/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/151021.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 21, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 210 Headlines AMERICAN PURE: Recalls Whey Protein Products Due to Milk APPLE AMERICAN: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages BCB BANCORP: Fairness Hearing Held in NJ Class Suit BORNSTEIN SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Seafood Products BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Dismissed Washington Action BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Canterbury" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Court to Tackle Contractor Immunity Issue CHAMBERS STREET: Faces Two Class Suits in Maryland and N.Y. CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Minn. Court Dismissed Class Suits COOK MEDICAL: Recalls Beacon(R) Tip Angiographic Catheters CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Faces "Farber" Class Action in S.D. Texas CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Faces "Aron" Class Action in S.D. Texas CROCS INC: Parties Seek State Court Approval of Settlement CVS PHARMACY: "Bhatt" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay CVS CAREMARK: "Brown" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations DEL MONTE: Recalls Granny Smith Green Apples Due to Listeria DEL MONTE: Recalls Parfait Yogurt Cups Due to Almonds DOLE FRESH: Recalls Bagged Salad Due to Salmonella ECOLA SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Salmon & Tuna Due to Clostridium EHEALTH INC: Defendants Moved to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Machado" Action in D. Mass ENERNOC INC: Del. Chancery Court Moved Settlement Hearing FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Shareholder Class Action GANLEY CHEVROLET: Ohio Supreme Tosses Class Certification GARIBALDI CANNERY: Recalls Canned Products Due to Clostridium GEORGE BEST: "Lumpkin" Suit Alleges Minimum Wage Law Violations GOOD FOOD: Recalls Beef, Pork, & Poultry Products Due to Nitrite HERSHEY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Use of Child Slave Labor INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Undergoing Discovery IXIA: Parties Failed to Reach Deal in Securities Class Action KMART CORP: NY Court Recommends Denial of Bid to Junk FLSA Suit LA COLONIAL: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation LAS VEGAS SANDS: Expert Discovery Scheduled to Close Dec. 18 LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Pending LSB INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: "Thomas" Action Pending in N.D. Cal. MAGNUM HUNTER: Appeals Court Affirmed Securities Case Dismissal MARKET OF CHOICE: Recalls Baked Brie Products Due to Pecans MEDICINES COMPANY: Dismiss Bid Under Consideration by Court MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Acetaminophen Tablets MEMPHIS, TN: Motion for Monetary Damages, Attorneys' Fees Granted MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Suit Over Race Discrimination NATIONAL FOOTBALL: "Holinko" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation NEIMAN MARCUS: Petition for Rehearing in Data Breach Suit Tossed NESTLE INDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Maggi Class Action NEW ENGLAND NATURAL: Recalls Trader Joe's Granola Products NEW FRONTIER: Recalls Gluten Free Seaweed Chips Due to Wheat NIJAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Coriander Powder Due to Salmonella PACIFIC OYSTER: Recalls Canned Seafood Products PIER 1 IMPORTS: Faces Investor Class Action PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Stockholder Class Action Filed in Del. Court REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Action in E.D. Va. at Early Stage REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Action in E.D. Pa. at Early Stage S MARTINELLI: Recalls Sparking Beverages Due to Glass Chips SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Weller" Class Action Filed SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action in New York SKIPANON BRAND: Recalls Seafood Canned Products SPARK NETWORKS: Parties in "Werner" & "Wright" Suits Await Order SPARK NETWORKS: Nov. 4 Hearing on Class Certification Motions SUPER MICRO COMPUTER: Faces Investor Class Action TD AMERITRADE: Initial Approval of Reserve Yield Case Deal Sought TD AMERITRADE: "Order Routing" Litigation Remains Pending TEMPUR SEALY: Wins Favorable Ruling From Appeals Court TEMPUR SEALY: Court to Consider Class Cert. Bid in "Todd" Case TEMPUR SEALY: Motion to Amend "Todd" Action Okayed TESLA MOTORS: Plaintiffs' Class Action Appeal Pending TF SUPPLEMENTS: Recalls Rhino Capsules Due to Desmethyl TRISTAR FOOD: Recalls Dried Raisin Products Due to Sulfites UNITED STATES: Mentally Ill Deportees Can Return Under Settlement VOLKSWAGEN: Key Issues Arise Following Emissions Test Scandal VOLKSWAGEN AG: Oxnard Test Site Focus of Emissions Class Action VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bagert" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Negligent Misrepresentation VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit for Fraudulent Concealment VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Skye" Suit Seeks Actual and Punitive Damages VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Aprea" Suit Alleges Fraud VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Criminal Fraud Allegation VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Brilla" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Covell" Seeks Actual and Treble Damages VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Roberts" Suit Alleges Fraud VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Common Law Fraud VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Barger" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Suit Alleges Unlawful Trade Practices WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Cheese Products Due to Listeria * Courts Issue Opinions on Class Certification Ascertainability * New Class Action Procedures in UK May Spark More Suits * UK Consumer Rights Act Introduces "Opt Out" in Class Actions * UK Fund Managers Mull Suit as New Antitrust Rules Introduced * UK Legistlation Establishes Procedure for Competition Claims * US Supreme Court Set to Tackle Labor-Related Suits ********* AMERICAN PURE: Recalls Whey Protein Products Due to Milk -------------------------------------------------------- American Pure Whey, New Bern, NC is recalling its whey protein products, because they contain undeclared milk allergen and soy allergen. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to specific type of milk and soy run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The products were distributed to, AE, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, IL, IN, KY, KS, MA, MD, MI, MO, NC, NE, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, UT, VT, WA, WI & WY and reached directly to customers through mail order. The whey products were manufactured under the following brand names: Brand Flavor Lot Exp. UPC Code ----- ------ number Date -------- ------ ---- American Pure Chocolate 69205 9/2017 456456789004 Whey Protein Matrix American Pure Vanilla 69205 09/2017 783521095013 Whey Protein Matrix American Pure Chocolate 29026 09/2017 753182812809 Whey Protein Isolate American Pure Vanilla 29026 09/2017 78333109591 Whey Protein Isolate Body Construct Cinnamon 78124 09/2017 839893989858 Meal Replacement Roll Build Your Chocolate 67134 09/2017 456789517480 Own Body Protein Powder These products are available in 2 lb. and 5 lb. containers or in factory sealed food grade mylar bags. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product containing whey (from milk) and soy lecithin (from soy) was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of the allergens on the label. Subsequent investigation indicates, the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's production and packaging processes. Consumers who have purchased whey protein products are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Own label distributors are urged to return the product to us as soon as they have received the returns. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-888-399-0580, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration have been notified of this voluntary recall. APPLE AMERICAN: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Ysabel Rodriguez II, and all others similarly situated v. Apple American Group II, LLC, Apple American Group, LLC and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC596098 (Cal. Super., September 28, 2015), seeks to recover wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, pursuant to the California Labor Code and the IWC Wage Orders. The Defendant is Delaware corporation, authorized to conduct business in the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Tel: (310) 531-1900 Fax: (310) 531-1901 BCB BANCORP: Fairness Hearing Held in NJ Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- BCB Bancorp, Inc., as the successor to Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., and in its own corporate capacity, is a named defendant in a shareholder class action lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery Division, General Equity (the "Action"). On May 9, 2012, the Company and the other defendants obtained partial summary judgment, dismissing three of the five Counts of the plaintiff's Complaint. On May 9, 2012, plaintiff's counsel was awarded interim legal fees of approximately $350,000. The obligation to pay that amount has been stayed. The Company and the other defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of the remaining two Counts of the plaintiff's Complaint. That motion was denied, without prejudice, on February 19, 2014. The terms of a proposed Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") have been agreed to by the plaintiff class, the Company and the remaining defendants. In consideration for the full settlement and release of all Released Claims (as that term is defined in the Stipulation) and the dismissal of the Action with prejudice as against the Company and the remaining defendants, the Company, on its own behalf and on behalf of the remaining defendants, will pay $1,950,000.00 to the Class. On January 9, 2015, the court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Settlement and Authorizing the Dissemination of Notice to the Class. Pursuant to the court rules, a "Fairness Hearing" to determine if the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate was scheduled for September 21, 2015. No further updates were provided in BCB Bancorp's Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. BORNSTEIN SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Seafood Products --------------------------------------------------- Bornstein Seafoods, Inc. of Astoria, Oregon is voluntarily recalling only canned salmon, sardines, sturgeon, and tuna with any code starting with "OC" because it has the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium that can cause life-threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled. Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double- vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention. There have been no reported cases of illness to date. Products were distributed to retail and to internet customers nationwide from the website BORNSTEIN.COM. The last date of distribution of recalled products is September 2015. Affected production codes include any codes starting with "OC". The code can be found on either the bottom or on top of the can. Products are packaged in metal cans with net weights ranging from 5.5 oz. to 6 oz. Product Name UPC Brand ------------ --- ------ Krooke's Shanghaied Salmon No UPC Fancy Pink Salmon 6 14133 30506 4 Logger's Choice Pink Salmon 6 14133 30507 1 Bornstein Seafoods Smoked Pacific Sardines 6 14133 32155 2 Bornstein Seafoods Spicy Tomato Pacific 6 14133 32114 9 Bornstein Sardines Seafoods Sharyn's "Think Pink" 6 14133 30506 4 Bornstein Salmon Seafoods Smoked Albacore Tuna Fillet 6 14133 30702 0 Bornstein Seafoods Smoked Sturgeon 6 14133 30802 7 Bornstein Seafoods The Bornstein Seafoods, Inc products were made by Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC and this voluntary recall was initiated after we were notified that that our products were possibly under- processed. The problem was discovered during an inspection at Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Bornstein Seafoods has not received any canned products from Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC after september 2015. If you have any questions, call Bornstein Seafoods, Inc at (503) 325-6164 between the hours of 8:00am PST and 5:00pm PST, Monday- Friday or send e-mail to BORNSTEIN@BORNSTEIN.COM Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/XWw1tx BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Dismissed Washington Action --------------------------------------------------- A court has approved the settlement and dismissed the so-called Washington Action against Brookdale Senior Living Inc. with prejudice, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On July 31, 2014, the Company completed the merger contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 20, 2014, (the "Merger Agreement") by and among Emeritus Corporation ("Emeritus"), the Company, and Broadway Merger Sub Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and into Emeritus, with Emeritus continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger"). Prior to the Merger, Emeritus was a senior living service provider focused on operating residential style communities throughout the United States. As of July 31, 2014 Emeritus operated 493 communities, including assisted living and dementia care communities. Many of these communities offer independent living alternatives and, to a lesser extent, skilled nursing care. As of July 31, 2014, Emeritus owned 182 communities and leased 311 communities. Prior to the Merger, Emeritus also offered a range of outpatient therapy and home health services in Florida, Arizona and Texas. In connection with the acquisition of Emeritus, three purported class action lawsuits relating to the Merger Agreement, by and among the Company, Emeritus and Merger Sub, were filed on behalf of Emeritus shareholders in the Superior Court of King County, Washington against Emeritus, members of the Emeritus board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub (the "Defendants"), which lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single action captioned In re Emeritus Corp. Shareholder Litigation, No. 14-2- 06385-7 SEA (the "Washington Action"). On June 26, 2014, the Defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") with respect to a proposed settlement of the Washington Action, pursuant to which the parties agreed, among other things, that the Company and Emeritus would make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed merger, which supplemental disclosures were made by the Company in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2014 and incorporated by reference into the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-4 and the joint proxy statement/prospectus of the Company and Emeritus included therein. The parties agreed to use their collective best efforts to obtain final approval of the settlement and the dismissal of the Washington Action with prejudice. Following the provision of notice of the settlement to Emeritus' shareholders, on May 1, 2015, the court approved the settlement and dismissed the Washington Action with prejudice. BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Canterbury" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jade Canterbury, and all others similarly-situated v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Starkist Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, and King Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02169 (S.D. Calif., September 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged conspiracy to raise, fix, stabilize or maintain prices as well as allocate customers, and restrict capacity within the market for the sale of packaged seafood products (PSPs) in violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the antitrust and unfair competition laws of the State of West Virginia. The Defendants are the three largest domestic manufacturers of packaged seafood products. Bumble Bee Foods LLC is a domestic limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92123. Bumble Bee produces and sells PSPs throughout the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia. Bumble Bee is privately owned by Lion Capital LLP, based in the United Kingdom. StarKist Company is a domestic corporation with its headquarters at 225 North Shore Drive, Suite 400, Pittsburgh, PA 15212. StarKist produces and sells PSPs throughout the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia. StarKist is privately owned by Dongwon Industries, based in South Korea. Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, dba Chicken of the Sea International, is a domestic limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 9330 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121. Tri- Union Seafoods LLC produces and sells PSPs throughout the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia. Unless otherwise indicated, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC will be referred to herein as "CoS." CoS is owned by Thai Union Frozen Products ("TUF"), a company based in Thailand. King Oscar, Inc. is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business at 3838 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 115, San Diego, California 92108. King Oscar produces and sells packaged seafood products throughout the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia. CoS and King Oscar are wholly owned by Thai Union Frozen Products, a public company headquartered in Thailand. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 239-4599 Fax: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: rickert@whafh.com - and - Heidi M. Silton, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave. South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com - and - Alyson Oliver, Esq. THE OLIVER LAW GROUP PC 363 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 200 Troy, MI 48084 Tel: 248/327-6556 Fax: 248/436-3385 E-mail: aoliver@oliverlg.com CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Court to Tackle Contractor Immunity Issue ------------------------------------------------------------ Ronald Mann, writing for ScoutBlog.com, reports that Campbell- Ewald Co. v. Gomez is one of those cases in which the Court confronts an issue of great significance, but well might avoid the issue in the course of decision. The issue is so simple it is surprising there is no answer: if a defendant offers to pay the plaintiff everything the plaintiff could get if the plaintiff wins, does the plaintiff have to take "yes" for an answer? Phrased that way, you might think "yes" is the obvious response. But if that is correct, then class action defendants have an easy way to avoid class certification by simply picking off the named plaintiffs as they appear. Moreover, as if that were not enough to fill the argument slot, the same case also will consider the extent to which the government's broad sovereign immunity extends to government contractors, the so-called "derivative sovereign immunity" doctrine. To understand the specific problem that confronts the Court, some history is necessary. Two years ago, the Court heard arguments in Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action (much like a class action) in which the lower court had held that an offer of settlement which mooted all of the only plaintiff's claims did not moot the case as a whole. The lower court had concluded that the plaintiff's interest in pursuing relief on behalf of the other potential plaintiffs was enough to maintain an Article III controversy. The biggest problem for the defendant was a 1980 decision (Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper), in which the Court had held that a plaintiff whose own claim was moot nevertheless could continue his pursuit of an appeal challenging the denial of class certification. Seeking strenuously to avoid the decision of that question, the plaintiff, joined by the government as an amicus, argued that the offer of settlement in fact had not mooted the plaintiff's individual claim; if that were so, then the case would not present the question on which the Court granted review. Writing for a bare majority of five, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled for the defendant in a succinct and matter-of-fact opinion, holding that Article III does not contemplate a case with no plaintiff; the possibility that other plaintiffs might come along later is not enough to keep the case alive. The opinion mentioned in a footnote that the mootness of the claim of the named plaintiff was not an issue before the Court because her claim had been conceded as moot in the district court, the court of appeals, and in the response to the petition. Justice Elena Kagan, by contrast, writing for a group of four dissenters, addressed only the claim of individual mootness; in her view, an unaccepted settlement