social security, and bank account numbers; (2) that the Company falsely advertised that it protected consumers' sensitive data with the same high- level safeguards as financial institutions; (3) that the Company failed to meet the 2010 settlement order's recordkeeping requirements; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased shares of LifeLock during the Class Period and have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from your investment in LifeLock common stock and would like to learn more about this lawsuit, including your ability to potentially recover your losses, please contact us either by email at contact@tripplevy.com or by telephone at (800) 511-7037 or visit our website at www.tripplevy.com. In addition, if you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice. If you are a member of this class you can join this class action to potentially recover your losses by contacting us. Tripp Levy PLLC is a leading national securities and shareholder rights law firm representing both individual and institutional shareholders and, along with its affiliate, have recovered billions of dollars for shareholders. Tripp Levy PLLC is affiliated with Milberg LLP. The National Law Journal has named Milberg one of the "50 Elite Trial Lawyer Firms" and one of the "50 Leading Plaintiff Firms in America." The firm may be reached at: Tripp Levy PLLC 125 East 82nd Street, 9th Floor New York, NY 10028 Toll Free: 800-511-7037 International: 602-241-2841 Facsimile: 212-273-4496 Email: contact@tripplevy.com LOEWY ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- Guadalupe Gomez, Silvia Rosales, Irma Rivera, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Loewy Enterprises, Sunrise Fresh Cuts, LLC, and Does 1-100, Case No. BC590124 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide at least 60 days' written notice of a mass layoff and termination in violation of the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Defendants are wholesalers of fresh fruits and vegetables in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-2220 Facsimile: (310) 322-2228 E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com MADISON COUNTY, IL: Petitions to Appeal Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison Record, reported that roughly one month after visiting judge William Becker filed an official order granting class certification in a Madison County class action, defendants accused of participating in the alleged bid rigging scheme filed petitions to appeal the order, saying the order was rushed. Defendant Madison County and tax buyer James Foley filed separate petitions for leave to appeal to the Fifth District Appellate Court through attorney Craig Unrath of Heyl Royster on July 13. They argue that Becker hastily approved class certification before having answers on heavily-debated issues, such as how to calculate damages and whether every class member's property was a delinquent sale. "The trial court chose to take a 'we'll figure it out later' approach," both petitions state "Such an approach is not supported by class action jurisprudence." "Neither plaintiffs nor the trial court, however, have provided any analysis of how this action raising numerous counts against over 20 different defendants could be conducted on a class-wide basis," the petitions state. "There is no discussion of how a trial can be conducted on different theories against different defendants. There is no discussion of what damages methodology can be used. Punting these issues for resolution down the road is not appropriate." The class consists of anyone who owned a parcel of property that was sold at a Madison County tax sale auction from 2005 to 2008 at a penalty rate of 12 percent or higher. Becker, a Clinton County associate judge, was appointed to preside over the case to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest. Federal prosecutors, who brought down former Madison County treasurer Fred Bathon and tax buyers, say that between 2005 and 2009, tax buyers engaged in price fixing by only bidding the statutory maximum interest rate of 18 percent. The rigging was so pervasive that distressed homeowners were charged the maximum rate on nearly every property tax lien sold during that period. Bathon was convicted of structuring property tax sales in a way that eliminated competitive bidding and increased interest rates for the tax buyers in exchange for campaign contributions. He and tax buyers Barret Rochman, Scott McLean and John Vassen pleaded guilty to antitrust violations in 2013. Bathon was sentenced to 30 months in prison, but only had to serve 18 months. He was released on June 25. In their petitions, the defendants argue that the trial court abused its discretion when it certified the class action, by failing to consider the following: * Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof in establishing all of the elements for class certification and must do more than rely on the mere allegations in their complaint; * Plaintiffs must possess a valid cause of action against the defendants before a class can be certified; * Individual issues predominate, particularly with respect to damages, making class certification improper; * Plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives as they have competing interests and did not purchase taxes in all of the tax years in question from all of the defendants; and * A class action is not appropriate for the fair and efficient adjudication of this case. In addition to an order reversing Becker's class certification, Madison County requests the appellate court to dismiss the claims made against it. Unrath noted that all but two claims against Madison County have been dismissed -- claims for sales in error and money had and received. The defendant argues that these claims are not viable and class certification, let alone the allegations themselves, are improper. In the petition, Unrath wrote that the Sales in Error statute is "designed to benefit the tax buyer, not the delinquent tax payer." "By the precise language of the statute, the class representatives lack standing to pursue a claim for Sale in Error as they are not alleged to be tax buyers and have not shown that they are tax buyers," he wrote. Reiterating that the class representatives do not have standing to pursue a Sale in Error claim, Unrath adds that a class action claim for sale in error requires consideration of individualized issues for each parcel of property, making class certification inappropriate. "When the statutory factors are reviewed, it becomes apparent that successful adjudication of one plaintiff's claim will not establish a right of recovery in any other class member. "Class action precedent mandates that a judgment in favor of the class members should decisively settle the entire controversy, and all that should remain is for other members of the class to file proof of their claim," the petition states. As for the money had and received claim, Unrath argues that the plaintiffs failed to allege any facts suggesting Madison County retained any money as a result of Bathon's tax-buying system. "Put simply, no money was 'had,' nor was any 'received,'" he wrote Madison County asserts that it received no benefits from Bathon's conduct. "For each putative class member, a determination of Madison County's liability for money had and received cannot be made without an evaluation of whether Madison County retained funds from the individual absent class member's payment of allegedly excessive penalty rates," Unrath wrote. "This is especially true in this case where, as a matter of practice and as plaintiffs concede, Madison County did not retain money paid due to the allegedly excessive penalty rates but would have simply passed that money on to the tax buyers." Both defendants contend class representatives Scott Bueker, Virgil Straeter and Richeson Real Estate bore the burden of demonstrating that class certification was proper, which they failed to do, the petitions state. "Plaintiffs neglected to provide any discussion or analysis as to how damages could be tried or determined. The reason for this oversight is readily apparent -- the individualized nature of damages so predominates over any common issues that class certification is improper," Unrath wrote. The defendants reiterate that in order to determine damages and causation, the court would have to conduct an "extensive" analysis into every single parcel of land and every single tax sale. "Plaintiffs neglected to provide any discussion or analysis as to how damages could be tried or determined and the trial court could not come up with a plan on its own Instead, it said it is satisfied that an appropriate method can be reached. If this class is to be certified, litigants have a right to know how damages will be calculated," Foley's petition states. Additionally, they accuse the three plaintiffs of being inadequate class representatives, arguing that none of them had delinquent taxes for all of the appropriate years and did not have taxes purchased by all of the named defendants. "Moreover, as part of this action, Straeter wants to challenge his property tax assessments and recover some of the underlying property taxes he paid on his property," the petitions state. "This makes Straeter's claim significantly different from those of absent class members." Because Foley is accused as a tax buyer participating in Bathon's scheme, his petition specifically argues that claims against him cannot be proven on a class-wide basis, meaning class certification should not have been approved. "As a consequence, allowing certification of the claims against Mr. Foley without this primary showing (and exposing Mr. Foley to the burdens and expenses associated with a certified class) violates basic notions of fairness and justice," Unrath wrote. 