offer can never make a case moot. Accordingly, the four dissenters would not have reached the merits, but would have affirmed on the basis that the plaintiff's claim in fact was not moot. In sum, what Genesis gives us is a five-to-zero vote that a representative action cannot survive mootness of the claim of the named plaintiff and a four-to-zero vote that an unaccepted offer of settlement cannot moot the claim of the named plaintiff. Campbell-Ewald brings that second question squarely before the Court. The case involves a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits a wide variety of formerly common telemarketing activities; the statute provides for statutory damages of $500 but not attorney's fees. Promptly after receiving the complaint, the defendant -- petitioner Campbell- Ewald Co. -- made an offer of relief of $1500, three times the statutory damages that respondent Jose Gomez (the named plaintiff) would receive if he ultimately prevailed. The question whether that offer is enough to vitiate Gomez's claim raises foundational questions about class actions. From the perspective of defendants (in class actions or otherwise), it is crucial that there be some way to end litigation. If the defendant wishes to concede and to pay a full recovery, hasn't the purpose of the lawsuit been completely served? The point is put most elegantly in an amicus brief from the Consumer Data Industry Association: Suppose that James Madison, having been sued by William Marbury, had relented and delivered to Marbury his commission. Suppose further that Mr. Marbury had shut his door and refused to accept it, announcing to the Secretary of State that instead of having his injury redressed in full, he was more interested in hearing the Supreme Court expound on the issue of judicial review, and in ensuring that commissions not be illegally denied to other Federalists. Would Chief Justice Marshall have humored Mr. Marbury's academic interest in hearing the Court "say what the law is"? It is easy to quibble about the details -- should the result of the settlement be a direct dismissal of the action or instead entry of judgment in favor of the objecting plaintiff -- but Campbell-Ewald (represented by former Solicitor General Greg Garre) has a powerful argument that the business of courts is resolving "real" disputes between parties before the Court. It is safe to expect the argument to be appealing to the Justices who were in the majority in Genesis (in addition to Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito). Having said that, we know from Genesis that four of the Justices find Campbell-Ewald's argument unconvincing. So all that the plaintiff has to do is persuade one of the five Justices in the Genesis majority to accept his view on this question -- which the Genesis majority explicitly left open. The central strategy chosen by Jonathan Mitchell (the former Solicitor General of Texas, representing Gomez) is to pound repeatedly on various logical difficulties of Campbell-Ewald's position. Most obviously, if the offer itself moots the case, then how can the court enter judgment at a later date? Similarly, how can a settlement offer that is rejected be binding as a resolution of the case; a rejected contractual offer has no binding effect, even on the offeror. Again, there is something deeply unsettling about a district court forcing acceptance of an offer by entering judgment in favor of the objecting plaintiff. Any Justice with a will to do so obviously could sweep all of those formalistic issues aside; Campbell-Ewald suggests that even after a case becomes moot a court can take "non-merits-based steps" to clear the docket in a manner "consonant to justice" (quoting an earlier decision on the effects of mootness). The dissenters, though, are surely motivated by what is actually at stake: the ability of defendants to undermine the effectiveness of class relief by paying a pittance to pick off class representatives one after another. The question for the argument will be whether any member of the Genesis majority finds that concern compelling. If that is not enough to spark interest, the case also involves the wholly separate question of derivative sovereign immunity. Campbell-Ewald was a government contractor assisting the Navy in recruiting. In the course of its activities, the Navy sent a message to a list of individuals provided by Campbell-Ewald. It appears likely that the list mistakenly included individuals who had not agreed to receive such messages; Gomez's suit is on behalf of all such individuals. All agree that the Navy is categorically immune from such an action. Campbell-Ewald seeks "derivative" immunity. It relies heavily on a pre-World War II decision (Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co.) granting such immunity to a contractor sued under state law in connection with a public works project. Campbell-Ewald argues that Yearsley compels recognition of immunity. Gomez, by contrast, contends that immunity from state- law claims makes sense as a matter of preemption, but immunity from federal law claims is something entirely different. The general statutory grant of immunity to federal employees, for example, does not extend to violations of federal statutes. The United States (as an amicus) weighs in to support the contractor. It agrees (no surprise) that it is absolutely protected, but it argues that the contractor should be immune only if the Navy had delegated to Campbell-Ewald the Navy's "privilege" to make calls otherwise barred by the TCPA. Because the Navy did not delegate that privilege - but rather required in the contract that Campbell-Ewald comply with all applicable federal laws -- the federal government urges that Campbell-Ewald should receive no immunity. It is difficult to gauge the Court's reaction to this problem. Because its decisions in the area of contractor immunity are on the one hand rare and on the other decidedly non-textual -- witness Scalia's opinion in Boyle v. United Technologies -- the Justices have a relatively free hand here to fashion such immunity as they deem appropriate. To my mind, the arguments are so closely balanced that it is difficult to predict what they will think. ScoutBlog.com's Mann said "My best guess is that they will regard the class action questions as so important that they will turn to the immunity question largely as an afterthought. The argument, of course, will tell us more about that." CHAMBERS STREET: Faces Two Class Suits in Maryland and N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- Chambers Street Properties said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that two putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed merger between the Company and Gramercy have been filed in New York Supreme Court, New York County. A separate action asserting both class action and shareholder derivative claims challenging the proposed merger has been filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The New York actions are captioned Berliner v. Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Index No. 652424/2015 (filed July 9, 2015) and Gensler v. Baum, et al., Index No. 157432/2015 (filed July 22, 2015) and the Maryland action is captioned Jobin v. DuGan, et al., Index No. 24-C-15-003942 (filed July 27, 2015). The lawsuits allege that the directors of Gramercy breached their fiduciary duties to Gramercy stockholders by agreeing to sell Gramercy for inadequate consideration and agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the Merger Agreement. The complaints further allege, among other things, that the Company and certain of its affiliates aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The lawsuits seek, among other things, an injunction barring the merger, rescission of the merger to the extent it is already implemented, and an award of damages. The defendants believe the lawsuits are without merit and will vigorously defend themselves in these actions. CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Minn. Court Dismissed Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has entered judgment of dismissal dismissing all claims in class action lawsuits. Five putative class action lawsuits were filed by alleged Enventis shareholders that challenged the Company's merger with Enventis in which the Company, Sky Merger Sub Inc., Enventis and members of the Enventis board of directors were named as defendants. The shareholder actions were filed in the Fifth Judicial District, Blue Earth County, Minnesota. The actions generally alleged, among other things, that each member of the Enventis board of directors breached fiduciary duties to Enventis and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of Enventis to the Company for consideration that allegedly was unfair to the Enventis shareholders, agreeing to terms that allegedly unduly restricted other bidders from making a competing offer, as well as allegations regarding disclosure deficiencies in the joint proxy statement/prospectus. The complaints also alleged that the Company and Sky Merger Sub Inc. aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly committed by the members of the Enventis board of directors. The lawsuits sought, amongst other things, equitable relief, including an order to prevent the defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms. The Enventis board of directors appointed a Special Litigation Committee to address the claims. "We believed that these claims were without merit," the COmpany said. On September 19, 2014, the District Court entered an order consolidating the five lawsuits as In Re: Enventis Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-14-2489. On September 23, 2014, the District Court entered an order that denied the plaintiffs' request for expedited proceedings and stayed all proceedings "pending the completion of the Special Litigation Committee and the issuance of its decision." On February 2, 2015, the Special Litigation Committee issued a report stating that the claims lacked merit and should not proceed. On March 4, 2015, the members of the Enventis board of directors filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims with prejudice. On March 11, 2015, the Company, Sky Merger Sub Inc. and Enventis filed their motion to dismiss the matter with prejudice. A hearing on the motions to dismiss was scheduled for May 8, 2015. However, on April 29, 2015, all parties entered into an agreed stipulation to dismiss all claims with prejudice. On May 4, 2015, the court entered an order granting the parties' stipulation to dismiss all claims, and on May 6, 2015, the court entered the judgment of dismissal dismissing all claims with prejudice and without costs to any party. COOK MEDICAL: Recalls Beacon(R) Tip Angiographic Catheters ---------------------------------------------------------- Cook Medical initiated a voluntary recall for select sizes of Beacon(R) Tip Angiographic Catheters. This recall includes all lots of these select sizes of the Beacon(R) Tip Angiographic Catheters. This recall is an expansion of the voluntary lot- specific recall issued on July 2, 2015. The products include specific versions of the Torcon NB(R) Advantage Beacon(R)Tip Catheters (catalog prefix HNBR4.0, HNBR4.1 and only HNBR5.0 with the RUC suffix), Royal Flush(R) Plus Beacon(R)Tip High-Flow Catheters (catalog prefix HNR4.0), and Slip-Cath(R) Beacon(R) Tip Hydrophilic Catheters (catalog prefix SCBR4.0, SCBR4.1, and only SCBR5.0 with the RUC suffix), and Shuttle(R)Select Slip-Cath(R) catheters (catalog prefix SCBR4.5). The Beacon Tip Angiographic Catheters have been found to exhibit tip splitting or separation, which has resulted in 42 Medical Device Reports. Tip splitting has the potential to lead to loss of device function. Tip separation may require medical intervention to retrieve a separated segment or, if not retrieved, has the potential to occlude blood flow to end organs. The Beacon Tip Angiographic Catheters in this recall were distributed globally between September 2012 and September 2015. Product can be identified by the part number provided on the outer package product label. The part numbers for products subject to this recall are those with catalog number prefixes and suffixes listed in the initial paragraph above. All lots currently in distribution are affected. Cook Medical has notified its customers and distributors by recall notification letters. The letters requested that all customers and distributors quarantine and discontinue use of all potentially affected units and return the affected product to the company as soon as possible for credit. The FDA and other regulatory agencies around the world have been notified of this action. Consumers with questions may contact Cook Medical Customer Relations at 1-800-457-4500 or 1-812-339- 2235, Monday through Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time or by email at CustomerRelationsNA@cookmedical.com. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report online at www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm or via regular mail or fax. Download the form at www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1- 800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, and then complete and return to the address on the preaddressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. Adverse events may also be reported to Cook Medical Customer Relations at 1-800-457-4500 or 1-812-339-2235, Monday through Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time or by email at CustomerRelationsNA@cookmedical.com Beacon(R) Tip Angiographic Catheters Recall Extension - Affected Lot Numbers Beacon(R) Tip Royal Flush(R) Plus High-Flow Catheter Product Catalog Numbers PIG ------------------------ --- HNR4.0-35-100-P-10S-0, HNR4.0-35-100-P-10S-CFP, All Lots HNR4.0-35-100-P-10S-PIG, HNR4.0-35-100-P-6S-VCF, HNR4.0-35-100-P-NS-0,HNR4.0-35-100-P-NS-DAV, HNR4.0-35-100-P-NS-SIM1, HNR4.0-35-100-P-NS-SIM2, HNR4.0-35-100-ST-10S-0, HNR4.0-35-100-ST-10S-PIG, HNR4.0-35-100-ST-6S-PED, HNR4.0-35-110-P-10S-PIG, HNR4.0-35-120-P-6S-PED,HNR4.0-35-120-ST-6S-PED, HNR4.0-35-125-P-10S-0, HNR4.0-35-125-P-10S-PIG, HNR4.0-35-50-P-NS-0, HNR4.0-35-65-P-8S-VCF, HNR4.0-35-70-P-10S-0, HNR4.0-35-70-P-10S-CFP, HNR4.0-35-70-P-10S-PIG, HNR4.0-35-70-P-4S-PED, HNR4.0-35-70-P-6S-PED, HNR4.0-35-70-P-NS-0, HNR4.0-35-70-ST-10S-0, HNR4.0-35-70-ST-10S-PIG, HNR4.0-35-70-ST-6S-PED, HNR4.0-35-90-P-10S-0, HNR4.0-35-90-P-10S-CFP, HNR4.0-35-90-P-10S-PIG, HNR4.0-35-90-P-6S-PED, HNR4.0-35-90-P-8S-VCF, HNR4.0-35-90-P-NS-0,HNR4.0-35-90-ST-10S-0, HNR4.0-35-90-ST-10S- Beacon(R) Tip Torcon NB(R) Advantage Catheter Product Catalog Numbers PIG ------------------------ --- HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-0, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-C1, All Lots HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-C2, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS- CANADA-041480, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-DAV, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-H1, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-JB1, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-JB2, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-JB3, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-JIM, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-KMP, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-MPA, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-O1, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-SIM1, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-SIM2, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-SIM3,HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-VERT, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-VTK, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-WNBG, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-0, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-DAV, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-H1, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-JB1, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-JB2, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-MPA, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-SIM2, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-VERT, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-VTK, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-WNBG, HNBR4.0-35-40-P-NS-KMP, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-0, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-C1,HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-C2, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-C3, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-DAV, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-H1, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-JB1, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-KMP, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-MPA, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-RC1, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-RC2, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-RDC, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-RIM, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-SIM1, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-SIM2, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-C1, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-C2, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-JL2, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-JL2.5, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-JL3, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-JR1, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-JR2, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-JR3.5, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-RH, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-RLG, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-VS, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-VS1, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-VS2, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-VS3, HNBR4.0-NT-100-P-NS-H1, HNBR4.0-NT-80-P-NS-RC1, HNBR4.0-NT-80-P-NS-RIM, HNBR4.0-NT-80-P-NS-RLG, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-0, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-C1, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-C2, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-DAV, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-H1, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-JB1, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-JB2, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-JB3, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-KMP, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-MPA, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-O1, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-SIM1, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-SIM2, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-SIM3, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-VERT, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-WNBG, HNBR4.1-35-110-P-NS-JB1, HNBR4.1-35-110-P-NS-JB2, HNBR4.1-35-110-P-NS-WNBG, HNBR4.1-35-120-P-NS-JB2, HNBR4.1-35-130-P-NS-DAV-T, HNBR4.1-35-40-P-NS-KMP, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-C1, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-C2, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-DAV, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-H1, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-JB1, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-KMP, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-LEV1, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-MPA, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-RC1, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-RC2, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-RDC, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-RIM, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-SHK1.0, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-SIM1, HNBR4.1-35-75-P-NS-CHG-D, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-C1, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-C2, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-JL2, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-JL2.5, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-JL3, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-JR1, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-JR2, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-JR3.5, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-RC1, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-RH, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-RLG, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-VS, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-VS2, HNBR4.1-NT-100-P-NS-H1, HNBR4.1-NT-80-P-NS-C1, HNBR4.1-NT-80-P-NS-RC1, HNBR4.1-NT-80-P-NS-RH, HNBR4.1-NT-80-P-NS-RIM, HNBR4.1-NT-80-P-NS-RLG, HNBR5.0-35-65-P-NS-RUC, HNBR5.0-35-90-P-NS-RUC Shuttle(R) Select Slip-Cath(R) Catheter Product Catalog Numbers PIG ------------------------ --- SCBR4.5-35-135-P-NS-ANG-SHTL, SCBR4.5-35-135- All Lots P-NS-ANG-SHTL-JP, SCBR4.5-35-150-P-NS-0-SHTL, SCBR4.5-35-150-P-NS-ANG-SHTL, SCBR4.5-35-75-P- NS-ANG-SHTL, SCBR5.0-35-90-P-NS-RUC Slip-Cath(R) Beacon(R) Tip Catheter Product Catalog Numbers PIG ------------------------ --- SCBR4.0-35-150-P-NS-0, SCBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-RC2, All Lots SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-0, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-C2, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-AV, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-H1, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-HN4, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-JB1, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-JB2, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-KMP, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-MAN, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-MPA, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-MPB, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-SIM1, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-SIM2, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-SIM3, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-VERT, SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-0, SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-DAV, SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-JB1, SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-SIM1,SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-SIM2, SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-TEGT, SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-VERT, SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-VTK,SCBR4.0-38-40-P-NS-KMP, SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-0, SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-C2, SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-KMP, SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-MPA, SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-RIM, SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-TC, SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-TC-BNK, SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-VERT, SCBR4.0-38-80-P-NS-RH, SCBR4.0-38-80-P-NS-VS, SCBR4.0-38-80-P-NS-VS1, SCBR4.0-38-80-P-NS-VS2, SCBR4.0-38-80-P-NS-VS3, SCBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-C2, SCBR4.1-35-75-P-NS-CHG2.5 CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Faces "Farber" Class Action in S.