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 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 MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Consumer Report ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Wesley Carter, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. McDonald's Restaurants and Backgroundchecks.Com, Case No. 2 5:15-cv-01531 (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes. McDonald's Restaurants is a franchisee of McDonald's USA, LLC, with offices located at 77848 Wolf Road, Suite 200, Palm Desert 92211. It owns and operates numerous McDonald's franchises in California. Backgroundchecks.Com maintains and operates a national database of public records and related employment histories as a nationwide consumer reporting agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq. TATAR LAW FIRM, APC 3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (323) 744-1146 Facsimile: (888) 778-5695 E-mail: Stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Consumer Report ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Wesley Carter, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. McDonald's Restaurants and Backgroundchecks.Com, Case No 2:15-cv-05728 (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes. McDonald's Restaurants is a franchisee of McDonald's USA, LLC, with offices located at 77848 Wolf Road, Suite 200, Palm Desert 92211. It owns and operates numerous McDonald's franchises in California. Backgroundchecks.Com maintains and operates a national database of public records and related employment histories as a nationwide consumer reporting agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq. TATAR LAW FIRM, APC 3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (323) 744-1146 Facsimile: (888) 778-5695 E-mail: Stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com MICREL INC: Executed MOU to Settle California Action ---------------------------------------------------- Micrel, Incorporated, said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 7, 2015, that the Company has executed a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding) to settle the California Action, which would include the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all defendants. On May 7, 2015, Micrel, Incorporated (the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Microchip Technology Incorporated, a Delaware corporation ("Microchip"), Mambo Acquisition Corp., a California corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Microchip ("Merger Sub"), and Mambo Acquisition LLC, a California limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Microchip ("Merger Sub LLC"). The Merger Agreement provides for the acquisition of the Company by Microchip by means of a first step merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Microchip (the "Interim Surviving Company"), and a second step merger of the Interim Surviving Company into Merger Sub LLC, with Merger Sub LLC surviving the second step merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Microchip. Between May 15, 2015 and May 29, 2015, four class action lawsuits were filed in Superior Court of the State of California by alleged shareholders of the Company against the Company, the individual directors of the Company, Microchip, Merger Sub and Merger Sub LLC, which have been consolidated by order of the Court as Allan v. Micrel, Incorporated, et al., Lead Case No. 1-15-cv-280762 on June 5, 2015 (the "California Action"). On June 30, 2015, the Company executed a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding) to settle the California Action, which would include the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all defendants. The parties anticipate filing a stipulation of settlement with the Court after the consummation of the merger. The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, consummation of the merger and final approval of the proposed settlement by the court. In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the merger will be consummated or that the court will approve the settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding may be terminated. The settlement will not affect the amount of merger consideration the Company's shareholders are entitled to receive in the Merger. As part of the settlement, the defendants agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger, which were included in the amended Form S-4 Proxy Statement/Prospectus deemed filed on June 26, 2015 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). The Company and its Board of Directors believe that the claims in the California Action are entirely without merit and, in the event the settlement does not resolve them, intend to vigorously defend this action. MICRO BIRD: Recalls G5 School Bus Models Due to Injury Risk ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 5, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: School Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 14 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015350TC ID number: 2015350 Manufacturer recall number: 15-060-BCS On certain school buses, bolts securing the battery box to the bus body may be missing, causing the number of fasteners securing the battery box to be inadequate. In addition, battery terminal shields were also omitted, contributing to corrosion. This could result in the battery box separating from the vehicle and increase the risk of a fire and/or crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace corroded components, add shields and replace missing bolts. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- GIRARDIN G5 SCHOOL BUS 2013 MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Yossef" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benzion Yossef, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 04526 (E.D.N.Y., August 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Kahn" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Kahn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 05968-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (347) 526-4093 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com MZB: Recalls Children's Flashing Digital Watches ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: August 5, 2015 Posting date: August 5, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Physical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54404 This recall involves select styles of flashing light-up digital watches for children, except for one style which is analog. The round watches (21.5cm length x 3.5cm width) have multi- coloured silicone straps and Flashing Light-Up LCD. The various designs include Hello Kitty, My Little Pony, Spiderman, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Transformers, Star Wars, Disney Princess, Minnie Mouse, Mickey Mouse, Monster High, Lalaloopsy, Guardians of the Galaxy, Frozen, Ever After, Dora the Explorer, Despicable Me 2, and Avengers Movie 2. The watch's package and warranty information contain the manufacturer's information. The SKU/Style number and manufacturer's name appear on the case-back of all watches. The following styles are sold in Canada: Description Style ----------- ----- Amazing Spider-Man 2 Analog ASM2KQ001C Amazing Spider-Man 2 Flashing ASM2KD012FLC Amazing Spider-Man 2 Flashing ASM2KD031FLC Amazing Spider-Man 2 Flashing ASMKD085FLC Amazing Spider-Man LCD Light-Up ASMKD054C Amazing Spider-Man LCD ASMKD081E14C Avengers Movie 2 flashing AVGKQ129C Despicable Me 2 Flashing DMEKD022FLC Despicable Me 2 Flashing DMEKD022FLWC Disney Princess LCD w/ Dark PRSKD759E14C Disney Princess LCD w/ Silver PRSKD793FLC Dora The Explorer Flashing DTEKD1113FLC Ever After High Flashing EAHKD004FLC Frozen Girl's LCD FNFKD022FLC Frozen Flashing Light LCD watch FNFKD108FLC Guardians of the Galaxy Boy's GOGKD001FLC Hello Kitty Flashing Light-Up HKKD5599C Hello Kitty Flashing Light-Up HKKD5588FLC Hello Kitty Flashing Light-Up HKKD5773FLC Hello Kitty Flashing Light-Up HKKD5599C Hello Kitty LCD Light-Up w/clr HKKD2686C Hello Kitty LCD w/ Lavender HKKD5431E14C Hello Kitty LCD w/ Silver mtl HKKD5376H13C Lalaloopsy Kid's LCD w/Fuschia LLLKD023E14C Mickey Mouse LCD w/ Silver MCKKD1399H13C Minnie Mouse LCD w/ Dark Pink MINKD507E14C Minnie Mouse LCD w/ Silver MINKD449H13C Monster High Flashing Light-Up MHKD191C Monster High Flashing Light-Up MHKD178FLC Monster High Flashing Light-Up MHKD185FLC Monster High LCD w/ Silver MHKD107H13C Monster High LCD w/Slv & Purpl MHKD148E14C My Little Pony Flashing MLPKD129FLC My Little Pony Flashing light MLPKD078C My Little Pony Light-Up LCD w/ MLPKD089FLC Skylander's Giants Boy's LCD SKYKD041E14C Star Wars Classic Boy's SWCKD013FLC Star Wars Rebels Boy's flashing SWRKD012FLC Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle TURKQ065C Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles TURKD062E14C Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles TURKD074FLC Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles TURKD087FLC Transformers 4 Boy's Flashing TF4KD009FLC Ultimate Spider-Man Analog SPMKQ449C Ultimate Spider-Man LCD SPMKD459H13C The case-backs may become separated from the watch case exposing the module to water, potentially causing a skin irritation. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. MZB has received 10 reports, including 1 in Canada, of consumer incidents involving skin irritations or chemical burns. Approximately 2 million of the watches were distributed in Canada and in the United States, 58,800 of which were distributed in Canada. They were sold at Winners Merchants International LP, Walmart Canada, Sears Canada Inc. and Target. The affected watches were sold in Canada from August 2012 to June 2015. Manufactured in China. Distributor: MZB Long Island City New York UNITED STATES Consumers should stop using the recalled product and return it to their nearest retail location for a full refund or store credit. Consumers may also contact MZB directly for a refund by calling 1- 888-770-7085. For more information, see MZB's website. 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/RWWKTz NEIMAN MARCUS: Data Breach Class Suit Re-opened ----------------------------------------------- Robert Abel, writing for SC Magazine, reported that a federal appeals court revived a class action lawsuit against Neiman Marcus over the data breach it experienced in 2013, noting in its ruling that 350,000 payment cards were compromised and 9,200 were used fraudulently. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge made an error by dismissing the case too soon, at the request of the luxury retailer, on the grounds that anyone whose information was used maliciously had already been compensated. The lawsuit alleged that victims who didn't immediately suffer after the breach still faced an increased risk for future criminal use of their data. Chief Judge Diane Wood said those affected "should not have to wait until hackers commit identity theft or credit-card fraud in order to give the class standing," according to a release, and added there is an "objective reasonable likelihood' that such an injury will occur." NELSON WATSON: Faces "Maldonado" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Alfredo Maldonado, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Nelson, Watson & Associates, LLC, CBE Group and John Doe 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-05940-ES-MAH (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 NEWCREST MINING: Ruling Provides Meaning, Effect of s33ZF --------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Wearne, Esq. -- nicole.wearne@nortonrosefulbright.com -- at Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, in an article for Lexology, wrote that there have been a number of decisions in both the Federal Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Victoria where the Court has been prepared to require that non party class members produce information to the parties and the court to assist in the determination of issues. Principle to the court's consideration as to the ambit of its power to order group members to take a more active role in the litigation is s33ZF found in Part IVA of the various Court Acts. It provides: In any proceeding (including an appeal) conducted under this Part, the Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party or a group member, make any order the Court thinks appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding. In Earglow Pty Ltd v Newcrest Mining Ltd [2015] FCA 328, Beach J provides clear analysis of the meaning and effect of s33ZF and when it can be utilised. Background In 2013 and 2014 the Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigated conduct of Newcrest, which resulted in the imposition of pecuniary penalties. In legal proceedings ASIC alleged that Newcrest had engaged in two contraventions of s674(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 relating to disclosure to the ASX of Newcrest's total gold production and capital expenditure for the 2014 financial year. ASIC prosecuted Newcrest in respect of the alleged contraventions and Newcrest admitted each contravention and consented to various declarations being made and penalties imposed for the purpose of the ASIC proceedings. The applicant commenced a class action on its behalf and on behalf of certain investors who had signed a litigation funding agreement with Comprehensive Funding Legal LLC, alleging various breaches by Newcrest of its continuous disclosure obligations between 2012 and 2013, and misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of s 1041H Corporations Act and s12DA of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. The applicant represents those persons who: -- at any time during the period from 13 August 2012 until the close of trading of the ASX on 6 June 2013 (the class period) acquired an interest in securities traded of the ASX under the designation "NCM" (Newcrest shares); and -- suffered loss or damage by or resulting from the conduct of Newcrest pleaded in the ASOC. The applicant is a small investor and the trustee of two trusts: a family trust and a self managed superannuation fund. The trustee held Newcrest securities on behalf of the family trust at the beginning of the class period, purchased securities for the superannuation fund in late May 2013 and sold all of the shares it held for both trusts on 25 June 2013. The total shareholding was around 9,400 shares. The Application Newcrest applied to the court for an order that the individual claims of two institutional shareholder group members, who were among Newcrest's top 20 shareholders at the relevant time, be tried at the first stage trial of the proceeding involving the applicant's individual claim and the common issues. Newcrest emphasised the evidentiary benefits and assistance for settlement. Newcrest relied on the broad power of the court to make an order in the proceeding as provided for by s33ZF. It contended that the applicant's claim provided limited cover of issues in the proceeding and was not truly representative of investors in Newcrest. The applicant accepted that s33ZF empowered the court to make the type of order being sought by Newcrest, providing that the statutory test was satisfied and that it was an appropriate exercise of discretion, both of which the applicant submitted had not been established. The Decision His Honour considered the concluding words of the statute and interpreted s33ZF as requiring him to consider whether he thought that the order sought by Newcrest is appropriate, to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding. He noted it was not sufficient for him to think it "merely convenient" nor was it a "licence to permit His Honour to impose his own expansive case management philosophy". Rather the court must be satisfied that any order made ensures that justice is done in the proceeding to satisfy the statutory test. In coming to his decision to refuse the application, His Honour accepted that other courts had made orders requiring group members to take an active role. That conduct included compelling discovery and the delivery of particulars of loss, provision of contribution towards security for costs and provision of group member identities. But the context of the examples was important and the mere fact that it was possible and justifiable to make such an order, did not support the proposition that whenever the court considered it was convenient to do so that it should. In submitting that the group members already accepted that they could be required to be a more active participant in the litigation, Newcrest relied on the terms of the funding agreement between the group members and the funder, which required them to cooperate in the litigation if given a direction by Slater & Gordon. His Honour while accepting that the provisions of the funding agreement may facilitate a more active role did not consider that the terms added anything to the statutory test of ensuring justice is done in the proceeding. His Honour also accepted that the role and behaviour of the institutional investor was relevant to the dispute and common questions and his reasons provide a detailed analysis in support of why the evidence is important in a shareholder class action. However, he considered that it might be possible for the court to determine issues in the case without the evidence of institutional investors and if it was necessary then the applicant would need to lead the relevant evidence, or both it and the group would be detrimentally affected. It was not for the court to impose nor for Newcrest to seek to compel. Beach J noted that the applicant had proposed a particular approach to the expert evidence relevant to a quantitative assessment of the impact of the relevant representations and non- disclosure contraventions and a qualitative assessment of the material information to the Newcrest market of investors. Whether the applicant's forensic choice was sound was not for the court to say and His Honour accepted that the choices of evidence to be called and risks assessments to be made was a decision for the parties and not the Court. Such matters are "not for the Court to impose in form or to conduce in substance if not in form. They are certainly not for one party to impose on the other directly or indirectly via the s 33ZF mechanism or through the likely effect of any order that might be made under s 33ZF." While accepting that evidence from institutional investors is relevant to the common issues, such evidence was not necessary to establish the applicant's individual claim or one or more of the common issues. His Honour was not convinced of the Newcrest submission that the provision of institutional sample investors could potentially facilitate earlier settlement after the first stage trial. He was persuaded that whatever the perceived advantages of adjudicating on a range of individual cases to facilitate a post first stage trial mediation process, that was not sufficient to justify the requested exercise of power under s 33ZF. His Honour also considered that the sample of two institutional investors was not sufficiently diverse to adjudicate on. Beach J distinguished this scenario from those proceedings where discovery and particulars has been ordered of individual group members' claims prior to the first stage trial in order to achieve an overall settlement before trial (Thomas v Powercor and Regent Holdings v State of Victoria). He considered such pre-trial disclosure of sufficient individual data to facilitate an overall pre-trial settlement is a different context than what was proposed by Newcrest with two institutional investors at the first stage trial to facilitate settlementthereafter. Ultimately His Honour considered that there was not substantial prejudice to Newcrest in refusing the orders but rather considered that if there was a lack of institutional investor participation, it was more likely to prejudice the applicant than Newcrest. Finally His Honour noted that even if he did think it appropriate to make such an order he would not do so until after the opt out date had passed because only then could the parties know which institutional investors were part of the group. Were such an application to be made at that time, His Honour considered it would be appropriate to permit the particular investor an opportunity to be heard before making final orders, against their will. Conclusion Beach J's decision is particularly helpful for practitioners advising their clients on the circumstances which need to be satisfied before the court will make an order under s33ZF. Where the parties do not agree to the appointment of sample group members to determine particular issues, it is less likely that the court will impose an additional cost burden on the group members, where the applicant has adopted a particular forensic approach. Rather the court has made it clear that the forensic and strategic decision as to the evidence is for the legal advisers and the applicant. If their approach turns out to be incorrect, then the representatives and group members may suffer prejudice but that is not for the courts to pre-judge. NISSAN: Recalls Armada 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 6, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 0 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015356TC ID number: 2015356 Certain vehicles may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies. Incorrect driver and passenger front seat belt buckles may have been installed at time of vehicle assembly. This could result in the buckles failing to unlatch when the unlatch button is depressed, or not properly latch, failing to meet the requirements of the standard. This could increase the risk of injury and/or damage to property in a crash. Correction: Dealers will inspect the seat belt buckles and replace as necessary. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- NISSAN ARMADA 2015 NISSIN FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Misleading Label Suit Partially OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Davis, Esq., at Weil Gotshal Manges LLP, in an article for Lexology, reported that courts across the United States have seen an ever-growing number of food labeling class actions over the past few years. A recent decision in the Northern District of California granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss concerns yet another case in this category, Guttmann v. Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Company, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00567. The plaintiff, a repeat player in litigation regarding artificial trans-fat, claims that Cup Noodles products manufactured by defendant Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Company, Inc. ("Nissin") contained trans-fats despite misleading claims on product labels. At issue was the fact that although all of the noodle products contained partially-hydrogenated oils (and listed those oils among the ingredients), the nutrition-facts panel on each of the product labels included the indication "Trans Fat: 0g." Several of the products also included icons on the front labels that described the product as containing "0g Trans Fat." Order at 2. Plaintiff claimed that the "0g Trans Fat" icon on the product's front label was misleading and violated California laws. Nissin moved to dismiss and argued that plaintiff's mislabeling claims were preempted by federal regulation. As the court explained, "nutrition facts," statements about a food product's nutrient contents in the nutrition-facts panel, and "nutrient-content claims," statements about a food product's nutrient contents outside of the nutrition-facts panel, are both regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Pursuant to those regulations, if a manufacturer chooses to declare trans-fat content in the nutrition-facts panel, for a serving size that contains less than 0.5 grams of trans-fat, the content must be expressed as zero. 21 C.F.R. 101.9(c)(2)(ii). "Express" nutrient-content claims are permitted by regulation provided they are "not false or misleading in any respect." 21 C.F.R. 101.13(i) (3). Plaintiff argued that his state law claims based on labeling were not preempted by federal regulation because Nissin's nutrient- content claim on the product's front label was misleading. The court disagreed, citing as precedent Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2010), where it was held that, because the FDA had already determined that "there is no nutritional difference between rounded and unrounded values of a nutrient in a food" (58 Fed. Reg. 44020-01 at 44024 (Aug. 18, 1993)), "use of the unrounded value could not be misleading when used as an express nutrient-content claim." Order at 4. As further justification for preemption, the court reasoned that finding the "0g Trans Fat" icon on the product's front label misleading while federal regulation requires Nissin to declare the product's trans-fat content as zero in the nutrition-facts panel would lead to trans-fat content being expressed in two different ways on the same product, a confusing situation for the average consumer. As the court stated, "[t]o permit state-law claims based on a "0g Trans Fat" nutrient-content claim while the FDA required trans-fat to be declared as zero in the nutrition-facts panel would compel such a discrepancy." Order at 5. Notably, although plaintiff's mislabeling claims were preempted, his health claims based on California Unfair Competition Law and breach of implied warranty of merchantability survived the motion to dismiss. Adding to the intrigue, while the motion was pending, the FDA issued a final determination that partially-hydrogenated oils are no longer "generally recognized as safe" and giving manufacturers three years to remove partially-hydrogenated oils from their products. 80 Fed. Reg. 34650 (June 17, 2015). Nonetheless, this decision represents a logical application of the federal preemption doctrine in the food labeling arena. We will continue to monitor for important developments. OCEAN POWER: Court Appointed Five More as Lead Plaintiff -------------------------------------------------------- Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer Charles Dunleavy are defendants in consolidated securities class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned In Re: Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 14-3799 (FLW) (LHG). The consolidated actions are Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG; Chew, et al. v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. et. al., Case No 3:14-cv-03815; Konstantinidis v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04015; and Turner v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04592. On March 17, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Five More Special Situation Fund Ltd. as the lead plaintiff. On May 18, 2015 lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges claims for violations of sections 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and for violations of Sec. 10(b) and Sec. 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of public statements relating to a now terminated agreement between Victorian Wave Partners Pty. Ltd. (VWP) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) for the development of a wave power station (the "VWP Project"). The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The case is still in its preliminary stage and defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint. PAVER DAVE: Faces "Navas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julio C. Pena Navas and Pablo Irineo Coto Mendoza, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Paver Dave, Inc., and David E. Keller, Case No. 1:15-cv-22881-KMW (S.D. Fla., August 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a construction company that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM PMFG INC: Faces "Herre" Class Action in Del. Chancery Court ----------------------------------------------------------- PMFG, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, that C. Jeffrey Herre, individually and on behalf of similarly situated PMFG shareholders, has commenced an action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Action"). CECO Environmental Corp. ("CECO"), Top Gear Acquisition, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of CECO), Top Gear Acquisition II LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of CECO), PMFG and each of the members of the board of directors of PMFG were named as defendants in the Delaware Action. The case is, C. JEFFREY HERRE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PETER J. BURLAGE, CHARLES M. GILLMAN, KENNETH R. HANKS, ROBERT MCCASHIN, R. CLAYTON MULFORD, KENNETH H. SHUBIN STEIN, HOWARD G. WESTERMAN, JR., PMFG, INC., CECO ENVIRONMENTAL CORP., TOP GEAR ACQUISITION INC., and TOP GEAR ACQUISITION II LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 11223 (Del. Ch.). A copy of the Complaint is available at http://is.gd/GF6m2X The Plaintiff is represented by: RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Sebastiano Tornatore 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Tel: (212) 363-7500 PUMA BIOTECH: Levi Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Puma Biotechnology Inc. ("Puma Biotechnology") between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Puma Biotechnology shares between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/pumabiotechnologyor contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company's New Drug Application filing would be for a positive early stage breast cancer indication, rather than the previously announced metastatic breast cancer; (b) Puma would need to submit additional safety data from preclinical carcinogenicity studies with its NDA filing, which Puma did not have; (c) the additional studies required would push the timelines for filing the NDA; and (d) the Company overstated results from its Phase III ExteNET Trial. If you suffered a loss in Puma Biotechnology you have until August 3, 2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. RECEPTOS INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Morgan & Morgan announces that a shareholder class action has been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Board of Directors of Receptos, Inc. ("Receptos" or "the Company") for possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law in connection with the sale of the Company to Celgene Corporation ("Celgene"). If you own shares of Receptos and would like to learn more about the Receptos shareholder investigation, you may contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email info@morgansecuritieslaw.com. Under the terms of the transaction, Receptos shareholders will receive only $232.00 in cash for each share of Receptos stock they own. The proposed transaction is valued at approximately $7.2 billion. The complaint alleges that the Board of Receptos breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by agreeing to the proposed transaction for inadequate consideration. The transaction may undervalue the Company given Receptos has a strong pipeline which includes drug candidates for immune diseases. About Morgan & Morgan Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection, overtime, and product liability. All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and consumer protection and always fight "for the people." RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Faces "Gilmore" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Delores Gilmore, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated consumers v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 3:15-cv-05959-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Taylor Sheffield, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LUPOLOVER 120 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 300 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: (201) 461-0059 E-mail: matthew@lupoloverlaw.com RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Faces "Vieria" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Vieria, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-05937-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 REULAND ELECTRIC: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Vasquez, an individual and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Reuland Electric Co., Case No. BC590125 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties in violation of the California Labor Code. Reuland Elec. Co. is in the business of manufacturing electric motors, motor brakes, and other related products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN, LLP 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-2220 Facsimile: (310) 322-2228 E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com ROCCHIO TUNNEL: Faces "Holloway" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Janet Holloway, individually and on behalf all other similarly situated v. Rocchio Tunnel Marketplace Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Valentino Cucina Italiana, and Giovanni Rocchio, 0:15-cv-61586-JIC (S.D. Fla., August 3, 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 the Valentino Cucina Italiana restaurant in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Robert Amlong, Esq. Jennifer E. Daley, Esq. AMLONG & AMLONG 500 NE 4th Street, 2nd Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1154 Telephone: (954) 462-1983 Facsimile: 523-3192 E-mail: wramlong@theamlongfirm.com jdaley@theamlongfirm.com SAFEWAY GROCERY: Faces Class Suit Over Term and Conditions Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Greiner, writing for Enquirer Media, reported that the Safeway Grocery store chain recently learned a valuable lesson about changing online terms and conditions. Those terms aren't binding on customers who do not receive notice of the changes. That's the recent ruling from a California-based federal court. A Safeway customer named Michael Rodman brought a class-action complaint against Safeway. Rodman claimed Safeway raised prices on its Safeway.com site, despite representing in its 2011 registration terms that online prices would match prices at its physical stores. Safeway argued the price hike was set out in amended online terms. Safeway essentially argued its arbitrary decision to change the deal terms was all that was needed to effect those changes. In Safeway's view, the fact that Safeway customers weren't aware of the changes didn't matter. Safeway based this argument on a notice appearing on its website stating that users agreed to whatever terms appeared on the website at the time customers made the purchases. The court, however, disagreed. It noted first that customers could not agree in advance to future unknown terms. It also noted that "settled law" required website operators to give advance notice of charges "to put users on notice of the terms to which they wish to bind consumers." As a result, the court ruled the amendment was not effective in the absence of evidence that Safeway gave customers advance notice of the changes. It is like the proverbial tree falling in an empty forest -- the change is ineffective if no one hears about it. SANFORD HEALTH: Sued Over 'Grossly Excessive' ER Charges -------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Springer, writing for Inforum, reported that a lawsuit accusing Sanford Health of "grossly excessive" charges for emergency room services is part of a litigation boom by trial lawyers whose cases are overwhelmingly thrown out by judges, Sanford executives said. A lawsuit seeking class-action status filed earlier in Cass County District Court is almost identical to lawsuits filed in 2006 against three of South Dakota's largest hospitals, said Cindy Morrison, a Sanford vice president for marketing and public policy. In all three cases -- including one against Sioux Valley Hospital in Sioux Falls, now Sanford Health -- judges dismissed the lawsuits, saying they failed to make a valid legal claim, and the dismissals were unanimously upheld by the South Dakota Supreme Court, she told The Forum Editorial Board. Sanford has yet to file an answer to the Fargo lawsuit, but Morrison and Paul Richard, president of Sanford Medical Center in Fargo and the health system's former chief counsel, said the hospital's billing and charging practices are consistent and follow both the law and federal regulations. The South Dakota lawsuits were part of a pattern that first surfaced after large class-action settlements with the tobacco industry, Morrison said, and some lawyers thought hospitals made a ripe target for similar payouts. "They are almost a mirror image of what happened a decade ago," she said of the South Dakota cases. "I think the court has spoken on this. I think this is a reiteration of something that happened 10 years ago." Lawyers who look for plaintiffs in cases they seek to have certified as class actions often rely on news reports, which can attract potential clients. "I hate to say it," Morrison said, "but that's a way to troll." Barry L. Kramer, a lawyer formerly from California and now in Las Vegas, drafted the lawsuit against Sanford. He said he was motivated to take such cases after a client walked into his office with a $15,000 bill for an overnight hospital stay. A solo practitioner, Kramer's office maintains a website announcing that he is "investigating excessive hospital fees," and providing a way for people to contact him if they have visited a hospital or emergency room while uninsured. Kramer's website invites people to submit information under the heading "Hospital Overcharges Class Actions" and says that about 1 million patients have received refunds or adjustments to their hospital bills as a result of class-action settlements that have resulted in payments totaling almost $1 billion from hospitals to patients who he said were overcharged. Class-action lawsuits alleging hospital overcharges are pending in at least four states, including California, New Jersey, West Virginia and Washington. "Just because you get class certification doesn't mean you're going to win the case on the merits of the law or facts," Richard said, adding that there are "lots of hoops" to be granted class- action status. The lawsuit against Sanford was brought on behalf of Dustin Limberg of Fargo. His complaint said he went in January to the emergency room at Sanford, where he signed a contract agreeing he was responsible for all charges for services provided by the hospital. Those charges, Limberg's lawsuit said, are based on "chargemaster" rates, a list of costs for services the hospital maintains to negotiate with public and private health insurers for all services provided. But patients without insurance don't benefit from negotiated rates. In Limberg's case, he received a $2,062 bill for his ER visit, an amount the lawsuit contends is "grossly excessive, unfair and unconscionable for the services provided." Hospital emergency rooms are barred by federal law from discussing their charges or asking patients about their ability to pay, Richard said. Charges are universal, but rates are negotiated, he said. Patients, even those with insurance, can apply for financial assistance. If they are able to demonstrate financial need, they can have part or all of their bill waived. Sanford provided $323 million in charity care, including $83 million in Fargo, Richard said. "So it's a big number." The issue isn't whether the charges are unfair, Richard said, it's whether they're illegal. The Affordable Care Act is allowing more people to obtain health insurance. "You're asking judges and juries to decide a charge for each and every patient," Morrison said, referring to the wave of class- action lawsuits against hospitals. "That doesn't make sense." Hospitals usually settle cases like those brought by Limberg, said his attorney, Kramer. "The hospitals don't want to take these losing cases to trial they're certain to lose," he said, adding that he has been successful in overcoming motions to dismiss cases. He did not say how much money he has recovered for his clients. For the past six or seven years, Kramer said, "I've worked on nothing but these cases." SILVER WHEATON: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline --------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Silver Wheaton Corp. ("SLW" or the "Company") (NYSE: SLW) between March 30, 2011 and July 6, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). If you purchased shares of SLW during the Class Period, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969- 4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at: http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/silver-wheaton-corp-slw. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) SLW's financial statements contained errors concerning income tax owed from the income generated by its foreign subsidiaries; (2) the Company lacked adequate controls over its financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of defendants' alleged false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, on July 6, 2015, the Company issued a press release, announcing, among other things, that the Canada Revenue Agency is taking the position that the transfer pricing provisions of the Income Tax Act (Canada) relating to income earned by foreign subsidiaries outside of Canada should be applied such that SLW's taxable income should be increased approximately $567 million for the period between 2005 and 2010. On this news, shares in CorMedix dropped over 11%, closing at $15.46 per share on July 7, 2015, on heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 8, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States. The firm may be reached at: Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. Peter Allocco, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (516) 683-3516 Fax: (302) 654-7530 Email: info@rl-legal.com SUSHI SAKE: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Noel Ortiz and other similarly-situated individuals v. Sushi Sake NMB, Inc. and Rene Diaz, Case No. 15-cv-22888-KMM (S.D. Fla., August 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate several Japanese restaurants in the Miami, Florida area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com TALTECH CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Espinosa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Taltech Construction, Inc., Mega Commercial Construction, Inc., and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. BC590176 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq. GAINES & GAINES, APLC 27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101 Calabasas, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 703-8985 Facsimile: (818) 703-8984 E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com TD BANK: Settles Suit for $20MM in Quality Investments Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Donna Horowtz, writing for The Street, reported that TD Bank has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $20 million with European investors who lost more than $223 million in Dutch life settlement company Quality Investments. The bank signed an agreement to settle the suit, which is expected to get preliminary court approval in a few weeks, according to the plaintiffs' attorney. A notice of the settlement was filed, July 16, with the U.S. District Court in Miami. In their February 2014 lawsuit, five investors accused the bank of aiding a Ponzi scheme that allegedly bilked more than 1,000 investors in fractional interests in life settlements. "I think it's an excellent settlement, particularly in light of how challenging these cases are, and we look forward to continuing to work to recover more funds for these investors," said David Buckner, an attorney with the Grossman Roth law firm in Miami. "Our argument was that the bank had sufficient knowledge to be held liable here." TD Bank spokeswoman Kate Toy said in an e-mail that the bank was pleased that the matter was close to resolution. TD Bank, with executive offices in Cherry Hill, N.J., and a principal place of business in Portland, Maine, is a unit of Toronto-Dominion Bank. Plaintiffs say class members lost more than $223 million due to numerous breaches of fiduciary duty, acts of legal malpractice, negligent acts and aiding and abetting such violations and other misconduct. Four of the plaintiffs are individuals who live in the Netherlands and say they invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the scheme: Francois Robert Gevaerts, Paul Christian Holstein Gevaerts, Alexander Casper Holstein Gevaerts and Pieter Schaffels. The fifth plaintiff is Schaffels Beheer, a Dutch company, which similarly invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Quality Investments. In addition to the bank, the lawsuit named Deborah Peck, Dennis Moens, Simon Franciscus Wilhelmus Laan, Watershed, Zilwood, Crystal Life Capital, Running2, Best Invest Europe Ltd., Jennifer J. Hume and Jennifer J. Hume. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants sought investors to buy interests in life settlement policies that were put in Florida trusts formed and managed by Peck. Peck, an attorney who was acting as the trustee for the investment, was disbarred in December, according to the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics. Each investment sold at Laan's direction through Quality Investments was a beneficial interest in a trust formed to hold and maintain a policy. THORATEC CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Proposed St. Jude Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Larkin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Thoratec Corporation, et al., Case No. RG15780585 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the stockholders of Thoratec Corporation to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Thoratec by St. Jude Medical, Inc. through a flawed process and for an inadequate consideration. Thoratec Corporation offers therapies addressing advanced-stage heart failure. St. Jude Medical, Inc. is a global medical device manufacturer. The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bower, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com TJ MAXX: 'Compare At' Prices Deceptive Retail Trick, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Jan Mabry, writing for CBS News, reported that a new class-action lawsuit against T.J. Maxx may give bargain hunters buyer's remorse when they learn the retailer's oft-touted 'compare at' prices are "staff estimates," not real prices at luxury department stores. T.J. Maxx regularly advertises their name brand products are "up to 60% off department store prices," and uses the 'compare at' price tags to convince shoppers they are getting designer goods at bargain prices. The lawsuit was brought by two shoppers who purchased items at the retailer with a price tag showing a "compare at" price that was significantly higher than the sale price. Plaintiffs, Staci Chester and Daniel Friedman said they thought 'compare at' meant that was the price "they would expect to pay for those same items at other retailers in their general area." According to T.J. Maxx, the 'compare at' price is "buying staff's estimate of the regular, retail price at which a comparable item in finer catalogs, specialty or department stores may have been sold." The retailer posts this on its website and invites consumers to do their "own comparison shopping" to see the value of their purchases. The lawsuit says T.J. Maxx's 'compare at' policy is not explained on the actual price tags or in the price advertising and therefore "they are not true, bona fide comparative prices." It says the retailer "tricks shoppers into thinking they are saving a specific amount" on their purchases. The suit, Chester et al. v. The TJX Cos. Inc., charges T.J. Maxx with "unfair business practices, fraudulent business practices, unlawful business practices, false advertising, and with violating California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act." Details of the lawsuit were published on the website, Top Class Actions. T.J. Maxx issued a statement to the Huffington Post in its defense: "We tell our customers what we mean by 'compare at' prices, both through signage in our stores as well as language on our T.J. Maxx website. Transparency is important to us and integrity is ingrained in our culture. Beyond that, we do not comment on pending litigation." There are some 25 T.J. Maxx stores in the Bay Area. TOSHIBA CORP: August 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline -------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Toshiba Corporation ("Toshiba") (OTC: TOSYY & TOSBF) between May 8, 2012 and May 7, 2015. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Toshiba shares between May 8, 2012 and May 7, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to: http://zlk.9nl.com/toshiba-corporation or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that Toshiba misled investors regarding the total amounts of costs for certain infrastructure projects, thereby manipulating the profits and losses for these projects, as well as misleading investors regarding the timing in which such contract losses and provisions for contract losses were recorded. On May 8, 2015, the Company announced it is withdrawing its earnings forecasts and will not pay a year-end dividend after finding improper accounting on infrastructure projects. The Company announced that an independent committee has been formed to investigate the accounting problems. If you suffered a loss in Toshiba 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. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. TOSHIBA CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Inventors Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP investors had until August 3, 2015, to file a motion for lead plaintiff in a class action against Toshiba Corporation ("Toshiba" or the "Company") (OTC: TOSYY and TOSBF) pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The action alleges claims on behalf of purchasers (the "Class") of Toshiba securities during the period of May 8, 2012 and May 7, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding Toshiba's financial performance, business prospects, and true financial condition. On May 8, 2015, Toshiba disclosed that, in the course of an investigation, a Special Investigation Committee had identified several instances in which the Company used a percentage-of- completion method of accounting, wherein contract costs for certain infrastructure projects were undervalued and contract losses (including provisions for contract loss) were recorded in an untimely manner. Further, the Company announced that a new committee -- the Independent Investigation Committee, consisting of legal and accounting experts -- would be taking over the investigation. On this news, Toshiba's stock price fell $5.75 per share, or over 23% over the next two days to close at $18.33 per share on May 11, 2015. On July 21, 2015, Toshiba's CEO Hisao Tanaka, as well as eight of 16 board members, resigned following the publication of the Independent Investigation Committee's report, which revealed that the three most recent CEOs played active roles in inflating Toshiba's earnings by $1.22 billion over the last seven years. Moreover, they "deliberately provided insufficient explanations to auditors, with the intention of carrying out a systematic cover- up." Tanaka assumed responsibility for the accounting scandal. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased shares of Toshiba during the Class Period. If you purchased Toshiba securities as described above, and lost over $100,000 (whether realized losses or unrealized losses on stock you still hold) on the transactions, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than August 3, 2015. A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Toshiba shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3 billion for its clients. The National Law Journal has recognized Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top plaintiffs' firms in the country. Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 779-1414 TOSHIBA CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Investors' Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 Toshiba Corporation. ("Toshiba" or the "Company") (OTC: TOSYY, TOSBF), during the period between May 8, 2012 and May 7, 2015 inclusive. (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements about the Company's business, future revenues, operating results and financial prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/ or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the company misled investors regarding the total amounts of costs for certain infrastructure projects; thereby manipulating the profits and losses for these infrastructure projects as well as misguiding investors regarding the timing in which such contract losses and provisions for contract losses were recorded; as a result, Toshiba's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 3, 2015, Toshiba issued a press release announcing the establishment of a special investigation committee concerning the accounting of certain infrastructure projects. On this adverse news, shares of TOSYY fell $1.23 per share, or over 4%, from its previous closing price to close at $24.56 per share on April 6, 2015, and shares of TOSBF fell $0.16 per share or over 3% from its previous closing price to close at $4.13 per share on April 6, 2015. On May 8, 2015, Toshiba issued a press release announcing the establishment of an independent investigation committee concerning the accounting of certain infrastructure projects and the possible revision of earnings for prior years. On May 10, 2015, BARRON'S ASIA published a report which stated that Toshiba "[f]ell 16.7% on Tokyo after the electronics maker launched an accounting probe into its infrastructure business division and withdrew its 2014 earnings forecast. Toshiba also said it would not pay dividend." Until now, the accounting investigation has focused on power systems, social infrastructure and community solution units in Japan and overseas. "Several construction projects have understated costs," according to a spokesperson from Toshiba. "Toshiba earned about 11% of its operating income from its power and social infrastructure business in 2013." On this news, shares of TOSYY fell $5.75 per share, or over 23%, over the next two days to close at $18.33 per share on May 11, 2015 and shares of TOSBF fell $0.88 per share or over 22% over the next two days to close at $3.09 per share on May 11, 2015. Then on July 21, 2015, Toshiba's CEO Hisao Tanaka and eight other executives resigned, and acknowledged a cover up that began in 2008. Those resigning took responsibility for doctored books that inflated profits by $1.2 billion over several years. 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 Toshiba 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. UBER: Faces $400-Mil. Class Suit in Ontario ------------------------------------------- Daniel Tencer, writing for The Huffington Post, reported that on the same day that Uber announced a major expansion of its UberX ride service in Ontario, a Toronto-area cabbie has launched a class-action lawsuit against the service, seeking $400 million in damages over lost income. Lawyers for Dominik Konjevic, a licensed taxi driver in Mississauga, say the claim is being made "on behalf of all taxicab owners, taxicab drivers, taxicab brokers, limousine owners, limousine drivers and limousine service companies licensed, permitted or authorized to operate in the Province of Ontario." The lawsuit alleges that Uber and drivers for its UberX service "conspired to provide unlawful transport for compensation." It says Uber violated the section of the provincial Highway Traffic Act that forbids drivers from picking up passengers for compensation without a licence. In doing so, UberX "divert[ed] millions of dollars of revenue away from licensed taxicab, limousine owners and drivers in Ontario and injur[ed] their ongoing legitimate business interests," law firm Sutts, Strosberg LLP said in a statement. Typically, a court has to certify a class-action lawsuit before eligible members of the public -- in this case taxi and limousine drivers -- are allowed to join. Uber on announced it is expanding its UberX ride service to four more cities in Ontario -- Guelph, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo and London. Residents of these cities will be able to book Uber cars as of 2:00 p.m., and the company has a promotion running -- up to four free rides between now. Relations between Uber, the city and taxi drivers have been increasingly tense, with some cab drivers threatening to shut down Toronto, in an echo of the Uber riots in Paris, if the city doesn't crack down on the ride service. The city of Toronto recently took Uber to court, seeking an injunction preventing the service from operating, arguing it violates Ontario traffic laws. The court denied the city's request, indicating it is a matter for legislators. One city councillor, former Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis, issued a statement warning Pan Am Games visitors to the city that they could be fined up to $20,000 for using UberX. But city officials indicated that fines rarely reach those levels, and Uber has said it knows of no riders who have been charged with violating traffic laws. It argues the Highway Traffic Act applies only to vehicle drivers, not passengers. UCLA HEALTH: Class Suit Filed Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------- Jordan T. Cohen, Esq. -- JTCohen@mintz.com -- at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, reported that in yet another data breach affecting millions of individuals, UCLA Health System ("UCLA") reported on July 17, 2015, that hackers had accessed portions of its health network that contained personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, medical record numbers, Medicare or health plan ID numbers, and some medical information (including medical conditions, medications, procedures, and test results). Affected individuals include UCLA's patients as well as providers that sought privileges at the health system. On July 21, 2015, UCLA became a defendant in a class action lawsuit after plaintiff Michael Allen filed the action in California federal court. The complaint alleges a number of violations related to the breach, including violation of California's Confidential Medical Information Act. According to its press release, UCLA determined on May 1, 2015, that the attackers had accessed UCLA's network. Interestingly, UCLA notes that it had detected suspicious activity on its network in October of 2014, at which time it began working with the FBI to investigate the breach. At the time, UCLA did not believe that the attackers had access to the part of its network that contained personal information. However, as of May 5, 2015, UCLA concluded that the hackers may have had access to personal information as far back as September of 2014. UCLA has made identity protection and credit monitoring services available to potentially impacted individuals. The class action claims that the breach was a direct result of UCLA's failure to take "basic steps" to safeguard the sensitive information. One of these "basic steps", the plaintiff argues, is the encryption of UCLA's patient information. However, it is unclear at this point the role that encryption would have played in preventing such an attack. If the hackers obtained access to UCLA's internal network, it is possible that the data would have been accessible regardless of whether it was encrypted. As discussed in the MIT Technology Review following Anthem's massive breach, "encryption is just one part of the arsenal that organizations need to deploy to secure sensitive data. Encryption is great for securing data in transit and at rest, but if the credentials and keys are compromised it does little to protect the data." The UCLA breach illustrates another area of concern: the ability of entities to effectively investigate potential breaches. While Anthem's breach was an order of magnitude greater in terms of the number of individuals affected, the company publicly disclosed its breach less than one week after it detected the intrusion. UCLA's investigation spanned a number of months, giving the hackers more time to nefariously use the information before countermeasures could be taken. This point was not lost on the plaintiff in the class action, with the complaint describing UCLA's response as "dilatory" and accusing the system of delaying its notification to individual consumers. For its part, a UCLA representative told CNN that "the process of addressing the technological issues surrounding this incident and the logistics of identifying and notifying the potentially affected individuals was time- consuming." Regardless of how the class action suit is resolved in court, the UCLA breach is further evidence of the significant headwinds facing the health care sector, both in preventing and responding to data breaches. URANIUM ENERGY: August 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of investors who purchased Uranium Energy Corp. (NYSE:UEC) securities between October 14, 2014 and June 17, 2015. The complaint alleges that Uranium Energy achieved an unsustainable valuation by using paid stock promoters, yet failed to disclose the use of such promoters in its regulatory filings. If you suffered a loss in Uranium Energy you have until August 28, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/UEC-Info- Request-Form-820. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. VANDER-BEND MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Time Rounding Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Raul Espinoza and abelina rlvera, individually and on behalf of themselves all others similarly situated v. Vander-Bend Manufacturing, LLC and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 1-15-CV- 283929 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged unlawful policies and practices regarding the rounding of employee time records. Vander-Bend Manufacturing, LLC owns and operates a manufacturing facility located at 2701 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, California 95134. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond P. Boucher, Esq. Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq. Brandon K. Brouillette, Esq. BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903 Telephone: (818) 340-5400 Facsimile: (818)340-5401 E-mail: ray@buucher.la hhujwala@boucher.la brouillette@boucherr.la - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0H07 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sa.hagii@aol.com VIKING RANGE: Expands Dishwasher Product Recall ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 6, 2015 Posting date: August 6, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Appliances Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54500 The recall includes Viking Professional, Designer and Custom Panel dishwashers. The recalled dishwashers are 24 inches wide and were sold in various colours. The name Viking appears on the control panel at the top of the door. The following model numbers and manufacture dates are included in this recall: Model Numbers Starting With: Date Codes -first six digits ---------------------------- of serial number: ---------------------------- DDB200, FDB200, VDB200, All date codes before 120110 DFB450 or VDB450 VDB325 or DDB325 All date codes before 040111 The model and serial number are located on the identification plate mounted on the inside on the left side of the dishwasher door opening. The first six numbers in the serial number are the manufacture date in MMDDYY format, e.g., serial number 052610 was manufactured on May 26, 2010. An electrical component in the dishwasher can overheat, posing a fire hazard. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use these products. Viking Range, LLC has received 8 reports of dishwashers overheating in Canada that were not subject to the original recall, including 2 fires resulting in property damage. Viking Range, LLC has received 128 reports in the United States, including 19 reports of fire resulting in property damage involving dishwashers not subject to the original recall. Approximately 1300 units were sold in Canada, of which 300 were included in the previous recall. Approximately 17,300 units were sold in the United States, of which 2000 were involved in the previous recall. Affected products were sold July 2008 to March 2012 in Canada and the United States. Manufactured in the United States. Manufacturer: Viking Range LLC Greenwood Mississippi UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dishwashers and contact Viking Range, LLC for a free in home repair. For more information, consumers may contact Viking toll-free at 1- 800-241-7239 from 8:00 a.m to 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's website click on Safety Recall Information at the bottom right of the home page. 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/cQIvBm VOLVO: Recalls 2016 XC90 Models Due to Defective Airbag ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: August 5, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 511 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015355TC ID number: 2015355 On certain vehicles equipped with seven seats, the Inflatable Curtain (IC) air bag may not deploy as intended for third row passengers. In the event of a collision that warrants a deployment of the Inflatable Curtain, the interior trim panel on the D- pillar(s) could obstruct the IC from inflating fully. If this were to occur, it could increase the risk of injury to third row seat occupant(s) in certain types of crashes. Correction: To be determined. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- VOLVO XC90 2016 WASHINGTON: D.C. Judge Allows Some Forfeiture Claims to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Happy Carlock, writing for LegalTimes, reported that a federal judge will allow a challenge to Washington's seizure and forfeiture law to move forward as lawsuits mount across the country over the constitutionality of the taking of property without criminal charges. "Civil asset forfeiture laws -- which enable law enforcement agencies to seize property they believe has been involved in criminal activity -- have generated considerable controversy in recent years," U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington wrote on. Judge Cooper dismissed some claims in a putative class action by 22 residents who alleged District officials improperly seized and retained cars or money. The judge, however, kept alive certain claims that address the secrecy of proceedings and the timely ability to challenge a seizure. Judge Cooper ruled the D.C. government must give owners of seized vehicles "a prompt opportunity" to challenge the reasonableness of a seizure of a vehicle. The court concluded due process doesn't require a preliminary hearing after the government seizes cash. Cooper said the government has a greater interest in retaining seized money than cars "because there are fewer means to prevent a claimant from dissipating the value of cash by simply spending it before the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings." The judge also found that in some of the plaintiffs' cases, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) did not issue notices in a manner "reasonably calculated to reach claimants." And Cooper said some plaintiffs had alleged sufficient allegations to contest "secret" forfeiture proceedings. "I think [the D.C. District Court's opinion] is very significant because it follows the trend of the other circuits that say if the government takes your car, they have to give you a hearing," William Claiborne, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the NLJ on. A spokesman for the D.C. Office of the Attorney General declined to comment on the ruling. In the opinion, Cooper cites a Washington Post investigation, "Stop and Seize," to highlight the national debate over civil asset forfeiture. Numerous lawsuits are pending around the country. The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against Arizona's asset forfeiture laws. Critics argue that police are using search and seizure laws to generate revenue for their departments at the expense of innocent property owners. Proponents contend the seizure of money and property disrupts and deters criminal activity. Kimberly Brown, the lead plaintiff in the Washington case, filed suit in 2013 after police seized her car and required her to pay $250 to prevent forfeiture. Brown said she had lent her car to her friend, who used it to transport marijuana, unbeknownst to Brown, according to court records. Brown's complaint alleges the District did not allow her an opportunity to challenge the seizure or provide a prompt postseizure hearing. "In fact the District's forfeiture statute does not provide for such a hearing or notice of such a hearing nor does the District provide adequate notice and such hearings informally," according to the lawsuit. "The District's civil forfeiture scheme has a certain built-in unfairness to citizens because the District and the MPD have financial incentives to seize property and the District has delegated the authority to make ex parte determinations about whether seizures are legal to an MPD property clerk whose determinations in favor of the District financially benefit his department and the District," the lawsuit said. The D.C. Council adopted changes to the city's asset forfeiture statute in February. The allegations in Brown's case relate to the old version of the law. "This lawsuit and other lawsuits made City Council aware of problems, so City Council changed the law so that when the police take your car, you have a right to go before a judge," Claiborne said. * Workplace Discrimination Claims to Increase, Survey Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Kitroeff, writing for Bloomberg Business, reported that U.S. employers are anticipating a rise in workplace discrimination claims based on their own hiring policies, a survey released shows. In the study, employment law firm Littler Mendelson asked 500 representatives of companies with both small and large market capitalizations about their deepest legal anxieties. Fifty-seven percent said they expected an increase in discrimination claims because of their interest in an applicant's criminal history -- the companies' top concern when asked about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's enforcement efforts. A growing number of states have adopted laws that prevent employers from asking on job applications whether applicants have a criminal record. Thirty percent of the employers surveyed by Littler Mendelson said they had removed such questions from their applications. An additional 40 percent said they are hiring contractors to do background checks for them. The report suggested that this strategy may be risky because people are filing a growing number of lawsuits tied to third-party investigations of criminal history and seeking class action status. "This trend will not slow down soon," the report said. Still, respondents were less likely than to say that they expect an increase in over discrimination claims. The employers' second-biggest concern is potential claims over equal pay and the treatment of workers based on their sexuality, age, and disabilities. Employers seemed especially confused as to how to run employee wellness programs without getting into trouble for discriminating against disabled people. The programs generally offer incentives to employees who hit health or fitness benchmarks and are encouraged by the Affordable Care Act. Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued several companies for programs that it charged were unfair to workers with disabilities. Overall, companies said they were having fewer problems with the new health-care law than in previous years; one-third said they were anxious about implementing Obamacare, down from 64 percent in 2012. The timing of the survey may have played a role in employers' concerns. The poll was conducted in April and May, when the Supreme Court hadn't yet ruled in favor of gay marriage. Forty- seven percent of companies said they already had rules protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender workers, but 20 percent said they were either waiting on the court's decision to expand their regulations or had no policies in place. Getting nailed by the National Labor Relations Board for the working conditions of subcontractors is a further concern. As federal and state authorities continue to scrutinize company decisions as to who counts as an employee, most employers surveyed said they had taken some action to mitigate potential legal challenges, such as auditing independent contractors. Thirty percent said they had made no changes to policies. A growing share of C-suite executives and human resources professionals -- 17 percent -- said they expected to "hire aggressively". Compared with previous years, companies were also less likely to say they had unhappy employees staying in their jobs because there were no alternatives, or that people were stuck in jobs that didn't make good use of their skills. ********* 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 * * *