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- Crestwood Equity Partners LP is facing a class action lawsuit by Lawrence G. Farber related to Simplification merger, Crestwood said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On May 20, 2015, Lawrence G. Farber, a purported unitholder of Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, as a putative class action on behalf of Crestwood Midstream's unitholders, entitled Lawrence G. Farber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC, Robert G. Phillips, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France, Philip D. Gettig, Warren H. Gfellar, David Lumpkins, John J. Sherman, David Wood, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood Equity GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub LLC, MGP GP, LLC, Crestwood Midstream Holdings LP, and Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC. This complaint alleges, among other things, that Crestwood Midstream's general partner breached its fiduciary duties, certain individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care, and that other defendants have aided and abetted such breaches. The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Simplification Merger unless and until such alleged breaches have been cured. CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Faces "Aron" Class Action in S.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------- Crestwood Equity Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Isaac Aron, a purported unitholder of the Crestwood Midstream, filed on July 21, 2015, a complaint in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, as a putative class action on behalf of Crestwood Midstream's unitholders, entitled Isaac Aron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Robert G. Phillps, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France, Philip D. Getting, Warren H. Gfeller, David Lumpkins, John J. Sherman, David Wood, Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP Crestwood Midstream Holdings LP, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC, Crestwood Gas Services GP, LLC, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood Equity GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub LLC and MGP GP, LLC. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Crestwood Midstream's general partner and certain individual defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 by filing an alleged incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger unless and until certain information is disclosed to Crestwood Midstream's unitholders. While the Company and Crestwood Midstream cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or any other lawsuits that may be filed subsequent to the filing of this Form 10-Q, nor can the Company and Crestwood Midstream predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits or any other lawsuits, the Company, Crestwood Midstream and the other defendants named in this lawsuit intend to vigorously defend against this and any other actions. CROCS INC: Parties Seek State Court Approval of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Crocs Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that parties in a class action lawsuit are petitioning the State Court for approval of the settlement. On August 8, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in California State Court against a Crocs subsidiary, Crocs Retail, LLC (Zaydenberg v. Crocs Retail, LLC, Case No. BC554214). The lawsuit alleged various employment law violations related to overtime, meal and break periods, minimum wage, timely payment of wages, wage statements, payroll records and business expenses. Crocs filed an answer on February 6, 2015, denying the allegations and asserting several defenses. On June 3, 2015, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed in California State Court against Crocs Retail, LLC (Christopher S. Duree and Richard Morely v. Crocs, Inc., Case No. BC583875), making substantially the same allegations as in the Zaydenberg lawsuit. The parties attended a mediation on June 26, 2015, and reached a preliminary settlement for both lawsuits. The parties are now petitioning the State Court for approval of the settlement. CVS PHARMACY: "Bhatt" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Madhavi Bhatt, and all others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-23622 (S.D. Fla., September 29, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant managed, owned and operated a retail pharmacy in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Minick, Esq. Jonathan S. Minick, P.A. 1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307 Miami, FL 33135 Tel: (786) 441-8909 Fax: (786) 523-0610 E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com CVS CAREMARK: "Brown" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Willie Brown, and all others similarly situated v. CVS Caremark, Garfiedl Beach CVS, LLC, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2:15-cv-07631 (C.D. Calif., September 29, 2015), seeks penalties and damages for Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code, including without limitation, failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements and failure to timely pay wages to terminated employees. The Defendants operate retail pharmacy stores in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 550 S. Hope Street, Suite 2655 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com - and - Edward W. Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2006 Tel: (213) 381-1515 Fax: (213) 233-4409 E-mail: edward.choi@calaw.biz DEL MONTE: Recalls Granny Smith Green Apples Due to Listeria ------------------------------------------------------------ Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., ("Del Monte Fresh") is initiating a voluntary recall of Granny Smith green apples because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stuffiness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. A total of 695 boxes containing 8 "Granny Smith" green apples each and 67 clear plastic bags containing 6 "Granny Smith" green apples each were distributed to Coremark and 7-Eleven for sale in convenience stores in the Mountain States region on Oct. 1-12, 2015. States affected include CO, KS, MO, NE, NM, OK, SD, UT and WY. The apples at store level are individual fruit on open displays. No illnesses have been reported to date. The problem was discovered when a customer performed microbial testing on raw apples received. Consumers who suspect that they have purchased "Granny Smith" green apples affected by this recall should dispose it in the garbage and contact Del Monte Fresh Produce for a refund. Affected retailers have been requested to remove the product from sale. Consumers with questions may contact the Company's consumer hotline at 1-800-659-6500 operating 24 hours seven days a week or email Del Monte Fresh at Contact-US-Executive- Office@freshdelmonte.com DEL MONTE: Recalls Parfait Yogurt Cups Due to Almonds ----------------------------------------------------- Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., ("Del Monte Fresh") is initiating a voluntary recall of "Fresco Fresh" brand parfait yogurt cups because they may contain undeclared almonds. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to tree nuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recalled products were distributed to a limited number of customers in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. These items had the Fresco Fresh label and contained vanilla or strawberry parfait yogurt over fresh fruit in the bottom with a separate granola insert at the top of the cup. The granola component contained almonds. The absence of the required allergen statement on the product label was discovered during a routine retained-sample inspection. No allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported to date. There are three Parfait yogurt fruit cup types: Strawberry yogurt with fresh bananas, Vanilla yogurt with fresh blueberry/ strawberry blend and Vanilla yogurt with fresh strawberries. The products had "Best if Enjoyed By" dates between October 11 - 20, 2015 and were distributed between October 3 - 12, 2015. Product Best if Lot UPC Description Enjoyed By Number ---- ----------- ---------- ------ 6.5 oz Banana 10/11, 13, 18, 10276101; 7-17524-77501-6; Strawberry Yogurt 19,20/2015 10279101; 7-17524-77512-2 Parfait 10283101; 10278101; 10280101; 10282101; 10285101 6.5 oz Strawberry 10/13, 10278101; 7-17524-77503-0 Yogurt Parfait 15/2015 10280101 6.5 oz Strawberry 10/13, 15, 10276101; 7-17524-77511-5 Blueberry Yogurt 16, 18, 10279101; Parfait 20/2015 10280101; 10283101; 10282101 Consumers who suspect that they have purchased a "Fresco Fresh" brand parfait yogurt cup affected by this recall should dispose it in the garbage and contact Del Monte Fresh Produce for a refund. Affected retailers have been requested to remove the product from sale. Consumers with questions may contact the Company's consumer hotline at 1-800-659-6500 operating 24 hours seven days a week or email Del Monte Fresh at Contact-US-Executive- Office@freshdelmonte.com Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/rJ5MiU DOLE FRESH: Recalls Bagged Salad Due to Salmonella -------------------------------------------------- Dole Fresh Vegetables is voluntarily recalling a limited number of cases of bagged salad. The product being recalled is Dole Spinach coded A27409B & A27409A, with an Enjoy By date of October 15 and UPC 7143000976 due to a possible health risk from Salmonella. Dole Fresh Vegetables is coordinating closely with regulatory officials. No illnesses have been reported in association with the recall. The product code and Enjoy By date are in the upper right-hand corner of the package; the UPC code is on the back of the package, below the barcode. The salads were distributed in 13 U.S. states (Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin). No illnesses have been reported in association with the recall. This precautionary recall notification is being issued due to an isolated instance in which a sample of Dole Spinach salad yielded a positive result for Salmonella in a random sample test conducted by the Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development; Laboratory Division. Neither Baby Spinach nor any other salads, are included in the recall. Only the specific Product Codes, UPC codes and October 15, 2015 Enjoy By date identified above are included in the recall. Consumers who have any remaining product with these Product Codes should not consume it, but rather discard it. Retailers and consumers with questions may call the Dole Food Company Consumer Response Center at (800) 356-3111, which is open 8:00 am to 3:00 pm (PT) Monday - Friday. Dole Fresh Vegetables customer service representatives are already contacting retailers and are in the process of confirming that the recalled product is being removed from the stream of commerce. Salmonella is an organism that can cause foodborne illness in a person who eats a food item contaminated with it. Symptoms of infection may include fever and gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, diarrhea, vomiting or abnormal pain. The illness primarily impacts young children, frail and elderly people and those with weakened immune systems. Most healthy adults and children rarely become seriously ill. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/LjzoH8 ECOLA SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Salmon & Tuna Due to Clostridium --------------------------------------------------------------- ECOLA Seafoods Inc. of Cannon Beach, Oregon is voluntarily recalling ALL canned salmon and tuna with any code starting with "OC" because it has the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life- threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled. Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double- vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention. THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPORTED CASES OF ILLNESS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR PRODUCT TO DATE. All products were distributed to consumers in Oregon.The last date of distribution of recalled products was September 2015 (with an expiration date of September 2018.) Affected production codes include any codes starting with "OC". The code can be found on either the bottom or on top of the can. Recalled products are packaged in metal cans with net weight 7.5 oz. The ECOLA Seafoods products were made by Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC and this voluntary recall was initiated after we were notified that that our products were possibly under- processed. The problem was discovered during an inspection at Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Consumers who have purchased recalled salmon or tuna canned products are urged to return it to ECOLA Seafoods for a full refund. If you have any questions, call Cindy Beckman at (503) 436-9130 between the hours of 9 am and 3 pm PST, Monday-Friday. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/x6QGYj EHEALTH INC: Defendants Moved to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on January 26 and March 10, 2015, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against us, our chairman and chief executive officer, Gary L. Lauer ("Mr. Lauer"), and our senior vice president and chief financial officer, Stuart M. Huizinga ("Mr. Huizinga"), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 6, 2015, the Court consolidated the two cases. On June 10, 2015, a consolidated complaint was filed. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance, guidance and operations during an alleged class period of May 1, 2014 to January 14, 2015. The consolidated complaint alleges that we and Messrs. Lauer and Huizinga violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable/injunctive relief and such other relief as the court deems proper. On July 15, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Machado" Action in D. Mass ---------------------------------------------------------- Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Christopher Machado, a purported holder of the Company's common stock, filed on May 4, 2015, a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and the Company's chief executive officer and the Company's chief financial officer, Machado v. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15- cv-11775-GAO. The Company said, "The complainant in the action asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our securities between November 4, 2014 and April 27, 2015. The complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on assertions that disclosures made by us during the class period concerning our organic growth rate, average revenue per subscriber, and financial accounting related to our international business were false or misleading. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the purported class, compensatory damages and his costs and expenses of litigation." ENERNOC INC: Del. Chancery Court Moved Settlement Hearing --------------------------------------------------------- EnerNOC, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Amendment No. 1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Delaware Chancery Court initially scheduled a hearing to be held on June 30, 2015, which was subsequently rescheduled to August 20, 2015, to consider whether to approve the settlement. On November 6, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, World Energy, Wolf Merger Sub Corporation, and members of the board of directors of World Energy arising out of the merger between the Company and World Energy. The lawsuit generally alleged that the members of the board of directors of World Energy breached their fiduciary duties to World Energy's stockholders by entering into the merger agreement because they, among other things, failed to maximize stockholder value and agreed to preclusive deal-protection terms. The lawsuit also alleged that the Company and World Energy aided and abetted the board of directors of World Energy in breaching their fiduciary duties. The plaintiff sought to stop or delay the acquisition of World Energy by the Company, or rescission of the merger in the event it is consummated, and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount to be determined at trial. The parties engaged in settlement negotiations and on December 24, 2014, without admitting, but expressly denying any liability on behalf of the defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding a proposed settlement to resolve all allegations. The MOU was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on December 24, 2014. Among other things, the MOU provides that, in consideration for a release and the dismissal of the litigation, World Energy would include additional disclosures in a Form SC 14D9-A to be filed with the SEC no later than December 24, 2014. The MOU also provided that the litigation, including the preliminary injunction hearing, be stayed. The merger closed on January 5, 2015. On March 26, 2015, the parties executed and filed with the Delaware Chancery Court a formal stipulation of settlement. The Company has recognized an obligation of $300 in connection with the settlement. The Delaware Chancery Court initially scheduled a hearing to be held on June 30, 2015, which was subsequently rescheduled to August 20, 2015, to consider whether to approve the settlement. There can be no assurance that the Delaware Court of Chancery will approve the settlement. FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Shareholder Class Action --------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Sept. 30 disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. FCAU, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between August 1, 2014 and July 24, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Fiat Chrysler shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request information about this action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/fiat-chrysler-automobiles-nv Fiat Chrysler was formed in October 2014 as the result of a merger of Fiat Group Automobiles and Chrysler LLC. The complaint alleges that Fiat Chrysler and certain of its executive officers made a series of false and/or misleading statements during the Class Period, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) flaws in the Company's manufacturing processes, supply chain, electronic security measures, and/or quality control rendered at least 3.1 million Chrysler cars and trucks unsafe to drive; (ii) the Company's slow completion rates for recalls, slow or inadequate notifications to consumers, and faulty approaches to addressing safety issues and improper actions by dealers were not in compliance with federal laws and regulations; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Fiat Chrysler's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As detailed in the complaint, on June 28, 2015, Fiat Chrysler announced a recall of certain 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango vehicles because they "may have been inadvertently equipped with improperly heat-treated suspension components." On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $1.06 per share, or 6.8%, to close on June 29, 2015 at $14.53 per share. On July 24, 2015, Fiat Chrysler announced another recall of certain 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango vehicles "after it was demonstrated that a security flaw in the vehicles' systems rendered the vehicles vulnerable to remote electronic manipulation ('hacking'), including cutting the vehicle's brakes, shutting down the vehicle's engine, steering the vehicle off the road, and shutting down the vehicle's electronics systems." On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $0.39, or 2.5%, to close at $15.15 per share on July 24, 2015. On July 26, 2015, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") announced that it was imposing a record $105 million fine on the Company in connection with the Company's handling of 23 previous recalls affecting more than 11 million vehicles. As detailed in the complaint, the penalties were tied to violations in an array of areas, including misleading regulators, inadequate repairs, and failure to alert affected car owners in a timely manner. On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $0.74 per share, or approximately 4.9%, to close at $14.41 per share on July 27, 2015 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 Members of the class may,no later than November 10, 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 other 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 -- http://www.ktmc.com-- 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). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Darren J. Check, Esq. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne O. Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (888) 299 - 7706 (610) 667 - 7706 info@ktmc.com GANLEY CHEVROLET: Ohio Supreme Tosses Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- Eric Freedman, writing for Automotive News, reports that more than 14 years after Ganley Chevrolet in Cleveland spot-delivered a used Chevy Blazer to Jeffrey and Stacy Felix, it's still arguing with them in court over the arbitration provision contained in their purchase documents. The latest decision in the case, rendered by the Ohio Supreme Court, tossed out class certification as well as a class award and whittled the case once again to the Felixes' complaints against the dealership. The Felixes bought the 2000 Blazer in March 2001. They claim the dealership first promised them 0 percent financing through GMAC and when that fell through next promised them financing at 1.9 percent, which they agreed to but GMAC rejected. The dealership finally told them they had bank financing at 9.44 percent interest. The Felixes refused that deal but kept the Blazer, allegedly putting payment funds into escrow. The Felixes sued the dealership in 2001, claiming unfair consumer practices. In May 2003, they amended their suit to request a class-action, contending the arbitration provision in the purchase contracts of Ganley Chevrolet and two dozen other stores in the Ganley Management Co. dealership group was unconscionable and violated Ohio's consumer protection law. The defendants (collectively, Ganley) unsuccessfully tried to force the dispute into arbitration. 'Based on a fiction' A Cuyahoga County judge certified a class action on behalf of thousands of customers whose contracts had a similar arbitration provision, dating back to 1999 and continuing to 2004, when the arbitration provision was revised. The judge also ordered Ganley to pay each of those customers $200, a decision upheld by the Ohio Court of Appeals. But now a divided Ohio Supreme Court has tossed out the class certification and the $200-a-customer award. The decision leaves intact, however, a finding that the arbitration provision under dispute was invalid and unenforceable. The court said the case can't proceed as a class action under the consumer protection law because the Felixes offered no evidence that every customer was injured by the invalid arbitration provision, In an opinion written by Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, the court said: "There is absolutely no showing that all of the consumers who purchased vehicles through a contract with the offensive arbitration provision were injured by it or suffered any damages." The court characterized the $200 awards -- the minimum under the consumer protection law -- as "based on a fiction" because damages are available only by showing a member of the class "was injured and sustained damages as a result of the defendants' conduct." Back to trial court Dealership lawyer Steven Dever of Cleveland said the case now returns to the trial court to determine whether Ganley is liable to the Felixes and, if so, how much the couple may collect. Other Ganley customers "never had a dispute and never intended to use the arbitration provision," Mr. Dever said. He added: "There was no demonstration whatsoever" that any other customers were harmed. "The case involved a single consumer complaint," he said, and the decision "confirms that only consumers who truly were damaged can bring a class-action lawsuit." Still, the Felixes' lawyer, Lewis Zipkin, said he will try to prove to the trial court that every member of the class was, in fact, injured because their document fees were used to pay to prepare contracts with the illegal arbitration provision. "The members [of the proposed class] did suffer damages," said Zipkin, of Beachwood, Ohio. "The argument is: Did they pay for documents that were illegal or for documents that were illegally prepared?" Defense lawyer Dever said that if there's a trial, Ganley will seek damages from the Felixes because they've had use of the Blazer for 14 years without making any payments. GARIBALDI CANNERY: Recalls Canned Products Due to Clostridium ------------------------------------------------------------- The Garibaldi Cannery LLC of Garibaldi, Oregon is voluntarily recalling ALL cans with any code starting with "OC" of The Garibaldi Cannery canned products because it has the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled. Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double- vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention. There have been no reported cases of illness to date. Products were distributed to consumers in Oregon and shipped nationwide via our website www.thegaribaldicannery.comdisclaimer icon. The last date of distribution of recalled products was September 2015 (with an expiration date of September 2018.) Affected production codes include any codes starting with "OC". The code can be found on either the bottom or on top of the can. Products are packaged in metal cans with net weights ranging from 6 oz. to 8 oz. PRODUCT NAME NET WEIGHT ------------ ---------- ALBACORE TUNA 8 oz. (227 g) ALBACORE TUNA BELLIES 8 oz. (227 g) (The word Bellies is written on top of can ) ALBACORE TUNA NO SALT 8 oz. (227 g) JALAPE¥O ALBACORE TUNA 8 oz. (227 g) SMOKED ALBACORE TUNA 8 oz. (227 g) GARLIC ALBACORE TUNA 8 oz. (227 g) PACIFIC SALMON 6 oz. (170 g) SMOKED PACIFIC SALMON 6 oz. (170 g) SILVER SALMON 6 oz. (170 g) CHINOOK SALMON 6 oz. (170 g) The Garibaldi Cannery products were made by Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC and this voluntary recall was initiated after we were notified that that our products were possibly under- processed. The problem was discovered during an inspection at Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Consumers are advised to contact The Garibaldi Cannery for replacements of canned products. Replacements or refunds will only be given for products that are returned to The Garibaldi Cannery. As of October 9th, 2015 The Garibaldi Cannery received new canned product from a different manufacturer to offer as replacements. Consumers and retailers can distinguish this from recalled products by looking at the code starting with "B" on the top of the can. If you have any questions, call The Garibaldi Cannery LLC at (503) 322-3344 between the hours of 9:00am PST and 6:00pm PST, Monday - Sunday, or send e-mail to thegaribaldicannery@gmail.com GEORGE BEST: "Lumpkin" Suit Alleges Minimum Wage Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Lumpkin, and all others similarly-situated v. George Best, Inc. dba Globe Bar & Cafe, Joseph Dunne and Declan Mehigan, Case No. 15-2908F (Mass. Cmmw., September 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Massachusetts Tips Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law. George Best Inc. owns and operates several restaurants in Boston, including the Globe Bar & Cafe. a self-styled casual dining restaurant and bar located in the Back Bay in Boston. Joseph Dunne is the president and one of the directors of George Best Inc. Declan Mehigan is the treasurer, secretary and one of the directors of George Best Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Tel: (617) 607-3261 Fax: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com - and - Maura Green, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MAURA GREENE, LLC One International Place, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02210 Tel: (617) 936-1580 E-mail: maura@mauragreenelaw.com GOOD FOOD: Recalls Beef, Pork, & Poultry Products Due to Nitrite ---------------------------------------------------------------- Good Food Concepts, a Colorado Springs, Colo. establishment, is recalling approximately 12,566 pounds of beef, pork, and poultry products that were produced without a fully implemented Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan. These products are also misbranded and contain sodium nitrite, which is not declared on the product label, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The beef, pork, and poultry items were produced on various dates between October 16, 2014 and October 16, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT SMOKED BACON." --- 1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT BACON ENDS." Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT SMOKED PIT HAM." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK SMOKE HAM BUTT PORTION BI." 1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK HAM BUTT PORTION BI." --- Various sized containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK SMOKED HAM SHANK PORTION BI." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK HAM STEAK." --- Various sized packages containing "PORK PEEPA'S HAM BNLS." 1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK SMOKE HAM DICED." --- 1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK SMOKE HAM GROUND 1#." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK SMOKED HAM SHANKS SLICED." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PEPPERONI SLICE." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT GENOA CLASSIC." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT BEEF PASTRAMI." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT BOLOGNA SLICE." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PEPPERONI." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT HAM STEAK COUNTRY STYLE." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT HAM DELI SLICED." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT CANADIAN BACON." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT BOLOGNA 1#." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK LIVERWURST WESTPHALIAN." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOOD DIRECT PORK LIVERWURST PISTACHIO DELI STYLE." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT --- TURKEY BREAST NATURAL SMOKED, SLICED." Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT ROASTED DELI TURKEY." --- 1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT BRISTOL BEER BRATWURST." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT POLISH SAUSAGE PORK." --- 1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT SAUSAGE PORK BANGERS." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT ANDOUILLE." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT LINGUISA." --- 1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK SMOKED GERMAN BRATWURST." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT GERMAN BRATWURST." --- Various sized packages "RANCH FOODS DIRECT KOLBASA RING." 1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT 8/1 HOT DOGS." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT SAUSAGE BEEF HOT DOG FOOT LONG 5/1." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT VEAL BRATS." --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT CORNED BEEF BRISKET." The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. 27316" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to retail locations in Colorado and New Mexico. The problem was discovered by FSIS during a food safety assessment at the establishment. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Nikowa Neill, Administrative Support, at (719) 377-7514. Media with questions about the recall can contact Eryn Taylor, Marketing, at (720) 259-2488. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. HERSHEY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Use of Child Slave Labor ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abby Haglage, writing for The Daily Beast, reports that The Milton Hershey School in Pennsylvania is one of the wealthiest education centers in the world. Founded in 1909 as an orphanage for "male Caucasian" boys, it was awarded 30 percent of the company's future earnings by Milton S. Hershey upon his death. Thanks to the success of Kit-Kats, Reese's, and Whoppers, the school is worth a staggering $7.8 billion. Now home to more than 2,000 students, it owns a controlling interest in the $22.3 billion Hershey company -- a chocolate maker with roots in child protection and education that, in the worst form of irony, allegedly relies on cocoa harvested by child laborers in West Africa. It is this irony that serves as the motivation behind a class action lawsuit filed against Hershey and two of its competitors, Mars and Nestle. The complaints, filed by three California residents, allege that the companies are guilty of false advertising for failing to disclose the use of child slavery on their packaging. Without it, the plaintiffs claim, the companies are deceiving consumers into "unwittingly" supporting the child slave labor trade. "America's largest and most profitable food conglomerates should not tolerate child labor, much less child slave labor, anywhere in their supply chains," the complaint reads. "These companies should not turn a blind eye to known human rights abuses . . . especially when the companies consistently and affirmatively represent that they act in a socially and ethically responsible manner." The class action suits seek both monetary damages for California residents who have purchased the chocolate and revised packaging that denotes child slaves were used. It's a new approach to an old problem: the chocolate industry's deep, dark, not-so-secret scandal. It's been 15 years since the first allegations of child slavery in the chocolate industry caused national outrage. Will this be the final straw? West Africa is home to two-thirds of the world's cacao beans (cocoa), the main ingredient in chocolate-a product that's fueled a $90 billion industry. The first group to question the financial strategies behind the industry's wealth was a British organization called True Vision Entertainment. In a shocking 2000 documentary titled Slavery: A Global Investigation, the group reported on the chocolate industry's alleged connection to cocoa harvested by child slaves. The award-winning film opens on stick-thin adolescent boys in the Ivory Coast slinging hundred-pound bags of cocoa pods on their backs, followed by an interview in which the boys express their confusion over not being paid. Later the filmmakers meet with 19 children who were said to have just been freed from slavery by the Ivorian authorities. Their guardian describes how they worked from dawn until dusk each day, only to be locked in a shed at night where they were given a tin cup in which to urinate. During the first six months (the "breaking-in period"), they say, they were routinely beaten. "The beatings were a part of my life," says Aly Diabata, one of the former child laborers. "I had seen others who tried to escape. When they tried, they were severely beaten." The boys' stories are sickeningly graphic. Before beatings, the boys say they were stripped naked and tied up. They were then pummeled with a variety of weapons, from fists and feet to belts and whips. In the film, some of the boys get up and imitate the beatings. Others stand to reveal hundreds of scars lining their backs and torsos -- some still bloody and scabbed. They get quiet when the filmmakers ask whether any are beaten and say some are simply "taken away." Asked what he'd say to the billions who eat chocolate worldwide (most of the boys have never tried it), one boy replies: "They enjoy something I suffered to make; I worked hard for them but saw no benefit. They are eating my flesh." Toward the end of the segment, the filmmakers meet with one of the "slave masters," who admits he purchased the young boys and that some of his men routinely beat them. His reasoning: He is paid a low price for the cocoa and thus needs to harvest as much of it as he possibly can. The release of the film in late 2000 sparked national outrage. No one seemed more shocked than the chocolate companies themselves. In June 2001, Hershey senior vice president Robert M. Reese told Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Bob Fernandez that "no one, repeat, no one, had ever heard of this." After internal investigations, several companies, including Hershey, expressed concern over the conditions of laborers in West Africa. The news made its way to Congress, where U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel quickly drafted legislation asking the Federal Drug Administration to introduce "slave free" labeling. After gaining approval in the House of Representatives, the bill moved to a vote in the Senate, where it had the support needed to win passage. But just before the legislation made it to a vote, the chocolate industry stepped in with a promise it has yet to keep: to self-regulate and eradicate the practice by 2005. The Engel-Harkin Protocol (or Cocoa Protocol), as the agreement was called, was signed in September 2001. Eight companies -- including Nestle, Mars, and Hershey -- were signatories of the massive accord, pledging $2 million to investigate the labor practices and eliminate the "Worst Forms of Child Labor," the official term from the International Labor Organization, by 2005. When the July 2005 deadline arrived with the industries yet to make major changes, an extension was granted until 2008. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Undergoing Discovery ------------------------------------------------------- Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit are currently undergoing discovery in relation to this matter. On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. These lawsuits were filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014. The lawsuits allege that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10, 2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to the Company's January 9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had been stopped early based on a pre-defined interim efficacy analysis. Specifically, the lawsuits claim that the January 9, 2014 announcement was misleading because it did not contain information regarding certain lipid abnormalities seen in the FLINT trial in OCA-treated patients compared to placebo. On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the cases and a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of the putative class as contemplated by the order of the Court. On August 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on February 24, 2015. On March 4, 2015, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied by the Court. The defendants answered the amended complaint on April 13, 2015. The parties are currently undergoing discovery in relation to this matter. The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims in the lawsuit and intends to deny liability and defend itself vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of this action or whether the outcome will be material to the Company. Therefore, the Company has not accrued for any loss contingencies related to this lawsuit. IXIA: Parties Failed to Reach Deal in Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Ixia said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in a securities class action conducted the scheduled mediation with respect to the purported class action but did not to reach an agreement to resolve and settle the litigation. The Company said, "On November 14, 2013, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was filed against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013. The initial complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's recognition of revenues related to its warranty and software maintenance contracts and the academic credentials and employment history of the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer, Victor Alston. The complaint also alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to make certain disclosures, regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects, including regarding the financial statements and internal financial controls that were the subject of the Company's April 2013 restatement of certain of its prior period financial statements. The complaint further alleged that the Company lacked adequate internal financial controls and issued materially false and misleading financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011, March 31, 2012, June 30, 2012 and September 30, 2012. The complaint, which purported to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, sought, on behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief." "On March 24, 2014, following a proceeding to select a lead plaintiff in the matter, the court issued an order appointing Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System (the "Oklahoma Group") as lead plaintiffs. "On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a first amended complaint, which asserted claims against the same defendants under the same legal theories set forth in the initial complaint. The first amended complaint also contained allegations that certain of the individual defendants increased their trading in the Company's stock during February, March, April and May of 2011 and during February and March of 2013, and that the defendants sought to inflate the Company's reported deferred revenues during the period of February 4, 2011 through April 3, 2013. "On July 18, 2014, all named defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Law Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). After briefing and a hearing on October 6, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing the first amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint. "On November 5, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a second amended complaint. On January 6, 2015, the named defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. After briefing and a hearing on April 13, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint. "On April 24, 2015, the court issued an order staying the class action until July 31, 2015, pending the outcome of a voluntary, non-binding mediation scheduled for July 23, 2015 to explore a possible settlement of both the purported securities class action and the shareholder derivative action. "On July 23, 2015, the parties conducted the scheduled mediation with respect to the purported class action but did not to reach an agreement to resolve and settle the litigation. The stay in this action expired on July 31, 2015, and the Oklahoma Group has until August 20, 2015 to file a further amended complaint. "Although the Company denies the material allegations of the amended complaint and intends to vigorously pursue its defenses, we are in the very early stages of this litigation, and are unable to predict the outcome of the case or to estimate the amount of or potential range of loss with respect to this case. Accordingly, no liability has been accrued in the financial statements related to this matter. However, the ultimate disposition of the case could have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." KMART CORP: NY Court Recommends Denial of Bid to Junk FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Gina Hautur and Carol Gurnish tried to join a collective action in New Jersey brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The plaintiffs in the collective action accused Kmart Corporation of intentionally classifying hourly employees as managerial employees to avoid paying overtime. Hautur and Gurnish missed the deadline to join the collective action in New Jersey and commenced their own FLSA collective action with the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Kmart wanted the case dismissed as an improper duplicative action under the "first-filed rule." Kmart has filed a corresponding motion to dismiss. Hautur and Gurnish counter that the first- filed rule does not apply under the circumstances in their case and that the FLSA does not prohibit collective actions in different districts against the same defendant. Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York recommended the denial of the motion to dismiss and the certification of issues for interlocutory appeal. The case is captioned GINA HAUTUR and CAROL GURNISH, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. KMART CORPORATION, Defendant, NO. 15-CV-267A. A full-text of Magistrate Scott's Report and Recommendation dated September 22, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/Ot7foOfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs are represented by Charles Gershbaum, Esq., Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, David A. Roth, Esq., HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC, Fran Lisa Rudich, Esq., KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, Gary E. Mason, Esq. -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, Jason S. Rathod, Esq. -- jrathod@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, Marc S. Hepworth, Esq., HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC, Michael H. Reed, Esq., KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com, MIGLIACCIO LAW FIRM PLLC, Peter Winebrake, Esq. -- WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC, R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. -- WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC & Seth Richard Lesser, Esq. -- KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP. Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Puma, Morgan, Esq. LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Ave. New York Phone: +1.212.309.6000 Email: mpuma@morganlewis.com LA COLONIAL: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Rigoberto Ruiz, and all others similarly situated v. La Colonial Tortilla Products, Inc., Barrett Business Services, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC595927 (Cal. Super., September 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid compensation arising from the Defendants' failure to provide employees meal and rest periods, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wage and unreimbursed business expenses pursuant to the California Labor Code and California Civil Code. La Colonial Tortilla Products, Inc. manufactures tortilla products. It provides custom formulations and packaging for food service markets; and private label for retail markets. The company was founded in 1952 and is based in Monterey Park, California with manufacturing facilities in San Jose and Los Angeles. Barrett Business Services, Inc. is a provider of business management solutions for small-and mid-sized companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Tel: (310) 531-1900 Fax: (310) 531-1901 LAS VEGAS SANDS: Expert Discovery Scheduled to Close Dec. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that expert discovery is scheduled to close on December 18, 2015, in a purported class action complaint. On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "U.S. District Court"), against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part, and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the court's order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the plaintiff's complaint and reducing the class period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiff filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter has re-started. On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015, and expert discovery is scheduled to close on December 18, 2015. This consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Liquidity Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the company is awaiting a decision by the Court on a motion to dismiss class action lawsuit. On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Company and its chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief accounting officer, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company's growth initiative, growth potential, and financial and operating conditions, thereby artificially inflating its share price, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec and the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially similar claims but which does not name the chief accounting officer as a defendant. The Company believes the allegations are without merit and on March 2, 2015, moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim or plead fraud with the requisite particularity. That motion was fully submitted as of June 1, 2015, and is awaiting a decision by the Court. The Company cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time. LSB INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Khang & Khang LLP on Sept. 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against LSB Industries, Inc. ("LSB" or the "Company") (NYSE: LXU). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between May 8, 2015 and August 7, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period") are encouraged to contact the Firm immediately to discuss their legal options. If you purchased shares of LSB during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at joon@khanglaw.com There has been no class certification in this case. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. According to the complaint, on August 7, 2015, the Company announced net sales of approximately $183 million for the second quarter of 2015, and updated the estimated total cost of the El Dorado project to a range of $660 million to $680 million. The Company's results fell below market expectations, and LSB blamed "work performed by a previous subcontractor" as part of the cause for the El Dorado price estimate. If you purchased shares of LSB during the Class Period you have until November 24, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at joon@khanglaw.com MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: "Thomas" Action Pending in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the case, Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14- cv-1160, is pending in the Northern District of California. On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's now-former officers. On April 21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former and now-former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings. On June 15, 2015, these two class action lawsuits were consolidated. On June 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action, against the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or acquired the Company's securities between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015 and a putative subclass consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to or traceable to a shelf registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 6, 2013 public stock offering. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of the putative class for (i) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company's current directors and former officers, (ii) alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the Company's current directors and former officers, and (iii) alleged violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act by a shareholder. The consolidated amended complaint also asserts claims on behalf the subclass for (i) alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") by the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former officers, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings, (ii) alleged violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings, (iii) alleged violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company's former officers, and a shareholder of the Company. The consolidated action, Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160, is pending in the Northern District of California. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of reasonably possible losses, with respect to the matters described above. MAGNUM HUNTER: Appeals Court Affirmed Securities Case Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has entered a Summary Order unanimously affirming the Southern District of New York's dismissal of the Securities Cases in favor of the Company and the individual defendants. On April 23, 2013, Anthony Rosian, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company and certain of its officers, two of whom, at that time, also served as directors, and one of whom continues to serve as a director. On April 24, 2013, Horace Carvalho, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a similar class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against the Company and certain of its officers. Several substantially similar putative class actions were filed in the Southern District of New York and in the Southern District of Texas. All such cases are collectively referred to as the Securities Cases. The cases filed in the Southern District of Texas have since been dismissed. The cases filed in the Southern District of New York were consolidated and have since been dismissed. The plaintiffs in the Securities Cases had filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that the Company made certain false or misleading statements in its filings with the SEC, including statements related to the Company's internal and financial controls, the calculation of non-cash share-based compensation expense, the late filing of the Company's 2012 Form 10-K, the dismissal of Magnum Hunter's previous independent registered accounting firm, the Company's characterization of the auditors' position with respect to the dismissal, and other matters identified in the Company's April 16, 2013 Form 8-K, as amended. The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act based on alleged false statements made regarding these issues throughout the alleged class period, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act based on alleged false statements and omissions regarding the Company's internal controls made in connection with a public offering that Magnum Hunter completed on May 14, 2012. The consolidated amended complaint demanded that the defendants pay unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs, including damages allegedly caused by the decline in the Company's stock price between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013. In January 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Cases. On June 23, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Cases and, accordingly, the Securities Cases have now been dismissed. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the decision dismissing the Securities Cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 23, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered a Summary Order unanimously affirming the Southern District of New York's dismissal of the Securities Cases in favor of the Company and the individual defendants. It is possible that additional investor lawsuits could be filed over these events. MARKET OF CHOICE: Recalls Baked Brie Products Due to Pecans ----------------------------------------------------------- Market of Choice is recalling its Market Cheese Shop Baked Brie Herb/Garlic variety, due to undeclared pecans (a tree nut). Use of this product by anyone allergic to pecans may result in illness or injury. The Baked Brie Herb/Garlic has been recalled from nine Market of Choice stores, including those in Eugene, Ashland, Corvallis, SW Portland, Cedar Mill and West Linn, Oregon. This product was sold Aug. 3, 2015 through Sept. 27, 2015. Recall placards have been placed in areas where the product was sold. No confirmed illnesses have been reported at this time. The recalled product can be identified by UPC code 217563014997. Market of Choice customers who purchased the recalled product may return it for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company through its website at disclaimer iconwww.marketofchoice.com, or by calling 541-513-0486, M-F from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. (PDT). MEDICINES COMPANY: Dismiss Bid Under Consideration by Court ----------------------------------------------------------- The Medicines Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit is now under consideration by the Court. The Company said, "On February 21, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our current and former officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by David Serr on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between February 20, 2013 through February 12, 2014, which we refer to as the class period. On July 22, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing one of our stockholders, Warren H. Schuler, the lead plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP the lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 17, 2014, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including allegations that our stock was artificially inflated during the class period because we and certain current and former officers allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper disclosures regarding the results of clinical trials, which tested the efficacy and safety of cangrelor. "Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that statements made throughout the class period about the trials were misleading because they failed to disclose that cangrelor did not show superiority to the drug clopidogrel, that the clinical trials were unethically and inappropriately administered, that clopidogrel was not administered optimally, and that cangrelor patients exhibited higher bleeding rates. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. "On November 17, 2014 we and certain of our current and former officers moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2014 and we filed a reply brief in further support of the motion on January 16, 2015. Briefing is now complete. "On July 16, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on the motion, which is now under consideration by the Court. "We believe we have valid defenses to the claims in the lawsuit, will deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful. An adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We are presently unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit." MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Acetaminophen Tablets ------------------------------------------------- Medline Industries, Inc. announced that it will initiate a voluntary nationwide recall of lot #45810 of Acetaminophen tablets, 500mg, uncoated compressed tablets to the consumer level. The Acetaminophen 500mg, Tab 100/BT (OTC20101) has been found to be mislabeled displaying "Acetaminophen 325mg" (OTC10101) instead of "Acetaminophen 500mg". The Acetaminophen tablets, 500mg is incorrectly labeled as 325 mg tablets. This error is not easily identifiable by the user or prescriber. If the product is taken at the maximum labeled dose, every four hours, five doses a day, or with other medications containing acetaminophen, it may lead to liver toxicity or liver failure. To date, Medline Industries, Inc. has not received any reports of adverse events associated with this product. Acetaminophen tablets is an over the counter (OTC) oral medication used to temporarily relieve minor aches and pains due to minor pain of arthritis, muscular aches, back aches, headaches, toothaches, the common cold, premenstrual and menstrual cramps, and reduces fever. This item is packaged as 100 tablets per bottle, Medline Item Number: OTC20101, NDC#: 53329-641-30. The recalled Acetaminophen 500mg, Tab 100/BT (OTC20101) includes lot # 45810 with expiration date May 2018. This lot was distributed nationwide from June 12, 2015 through September 18, 2015. Medline Industries, Inc. is investigating to determine the root cause and corrective and preventative actions. Medline Industries, Inc. notified its distributors, consumers and/or retailer customers by First Class Mail on September 25th, 2015 and is arranging for return and credit of all recalled products. Consumers, distributors, and/or retailers that have product which is being recalled should stop using and return to Medline Industries, Inc. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Medline Industries, Inc. by phone 866-359-1704 or recalls@medline.com Monday through Friday between the hours of 8am and 5pm CST. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online:www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178 This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. MEMPHIS, TN: Motion for Monetary Damages, Attorneys' Fees Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon P. McCalla granted the Plaintiffs' motion for payment of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, entry of judgment for Lakendus Cole, and post-judgment interest in the case captioned LAKENDUS COLE and LEON EDMOND, individually and as representatives of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, Defendant, No.: 2:13-CV-02117-JPM-DKV, (W.D. Tenn.) Plaintiff Lakendus Cole is a police officer employed with the City of Memphis Police Department Organized Crime Unit, and Plaintiff Leon Edmond is a Special Agent employed with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Plaintiffs assert a class action claim against Defendant City of Memphis for "the policy, procedure, custom, or practice by which police officers of the Memphis Police Department (MPD) order all persons to immediately leave the sidewalks and street on Beale Street when there are no circumstances present which threaten the safety of the public or MPD police officers (referred to in this Introduction as the "Beale Street Sweep"). Plaintiffs Cole and Edmond also assert individual claims against the City of Memphis. Plaintiffs filed a motion for payment of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, entry of judgment for Lakendus Cole, and post-judgment interest. In his Order dated August 27, 2015 available at http://is.gd/3EpIijfrom Leagle.com, Judge McCalla granted the Plaintiff's motion for payment of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, entry of judgment for Lakendus Cole, and post- judgment interest. Defendant City of Memphis was directed to pay Lakendus Cole: -- $35,000.00 in damages as awarded by the jury; -- $411.48 in prejudgment interest on the damages award; and -- postjudgment interest on the damages award. The Court further granted Plaintiffs' motion as to the request for attorneys' fees: Spence Law Firm, PLLC was awarded $389,563.50 as attorneys' fees based on 1,468.35 hours of labor, and an enhancement of the award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $58,434.53, for a total attorneys' fees award of $447,998.03. Bryan Meredith, Esq., Emmett Lee Whitwell, Esq., and Robert L.J. Spence, Jr., Esq., of SPENCEWALK, PLLC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Lakendus Cole. J. Michael Fletcher, Esq. -- michael@michaelfletcherlawoffice.com -- of FLETCHER LAW FIRM -- Barbaralette G. Davis, Esq., and Zayid A. Saleem, Esq., of CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE-Memphis serve as counsel for Defendant City of Memphis MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Suit Over Race Discrimination --------------------------------------------------- Kathy Frazier, and all others similarly situated v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, and Morgan Stanley, Case No. 3:15-cv-04512 (N.D. Calif., September 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981, retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and breach of contract. The Plaintiff alleges that compensation and advancement opportunities available to Morgan Stanley Financial Advisors, vary widely depending on their race, as African Americans are systemically denied equal employment opportunities. Morgan Stanley is a publicly traded, global financial services firm and Fortune 500 corporation incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York. As part of its wealth management services, Morgan Stanley employs more than 16,000 persons nationwide as FAs to service clients across the United States. Morgan Stanley is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a broker-dealer and with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a futures commission merchant. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sharon R. Vinick, Esq. LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 318-7702 Fax: (510) 318-7701 E-mail: sharon@levyvinick.com - and - Linda D. Friedman, Esq. STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD. 303 W. Madison, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 431-0888 NATIONAL FOOTBALL: "Holinko" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Holinko, and all others similarly situated v. National Football League, NFL Enterprises LLC, DirecTV, LLC, and DirecTV Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-07665 (C.D. Calif., September 30, 2015), seeks to recover damages, including treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees arising from Defendants' violations of Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants have engaged in anticompetitive practices and entered into combinations and express agreements restricting competition in the distribution of live professional football game programming. DirecTV, LLC and DirecTV Holdings LLC are together referred to as "DirecTV." DirecTV and its subsidiaries provide satellite television service throughout the United States and issue bills to commercial and residential subscribers. National Football League and NFL Enterprises LLC are together referred to as "NFL" or the "League." Each of the NFL's 32 member teams are independently owned, operated, and managed, and are headquartered in various cities throughout the United States. The teams compete with each other both on the field and to attract fans, personnel, and revenue. The Plaintiff is represented by: Natasha A. Naraghi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER SCHACK 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Tel: (858) 485-6535 Fax: (858) 485-0608 E-mail: natashanaraghi@amslawoffice.com NEIMAN MARCUS: Petition for Rehearing in Data Breach Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hunton & Williams LLP, in an article for Lexology.com, reports that on September 17, 2015, the Seventh Circuit rejected Neiman Marcus' petition for a rehearing en banc of Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, No. 14-3122. In Remijas, a Seventh Circuit panel found that members of a putative class alleged sufficient facts to establish standing to sue Neiman Marcus following a 2013 data breach that resulted in hackers gaining access to customers' credit and debit card information. No judge in regular active service requested a vote on the rehearing petition. Additionally, all members of the original panel voted to deny rehearing. As Hunton & Williams LLP previously reported, and according to The Practitioner's Handbook for Appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, "it is more likely to have a petition for writ of certiorari granted by the Supreme Court than to have a request for en banc consideration granted" in the Seventh Circuit. At least for now, a circuit split will remain on whether the risk of future fraud and identity theft, or their associated mitigation costs, confer Article III standing. NESTLE INDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Maggi Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Ashpreet Sethi, writing for Bloomberg TV, reports that claiming that the Company is being targeted and singled out, Nestle India has told the National Consumer Court that the government's class action suit against the company over alleged lead content and MSG in Maggi should be dismissed. "We are being targeted as the government does not intend to take action against other manufacturers who are making wrong claims about MSG and lead content in their products," said the Nestle Counsel. Terming the government's class action suit as a case of no consideration with the Bombay High Court dismissing tests results done by government agencies so far, Nestle India has urged the National Consumer Court to junk Government's plea for fresh testing of Maggi samples. The food regulator FSSAI has informed the Court that fresh testing is required for all Maggi samples considering new laboratories have been identified for the same. The national consumer court has been hearing Government's class action suit seeking damages worth Rs 600 odd crores from Nestle India for misleading consumers about Maggi's ingredients. The Court is yet to decide whether FSSAI should be allowed to hold fresh testing of Maggi samples. The National Consumer Court was set to hear the matter again on October 8. NEW ENGLAND NATURAL: Recalls Trader Joe's Granola Products ---------------------------------------------------------- New England Natural Bakers Inc. Greenfield, MA, is issuing a voluntary recall for one specific lot (747 cases) of Trader Joe's Coconut Cranberry Granola with "Best By 08/19/16" printed on the package, because Pecan Praline Granola containing milk, wheat and tree nuts (pecans) was packaged into the Coconut Cranberry Granola box. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk, wheat, and/or pecans run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The potentially affected product was distributed to Trader Joe's stores in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Vermont and Washington D.C. The Trader Joe's Coconut Cranberry Granola (SKU 51131) is packaged in a 16 oz. box, with "Best By" date 08/19/16 printed at the top of the package UPC Code: 0051 1315 printed on side panel. The voluntary recall was initiated by New England Natural Bakers Inc. after Trader Joe's was contacted by a customer. One allergic reaction has been reported to date. All affected product has been removed from store shelves. Customers who have purchased the Trader Joe's Coconut Cranberry Granola may return it to Trader Joe's for a full refund. Customers with questions may contact New England Natural Bakers Inc. at (413)772-2239 8:30AM-5:00PM EST, Monday - Friday. NEW FRONTIER: Recalls Gluten Free Seaweed Chips Due to Wheat ------------------------------------------------------------ New Frontier Foods, Inc. of Burlingame, CA is voluntarily recalling six days of production of Ocean's Halo Gluten Free Seaweed Chips produced at a third party manufacturer because of an undeclared allergen -- wheat -- with potential adverse health effects. The Seaweed Chips produced on the affected dates of production are being recalled because routine testing showed levels of gluten above the FDA limit for a gluten free product. As a result, the products may contain an undeclared allergen -- wheat -- in products labeled as gluten-free. To date, New Frontier Foods has not received any reports of illness that may be associated with gluten. New Frontier Foods is voluntarily recalling affected chips produced on those dates from customer warehouses and retail store shelves. No other dates and no other New Frontier Foods products are covered by the recall. Products containing wheat can cause illness or severe reactions for individuals with wheat allergies or Celiac disease. Products containing wheat can also cause illness or discomfort for individuals with gluten intolerance. Consumers with wheat allergies, Celiac disease or gluten intolerance should not consume products bearing the affected code dates and should contact New Frontier Foods for a replacement or full refund. For consumers who do not have an allergy to wheat, Celiac disease or a gluten intolerance, the products are safe to eat. This voluntary recall includes 3 flavors Ocean's Halo Seaweed Chips, with the following "BEST BY" dates shown as Lot Numbers below. Product Brand Description Outer Case Unit (Bag) Lot Name Name ----------- UPC UPC Numbers ---- ---- ---------- ---------- ------- The Ocean's Sea Salt 1085189- 8 51899- 082416, Organic Halo 2.5oz 9005174 00517 74 091416, Seaweed bag/12 ct 091516, Chip 091616 The Ocean's Chili Lime 1085189- 8 51899- 091716 Organic Halo 2.5oz 9005198 00519 1 Seaweed bag/12 ct Chip The Ocean's Korean BBQ 1085189- 8 51899- 082416, Organic Halo 2.5oz 9005181 00518 4 091516, Seaweed bag/12 ct 091616, Chip 092116 Consumers requesting refunds or calling with further questions should contact Bob Childs at New Frontier Foods at 1-888-767-2035 from the hours of 9am-5pm PST. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/hk9CQg NIJAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Coriander Powder Due to Salmonella --------------------------------------------------------------- Nijay International, Inc. of Anaheim, CA is recalling 8 cases of Down to Earth Organic Coriander Powder, because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections, endocarditis and arthritis. Down to Earth Organic Coriander Powder, batch # 1404D25 with a best before date of 05/24/2015 was distributed to retail stores in Dallas, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio, TX. The product is packaged in 7 oz. transparent, green plastic bags. To date, Nijay International, Inc. has not received any reports of illness related to this recalled product. The recall was a result of routine sampling by an FDA contract lab, which revealed the presence of Salmonella. Consumers who have purchased Down to Earth Organic Coriander Powder are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1 (714) 602-6123 Mondays through Fridays, between 9.00am to 5.00pm PST. The UPC for this product is 40074 13813. This code is located above the ingredient list. PACIFIC OYSTER: Recalls Canned Seafood Products ----------------------------------------------- As a follow up to the recall issued by Skipanon Brand Seafoods, Pacific Oyster Company d/b/a The Fish Peddler of Bay City, Oregon, is voluntarily recalling canned tuna, salmon, and smoked salmon (any code starting with "OC" located under the can) that was sold at its restaurant/retail store, because they have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium can cause life-threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled. Botulism can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision, trouble with speaking or swallowing, difficulty breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension, and constipation. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention. There have been no reported cases of illness to date. The products being recalled were distributed only at the Fish Peddler restaurant/retail store in Bay City, Oregon. The products are under the "Pacific Seafood" label and can be identified as 6 oz cans of "Premium Solid White Albacore Tuna," 6.5 oz cans of "Pacific Salmon," and 6.5 oz cans of "Smoked Pacific Salmon." Premium Solid White 6 oz any code starting with Albacore Tuna "OC" under the can Pacific Salmon 6.5 oz any code starting with "OC" under the can Smoked Pacific Salmon 6.5 oz any code starting with "OC" under the can The voluntary recall is being initiated due to a lack of documentation and possible under-processing at Skipanon Brand Seafoods (custom processor for Pacific Oyster Company). The problem at Skipanon Brand Seafoods was discovered during an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This recall is being made with the knowledge of the FDA and the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). Consumers are advised to throw away or return recalled product to the company. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 503-905-4446 between PST 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM or by email to fishpeddler.baycity@gmail.com Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/AJ9AsI PIER 1 IMPORTS: Faces Investor Class Action ------------------------------------------- Khang & Khang LLP on Sept. 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Pier 1 Imports, Inc. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between December 19, 2013 and February 10, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period") are encouraged to contact the Firm immediately to discuss their legal options. If you purchased shares of Pier 1 during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at joon@khanglaw.com There has been no class certification in this case. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. According to the complaint, the Company made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose the truth regarding "unplanned" expenses that had led the Company to lower its financial guidance. When the truth was revealed to the public, shares dropped causing investors harm. If you purchased shares of Pier 1 during the Class Period you have until October 26, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at joon@khanglaw.com PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Stockholder Class Action Filed in Del. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a putative stockholder class action derivative complaint was filed on June 15, 2015, in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware, captioned In re The Providence Service Corporation Derivative Litigation, Case No. 11149. The complaint names Richard A. Kerley, Kristi L. Meints, Warren S. Rustand, Christopher Shackelton (the "Individual Defendants") and Coliseum Capital Management, LLC ("Coliseum LLC") as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint states direct claims alleging that the dividend rate increase term in the Company's outstanding convertible preferred stock is an impermissibly coercive measure that impairs the voting rights of the Company's stockholders on the removal of certain voting and conversion caps ("Caps") currently applicable to the preferred stock, and that Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by approving the dividend rate increase term and attempting to coerce the stockholder vote relating to the Company's preferred stock, and by failing to disclose all material information necessary to allow the Company's stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Caps. The complaint states derivative claims alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by entering into the subordinated note and standby agreement with Coliseum LLC, and granting Coliseum LLC certain stock options. The complaint further alleges that Coliseum LLC has aided and abetted the Individual Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties and that demand on the Board is excused as futile. The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the stockholder vote relating to the dividend rate increase, a finding that the Individual Defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company and the Company's stockholders, a finding that Coliseum LLC is liable for aiding and abetting the Individual Defendant's breaches of their fiduciary duties, a finding that Coliseum LLC is liable for unjust enrichment, a finding that demand on the Board is excused as futile, a revision or rescission of the terms of the Subordinated Note and preferred stock as necessary and/or appropriate, a requirement for the Company to reform its corporate governance profile to protect against future misconduct similar to that alleged by the putative stockholder class, a certification of the putative stockholder class, costs and disbursements (including expenses, attorneys' and experts' fees), and any other and further relief as is just and equitable. On June 26, 2015, the Court entered a schedule governing expedited proceedings as agreed to by counsel for the parties. A hearing on plaintiff's motion to enjoin the stockholder vote was scheduled for September 10, 2015. The Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and will vigorously contest them. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded any liabilities related to this matter as the probability and range of a settlement cannot be determined. REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Action in E.D. Va. at Early Stage --------------------------------------------------------- RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in November 2014, the Company was named in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc., Case No. 3:14cv758. On January 12, 2015, the Company filed its answer. On July 13, 2015, the court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. "This case is at an early stage and although we intend to defend it vigorously, it is not possible to predict its outcome," the Company said. REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Action in E.D. Pa. at Early Stage -------------------------------------------------------- RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company in March 2015, was named in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled Helen Stokes v. RealPage, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01520. On June 2, 2015, the Company filed its answer. This case is at an early stage and although the Company intends to defend it vigorously, it is not possible to predict its outcome. S MARTINELLI: Recalls Sparking Beverages Due to Glass Chips ----------------------------------------------------------- S. Martinelli & Company of Watsonville, California, announced a voluntary nationwide recall of certain lots of Martinelli's 8.4 oz. mini glass bottles of Gold Medal Sparkling Cider, Sparkling Cider Northwest Blend, Sparkling White Grape, and Sparkling Red Grape, due to the possibility of small glass chips at the top of the bottles occurring when opening the bottle, which could possibly enter the beverage. Consumers could potentially be cut or injured if a chip occurs. Only certain lots of the 8.4 oz. bottles, typically known in the trade as "mini-bottles," of Martinelli's Gold Medal Sparkling Cider, Sparkling Cider Northwest Blend, Sparkling White Grape and Sparkling Red Grape are affected by this recall. The recalled products have a "Best Before" date of after March 1, 2018, but before September 12, 2018, on the front label of the bottle. The company announced this recall after internal testing identified the potential for some bottles to chip when being opened. This recall is being done out of an abundance of caution. No other Martinelli's beverage or size bottle is impacted. The 750 ml "champagne" and the 10 oz. bottles are not included in this recall. All recalled products are being removed from store shelves. Consumers who have purchased the product can return the product to its place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-662-1868 at any time, 24 hours a day. S. Martinelli & Company is committed to ensuring the quality and safety of all of our products. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of and in cooperation with the Federal Food and Drug Administration. EXHIBIT A Product name/description: ------------------------- 12256 Martinelli's Gold Medal Sparkling Cider (12 pac Production Date "Best Before" Date SKU/UPC --------------- ------------------ ------- 3/05/15 05 Mar 2018 4124400256 3/06/15 06 Mar 2018 4124400256 3/07/15 07 Mar 2018 4124400256 3/25/15 25 Mar 2018 4124400256 3/26/15 26 Mar 2018 4124400256 3/27/15 27 Mar 2018 4124400256 4/02/15 02 Apr 2018 4124400256 4/03/15 03 Apr 2018 4124400256 4/04/15 04 Apr 2018 4124400256 4/06/15 06 Apr 2018 4124400256 4/07/15 07 Apr 2018 4124400256 4/08/15 08 Apr 2018 4124400256 4/09/15 09 Apr 2018 4124400256 4/10/15 10 Apr 2018 4124400256 4/11/15 11 Apr 2018 4124400256 Product name/description: ------------------------- 46256 Martinelli's Gold Medal Sparkling Cider (4-6 pack bundles) Production Date "Best Before" Date SKU/UPC --------------- ------------------ ------- 3/02/15 02 Mar 2018 41244 46256 3/03/15 03 Mar 2018 41244 46256 3/04/15 04 Mar 2018 41244 46256 4/13/15 13 Apr 2018 41244 46256 4/14/15 14 Apr 2018 41244 46256 4/15/15 15 Apr 2018 41244 46256 Product name/description: ------------------------- 99957 Martinelli's Sparkling Cider Northwest Blend (12 pack) Production Date "Best Before" Date SKU/UPC --------------- ------------------ ------- 3/20/15 03 Mar 2018 41244 99057 3/21/15 21 Mar 2018 41244 99057 3/23/15 23 Mar 2018 41244 99057 3/24/15 24 Mar 2018 41244 99057 3/25/15 25 Mar 2018 41244 99057 4/15/15 15 Apr 2018 41244 99057 4/16/15 16 Apr 2018 41244 99057 5/05/15 05 May 2018 41244 99057 5/06/15 06 May 2018 41244 99057 5/07/15 07 May 2018 41244 99057 5/11/15 11 May 2018 41244 99057 5/12/15 12 May 2018 41244 99057 5/13/15 13 May 2018 41244 99057 5/14/15 14 May 2018 41244 99057 5/15/15 15 May 2018 41244 99057 Product name/description: ------------------------- 99925 Martinelli's Sparkling White Grape (12-pack) Production Date "Best Before" Date SKU/UPC --------------- ------------------ ------- 5/07/15 07 May 2018 41244 99025 5/08/15 08 May 2018 41244 99025 5/09/15 09 May 2018 41244 99025 Product name/description: ------------------------- 99926 Martinelli's Sparkling Red Grape (12 pack) - (flint glass) Production Date "Best Before" Date SKU/UPC --------------- ------------------ ------- 5/28/15 28 May 2018 41244 99026 5/29/15 29 May 2018 41244 99026 5/30/15 30 May 2018 41244 99026 9/02/15 02 Sep 2018 41244 99026 9/03/15 03 Sep 2018 41244 99026 9/04/15 04 Sep 2018 41244 99026 Product name/description: ------------------------- 64926 Martinelli's Sparkling Red Grape (4-6 pack) - (flint glass) Production Date "Best Before" Date SKU/UPC --------------- ------------------ ------- 8/31/15 31 Aug 2018 41244 99026 9/01/15 01 Sep 2018 41244 99026 9/02/15 02 Sep 2018 41244 99026 9/04/15 04 Sep 2018 41244 99026 9/05/15 05 Sep 2018 41244 99026 9/08/15 08 Sep 2018 41244 99026 9/09/15 09 Sep 2018 41244 99026 9/10/15 10 Sep 2018 41244 99026 9/11/15 11 Sep 2018 41244 99026 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/0prHQ3 SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Weller" Class Action Filed -------------------------------------------------------- ServiceSource International, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class action securities lawsuit, Weller v. ServiceSource International, Inc. et al., was filed on July 8, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ("Weller Lawsuit") against Company and Company's former Chief Executive Officer. The Weller Lawsuit was brought on behalf of purchasers of Company stock during the period January 22, 2014 through May 1, 2014. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements about Company's actual and expected financial performance. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. The Company believes that the claims are meritless, and will vigorously defend it. SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Shiloh Industries, Inc. ("Shiloh" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Shiloh securities between March 9, 2015 and September 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 Shiloh securities during the Class Period, you have until November 20, 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. Shiloh, together with its subsidiaries, supplies light weighting, as well as noise, vibration, and harshness solutions to automotive, commercial vehicle, and other industrial markets in Europe, Mexico, and the United States. It produces body systems components, such as shock towers, instrument panel/cross car beams, torque boxes, tunnel supports, seat supports, seat back frames, hinge pillars, lift gates, door inners, roof supports/roof panels, dash panels, body sides, and B and C pillars; and chassis systems components, including cross members, frame rails, axle carriers, bearing caps, axle covers, axle housings, clutch housings, PTU covers, axle tubes, rack and pinion housings, steering column housings, knuckles, links, wheel hubs, calipers, master cylinders, steering pumps, brake components, wheel blanks, and flanges. 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 issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Shiloh had underreported the cost related to its manufacturing of products; (2) Shiloh engaged in irregular accounting practices related to surcharges assessed on steel at its facility in Wellington, Ohio; (3) as a result, Shiloh's earnings and income were overstated; (4) Shiloh lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Shiloh's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice 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. SKIPANON BRAND: Recalls Seafood Canned Products ----------------------------------------------- Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC of Warrenton, Oregon is voluntarily recalling ALL LOTS, ALL SIZES of ALL Skipanon brand seafoods canned products because it has the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life- threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled. Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention. There have been no reported cases of illness to date. Products were distributed to wholesalers and retailers in Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington and sold to internet customers nationwide from the website skipanonbrand.com. The last date of distribution of recalled products is September 2015. Affected production codes include any codes starting with "OC" and the code can be found either at the bottom or on top of the can. Products are packaged in metal cans with net weights ranging from 5.5 oz. to 66.5 oz. PRODUCT NAME NET WEIGHT UPC ------------ ---------- --- ALBACORE TUNA 48 oz. (1361 g) 6 58071 00148 0 ALBACORE TUNA BELLIES 6.5 oz. (1885 g) 6 58071 00145 9 ALBACORE TUNA 66.5 oz. (1885 g) 6 58071 00144 2 ALBACORE TUNA 6 oz. (170 g) 6 58071 00117 6 SMOKED ALBACORE TUNA 5.5 oz. (156 g) 6 58071 00116 9 CHINOOK SALMON 6 oz. (170 g) 6 58071 00118 3 SMOKED CHINOOK SALMON 5.5 oz. (156 g) 6 58071 00112 1 PEPPERED SMOKED 5.5 oz. (156 g) 6 58071 00114 5 CHINOOK SALMON COHO SALMON 6 oz. (170 g) 6 58071 00119 0 SMOKED COHO SALMON 5.5 oz. (156 g) 6 58071 00113 8 COLUMBIA RIVER SOCKEYE DELUXED HANDFILLED * 6 oz. (170 g) 6 58071 00120 6 SOCKEYE SALMON 6 oz. (170 g) 6 58071 00120 6 SMOKED SOCKEYE SALMON 5.5 oz. (156 g) 6 58071 00140 4 FANCY STEELHEAD 6 oz. (170 g) 6 58071 00141 1 SMOKED STEELHEAD 5.5 oz. (156 g) 6 58071 00142 8 PEPPERED SMOKED 5.5 oz. (156 g) 6 58071 00143 5 STEELHEAD SMOKED STURGEON 5.5 oz. (156 g) 6 58071 00111 4 * This label shows Packed by Oregon Ocean Seafoods (old firm name) This voluntary recall was initiated due to lack of documentation and possible under-processed products. The problem was discovered during the inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the inspection is ongoing. This recall is being made with the knowledge of the FDA the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). Customers are advised to return or to contact company and hold for pick up all products. At this point we are determining the best course of action to remedy the situation. If you have any questions, call Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC at (503) 861-8277 between the hours of 10:00am PST and 5:00pm PST, Monday - Friday, or send e-mail to recallskipanonbrand@gmail.com. SPARK NETWORKS: Parties in "Werner" & "Wright" Suits Await Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in the cases, Werner, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC and Wright, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc., Spark Networks USA, LLC, et al., are awaiting an order designating the coordinated case judge and the coordinated cases are stayed pending such action. On July 19, 2013, Aaron Werner, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action Complaint (the "Werner Complaint") in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles against Spark Networks, Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC (collectively "Spark Networks"). The Werner Complaint alleges that Spark Networks' website ChristianMingle.com violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (the "Unruh Act") by allegedly discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The Werner Complaint requests the following relief: an injunction, statutory, general, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. On December 23, 2013, Richard Wright, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action Complaint (the "Wright Complaint") in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco against Spark Networks, Inc. The Wright Complaint alleges that Spark Networks, Inc.'s commercial dating services including ChristianMingle.com, LDSSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com, BlackSingles.com, MilitarySinglesConnection.com and AdventistSinglesConnection.com violate the Unruh Act by allegedly intentionally and arbitrarily discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The Wright Complaint requests the following relief: a declaratory judgment, a preliminary and permanent injunction, statutory penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. Spark Networks filed a motion to coordinate the two matters in Los Angeles Superior Court and the motion was granted. The parties are currently awaiting an order designating the coordinated case judge and the coordinated cases are stayed pending such action. SPARK NETWORKS: Nov. 4 Hearing on Class Certification Motions ------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing for the motions to certify the class actions is set for November 4, 2015 in the Israeli Consumer Actions Ben-Jacob vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd., Gever vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. and Korland vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. Three class action law suits have been filed in Israel alleging violations of the Israel Consumer Protection Law of 1981. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. ("Spark Israel") was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Ben-Jacob action on January 14, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Israel refused to cancel her subscription and provide a refund for unused periods and claims that such a refusal is in violation of the Consumer Protection Law. Spark Israel was served with a Statement of Claim and a motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Gever action on January 21, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Israel renewed his one month subscription without receiving his positive agreement in advance and claims that such renewal is prohibited under the Consumer Protection Law. Spark Israel was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Korland action on February 12, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Israel refused to give her a full refund and charged her the price of a one month subscription to the JDate website in violation of the Consumer Protection Law. In each of these three cases, the plaintiff is seeking personal damages and damages on behalf of a defined group. On May 8, 2014, the Court granted Spark Israel's motion to consolidate all three cases. All three cases are now consolidated and will be litigated jointly. Spark Israel's combined response to their motions to certify the classes was filed November 1, 2014, and the plaintiffs responded to the combined response. The parties had a hearing before the judge on December 24, 2014. Following the hearing the judge ordered that the pleadings filed by the parties be transferred to the Israel Consumer Council ("ICC") so that the ICC can provide its position as to the parties' allegations within 90 days. The ICC issued its opinion on April 1, 2015. Following the filing of the ICC opinion, the parties filed briefs addressing the ICC opinion. A hearing for the motions to certify the class actions is set for November 4, 2015. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER: Faces Investor Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Khang & Khang LLP on Sept. 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Super Micro Computer, Inc. ("Super Micro" or the "Company") (NYSE: SMCI). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between September 15, 2014 and August 31, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm immediately to discuss their legal options. If you purchased shares of Super Micro during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at joon@khanglaw.com There has been no class certification in this case. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. According to the complaint, on August 31, 2015, Super Micro announced that the Company "has determined that it is unable to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 within the prescribed time period without unreasonable effort or expense. [Super Micro] recently discovered certain irregularities regarding certain marketing expenses and additional time is required for [Super Micro] to complete its investigation of the matter." If you purchased shares of Super Micro during the Class Period you have until November 3, 2015, to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at joon@khanglaw.com TD AMERITRADE: Initial Approval of Reserve Yield Case Deal Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that parties in the so-called Reserve Yield Plus Fund Litigation have filed a request for the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement and approval of notices to class members. During September 2008, The Reserve, an independent mutual fund company, announced that the net asset value of the Reserve Yield Plus Fund declined below $1.00 per share. The Yield Plus Fund was not a money market mutual fund, but its stated objective was to maintain a net asset value of $1.00 per share. TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s clients continue to hold shares in the Yield Plus Fund (now known as "Yield Plus Fund - In Liquidation"), which is being liquidated. In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with respect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuit is captioned Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Ross lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve Yield Plus Fund. On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor, certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons. The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the fund. On March 19, 2015, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Reserve Management Company, Inc. and related defendants to settle the claims against them, subject to court approval. On March 26, 2015, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to resolve the claims against the Company and its directors, officers and shareholders named as defendants, subject to definitive written terms that will require court approval. Under the agreement, the Company will make a cash contribution of $3.75 million toward a class settlement fund. All the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement as of June 4, 2015, subject to court approval, and filed a request for the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement and approval of notices to class members. TD AMERITRADE: "Order Routing" Litigation Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------- TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Order Routing Litigation remains pending. Five putative class action complaints have been filed regarding TD Ameritrade's routing of client orders. The cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et al. v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et al.; Tyler Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Michael Sarbacker v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.; Gerald Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al. The complaints in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the defendants failed to provide clients with "best execution" and routed orders to the market venue that paid the most for its order flow. The complaints in Verdieck and Lerner allege that the defendant routed its clients' non-marketable limit orders to the venue paying the highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients did not receive best execution on these kinds of orders. The complaints variously include claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of best execution, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various kinds of relief including damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, equitable relief and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, or the potential losses, if any, that may result TEMPUR SEALY: Wins Favorable Ruling From Appeals Court ------------------------------------------------------ Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court of appeals has ruled in favor of the Company in the cases: * Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 20, 2012 * Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012 On June 20 and 25, 2012, the above suits were filed against the Company and two named executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased the Company's stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5, 2012. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements and concealment of material information concerning the Company's competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per diluted share and related financial performance for the Company's 2012 fiscal year. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorney's fees, expert fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. On November 2, 2012, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits and on March 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice the consolidated complaint. The Court issued its memorandum of opinion and entered final judgment on May 23, 2014. On June 6, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ("Appeals Court"). Following oral argument, the Appeals Court issued an order on June 4, 2015, ruling in favor of the Company. Plaintiff had until September 2, 2015 to file a petition seeking review by the United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court"). If the plaintiff files such a petition and the Supreme Court grants it, the Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The outcome of these matters is uncertain, however, and although the Company does not currently expect to incur a loss with respect to these matters, the Company cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of the suits, an estimate of a range of losses or any minimum loss that could result in the event of an adverse judgment in this suit, or whether the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. TEMPUR SEALY: Court to Consider Class Cert. Bid in "Todd" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court is scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015 in the case, Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013. On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in the case but with an amended petition adding additional class representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable state laws. The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. The Court is scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015 and the outcome is uncertain. As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. TEMPUR SEALY: Motion to Amend "Todd" Action Okayed -------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the class action complaint in the case captioned ALVIN TODD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TEMPUR-SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.: 13-CV-04984-JST, (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a putative class of purchasers of Tempur-Sealy products, for claims arising out of Defendants' marketing and sale of mattresses, pillows, and other bedding products containing "Tempur" material. Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint. They filed a First Amended Complaint shortly thereafter. They sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) which was granted. The operative SAC asserts causes of action for: (1) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; (2) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500 et seq.; (3) violations of California Civil Code section 1750 et seq.; and (4) violations of various other state consumer protection laws and common law unjust enrichment claims. Plaintiffs seek leave to file their proposed Third Amended Complaint to: (1) add a nationwide class claim for unjust enrichment, applying Kentucky law; (2) add new factual allegations based on information learned during discovery; (3) remove two claims based on North Carolina law; and (4) remove the names and details of Plaintiffs who no longer wish to pursue this litigation and have been dismissed. In his Order dated August 26, 2015 available at http://is.gd/S4lRpJfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tigar granted Plaintiffs' motion to amend class action complaint. The Court said it would modify the briefing schedule on the motion for class certification by separate order. The Court said there has been no showing that Plaintiffs unduly delayed in filing this motion. Discovery in this case has been hampered by technical and other difficulties outside the Plaintiffs' control. Defendants have produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, some in June 2015, and discovery is ongoing. In light of these circumstances, the filing of Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend on July 16, 2015, was not unreasonable. The Court added that Defendants have not shown that they will be substantially prejudiced by the proposed amendment. Discovery in this case is ongoing, and no schedule has been set beyond the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Although Defendants may incur additional expense responding to the new complaint, they will not have to radically change their litigation strategy in order to defend against related advertising allegations and an additional unjust enrichment claim. The Court does recognize that the timing of the motion for leave to amend puts Defendants at a disadvantage in opposing the motion for class certification because the proposed TAC adds a new nationwide unjust enrichment class. The timing of the motion, which was filed on the same day as Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, will disrupt the case schedule. It does not, however, amount to "strong evidence" of bad faith. Angelique Adams, Esq. -- aadams@shipmanlaw.com -- Gary K Shipman, Esq. -- gshipman@shipmanlaw.com -- William G Wright, Esq. -- wwright@shipmanlaw.com -- of Shipman & Wright, LLP, Anthony Gerard Simon, Esq. -- asimon@simonlawpc.com -- Benjamin Reid Askew, Esq. of The Simon Law Firm, P.C., Dana Marie Isaac Quinn, Esq., Jonas Palmer Mann, Esq. -- jmann@audetlaw.com -- Michael Andrew McShane, Esq. -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen, Esq. -- sjensen@allenstewart.com -- Allen Mark Stewart, Esq. -- astewart@allenstewart.com -- Allen Stewart, P.C. serve as counsel for Plaintiff Alvid Todd Mark Lemar Eisenhut, Esq. -- meisenhut@calljensen.com -- Matthew Ryan Orr, Esq. -- morr@calljensen.com -- Samuel Gary Brooks, Esq. of Call & Jensen, Daniel Jay Gerber, Esq. -- dgerber@rumberger.com -- Darren McCartney, Esq., Douglas Bruce Brown, Esq. -- dbrown@rumberger.com -- Samantha Crawford Duke, Esq. -- sduke@rumberger.com -- Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell serve as counsel for Defendant Tempur-Sealy International, Inc. TESLA MOTORS: Plaintiffs' Class Action Appeal Pending ----------------------------------------------------- An appeal by a plaintiff in a class action against Tesla Motors, Inc. is pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint, made claims against Tesla and our CEO, Elon Musk, sought damages and attorney's fees on the basis of allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk made false and/or misleading representations and omissions, including with respect to the safety of Model S. This case was brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain persons who purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013 and November 17, 2013. On September 26, 2014, the trial court, upon the motion of Tesla and Mr. Musk, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and thereafter issued a formal written order to that effect. The plaintiffs have appealed from the trial court's order, and that appeal is pending. TF SUPPLEMENTS: Recalls Rhino Capsules Due to Desmethyl ------------------------------------------------------- TF Supplements of Houston, TX, is voluntarily recalling the following product to the consumer level: RHINO 7 3000 capsules packaged in a bottle containing six (6) capsules UPC: 616453150126 ALL LOT NUMBERS WITHIN EXPIRY and Rhino 7 Platinum 3000 Capsules packaged in a single (1) blister packs hang card count UPC: 700729253748 ALL LOT NUMBERS WITHIN EXPIRY. Lot numbers are on the back top right of the (1) count and on the side of the (6) count bottle. FDA analysis found these products to contain undeclared desmethyl carbondenafil and dapoxetine. Desmethyl carbondenafil is a phosphodiesterase PDE-5 inhibitor which is a class of drugs used to treat male erectile dysfunction, making these products unapproved new drugs. Dapoxetine is an active ingredient not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Desmethyl carbondenafil may pose a threat to consumers because this PDE-5 inhibitor may interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs (such as nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels that can be life threatening. Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates. Dapoxetine has not been approved by the FDA and therefore its safety or efficacy has not been established. Chemically, dapoxetine belongs to a class of drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) used to treat depression. Studies have shown that antidepressants increased the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents, and young adults when compared to placebo. Therefore, consuming these products presents a health risk which could be life threatening. TF Supplements has received a report of one (1) adverse event associated with these products to date. These products are marketed as dietary supplements for sexual enhancement and packaged in (6) count bottle and (1) count hanging card and distributed to consumers nationwide via our retail website tfsupplements.com. TF Supplements has discontinued sales of these products. TF Supplements is notifying its customers via e-mail of this voluntary recall. Consumers that purchased these products from TF Supplements should stop using them immediately and can return the products to: TF Supplements 6666 Gulf Freeway Houston, TX 77087 Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact TF Supplements by telephone at 866-620-3586 between (Monday - Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm CST). Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using these products. Consumers can report adverse reactions or quality control problems to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program online, by regular mail, or by fax as follows: Complete and submit reporting form online at http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm;or Mail or fax reporting form. Download form at http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmor call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form. Complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-1078. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. TRISTAR FOOD: Recalls Dried Raisin Products Due to Sulfites ----------------------------------------------------------- Tristar Food Wholesale Co. Inc. located at 115 Amity Street, Jersey City, NJ 07304, is recalling Heng Cheong Loong Co. (HCL) Dried Golden Raisins because it contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reaction in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. The recalled HCL Dried Golden Raisins, a product of South Africa, is distributed in encoded 10 oz. plastic bags with UPC 6-930481- 211418. The HCL Dried Golden Raisins were sold in the states of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina and the Philadelphia area. Products were distributed from July 01, 2015 - Oct 05, 2015. This recall was initiated after NYSDAM sampling and analysis revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Heng Cheong Loong Co. Golden Raisins. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased HCL Dried Golden Raisins should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (201)938-2590 (Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm EST). UNITED STATES: Mentally Ill Deportees Can Return Under Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tatiana Sanchez, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports that hundreds of immigrants with mental illnesses who were ordered deported after representing themselves in immigration court may be eligible to return to the United States under the terms of a settlement between the American Civil Liberties Union and the Department of Homeland Security. The settlement, finalized in U.S. District Court, will allow eligible immigrants with serious mental illnesses the opportunity to reopen their cases, with the potential to return to the U.S. "It gives a measure of fairness and dignity to people who were denied it for years in our immigration system," said Ahilan Arulanantham, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Southern California office. The settlement applies to immigrants with mental disabilities who were detained in Arizona, California and Washington after Nov. 21, 2011, and were deported without legal representation in court and without a proper competency determination, according to the ACLU. Mental illnesses considered under the settlement include psychosis, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, according to court documents. Provisions of the settlement also encompass lawful permanent residents or other visa holders who were deported during the given time frame. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department's Civil Division, which is handling the case, declined to comment. Robin Hvidston, executive director of the Claremont-based group, "We the People Rising," which advocates for stricter immigration enforcement, questioned the court decision. Ms. Hvidston said officials need to focus their resources on U.S. citizens across California. Veterans, the homeless and the disabled are in need of attention and tax-payer funded assistance. "This is not a system that's working well for the citizens -- to have a judge ruling in favor of people in our country illegally and who've already gone back home," she said. Because the Otay Mesa detention facility has a judge assigned to mental health cases, the immigration prison houses many of Southern California's mentally ill detainees, said Bardis Vakili, a staff attorney at the ACLU of San Diego. Detainees who are San Diego residents and who have mental health issues are held in Otay, and oftentimes mental health detainees are transferred to the prison from Los Angeles and other cities in the area. They're ordered deported through the San Diego immigration court, Mr. Vakili said. The class-action lawsuit was originally filed by the ACLU and other civil-rights groups in 2010 on behalf of Jose Antonio Franco-Gonzalez and Guillermo Gomez-Sanchez, immigrants with mental disabilities who were detained for several years after being deemed mentally incompetent to represent themselves in immigration proceedings. Dr. David Folsom, vice chair of clinical affairs for the department of psychiatry at UC San Diego Health, said that while people with minor or moderate mental disabilities are typically capable of representing themselves in court, those with serious mental illnesses aren't. "Deportation proceedings are extremely high stakes. If you have to represent yourself, you want to be able to do it with your full ability," he said. Following two federal orders, DHS and the Department of Justice implemented several new procedures that protect unrepresented detainees with mental illnesses, including screening immigration detainees for possible mental health concerns; the availability of competency hearings and independent psychological or psychiatric evaluations; and qualified representatives for detainees who are deemed mentally incompetent. The settlement comes just weeks after 12 unauthorized immigrants returned to the U.S. under the provisions of an earlier class- action lawsuit settlement between the ACLU and DHS. That lawsuit accused U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol in Southern California of using coercive tactics to pressure unauthorized immigrants into voluntarily leaving the United States. The suit said the immigrants were deprived of their right to be heard by an immigration judge, who might have granted them legal status under certain programs. ICE and Customs and Border Protection previously declined to comment on the matter. The ACLU has been fielding thousands of calls from potential class-action members since preliminary approval of the settlement was announced last year, though so far only "dozens" have qualified, said Anna Castro, spokeswoman for the ACLU in San Diego. Ms. Castro declined to provide a specific number of eligible deportees, saying some may choose to remain in Mexico after having lived there for several years. VOLKSWAGEN: Key Issues Arise Following Emissions Test Scandal ------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reported that as Volkswagen's reputation continues to be damaged by the revelation that it cheated emissions tests, a number of questions remain unanswered. With about 11 million diesel cars affected, including 1.2 million in the UK, here are some of the key issues that have still to be resolved: Will drivers get any compensation? Claims are already being prepared in the US, with lawyers suggesting that drivers have been misled. In the UK, there are suggestions that drivers and dealerships might be able to claim for compensation if they were given false information on purchase, or if their car is devalued as a result of the scandal. London-based law firm Slater and Gordon reported that it had been contacted by more than 500 people who believe they were misled by VW. But there are a lot of question marks over the potential success of any such claim. Such as, did the cheat software fundamentally alter the car that drivers thought they were buying and its value? Similar question marks surround the tax brackets that these cars fell into. Vehicle tax in the UK is based on levels of carbon dioxide emissions. So far, the cheat devices in the US appear only to have given false readings on nitrogen oxide emissions. Did any devices cheat more than just nitrogen oxide emissions? If so, did these devices cheat tests to a degree that means a tax discount for low emissions was incorrectly administered? If so, would it be worthwhile for the tax authorities to chase up any underpaid tax? What will be the long-term effect on VW's prices? Only time will tell how prices of VW cars will be affected in the months and years ahead. On the plus side for owners, is the example of previous car industry scandals. Editors at CAP Black Book -- a manual referred to by professional used-car dealers -- point to the global recall of Toyota and Lexus cars back in 2009 and 2010. This, they say, was the result of serious safety issues, but it did not have a significant impact on used car values. However, any fall in the popularity of VWs could mean that they are less in demand as used cars, so owners wishing to sell might have to lower their asking price. Predicting prices and used car values in the future depends on so many variables including, most critically, how this scandal develops. How high up did the scandal go? Martin Winterkorn has been replaced as chief executive, and other people across the group have been suspended. An internal inquiry is underway, but it would be surprising if such a blatant and widespread attempt to rig emissions tests didn't end with more heads rolling. This was not the action of some rogue employee. There will have been a chain of command that approved the use of the cheat software in 11 million cars. What's more, it's emerging that VW executives may have been warned of the scam at least two years ago. In the US, lawyers are still seeking action against employees of General Motors some two years after the carmaker began recalling cars with dangerous ignition faults. If VW can't identify who knew what, aggressive lawyers may do so. What fines will VW face? Jurisdictions across the world are investigating VW. From the EU to South Korea, VW faces heavy financial punishment. But the US, whose authorities take a robust approach to corporate wrongdoing, is where VW could face its most costly and prolonged litigation. The Environmental Protection Agency, which exposed VW's test rigging, can fine $37,500 (GBP25,000) per vehicle, which would put the maximum cost fine for the near 500,000 cars affected in the US at $18 billion. The US Justice Department may yet launch criminal action, turning up the legal heat. And individual states are preparing possible action, either individually or together. The carmaker has so far set aside EUR6.5 billion ($7.3 billion; GBP4.8 billion) to cover the costs of the scandal. What about lawsuits from customers? Private law firms have already reportedly filed dozens of lawsuits in the US on behalf of VW owners. But eventually hundreds of class-action lawsuits are expected to follow. These cases may be consolidated before a single federal judge. Claims will include defrauding customers, compensation for falling values of second-hand VW cars, and refunds for customers who paid extra for cars they thought were better for the environment. How much will these damages claims be for . Who knows? But it's safe to say they will run into billions of dollars. What will be the wider car industry impact? VW's shares plunged in the days following the revelations. What got less publicity was that investors in several VW component suppliers also ran for cover. Shares in Delphi, Tenneco, Honeywell, and Continental were among suppliers hit. There's a fear that the VW scandal will do irreparable damage to the diesel market. In the US, the market for diesel cars is tiny. Has this nascent market now been killed off? Mike Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation, the largest US car retailer, told the WSJ: "It is another black eye for diesel vehicles overall." In Europe diesel accounts for 50% of cars sold. It's possible the VW scandal will spur on development of cleaner diesel technology. Others, though, say it is the death knell of technology that never lived up to its hype, and will mean more investment in hybrid and electric technology. Can VW rebuild its reputation? The simple answer is "yes", but it won't be quick or easy. Five years ago, Japanese giant Toyota was in a similar position in the US after it had failed to address known safety defects in its cars, which were linked to the death of dozens of people. Toyota responded with an extensive campaign to address the failings in its own organisation and rebuild consumer trust. As a result its sales recovered following a short-term fall. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Oxnard Test Site Focus of Emissions Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Gretchen Wenner, writing for Ventura County Star, reports that a Volkswagen emissions compliance laboratory in Oxnard is a focus of at least one class-action lawsuit filed in the wake of the carmaker's emissions cheating scandal. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bagert" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud -------------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Bagert, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07174 (D.N.J., September 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for common law fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, violation of Magnuson-Moss Act, violation of The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Volkswagen has marketed its so-called "clean diesel" vehicles as high performing, fuel efficient, and environmentally-friendly. In truth, Volkswagen's clean diesel vehicles are anything but clean. The Defendant, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business in all 50 states and is organized and incorporated under the laws of New Jersey. Its principal place of business is in Herndon, Virginia, and its Eastern Regional headquarters are located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted the Class Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the nation. The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLDSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 994-1700 - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Tel: (415) 956-1000 Fax: (415) 956-1008 - and - Oren S. Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART 11 Broadway, # 2150 New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 847-8315 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Negligent Misrepresentation ------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Epperson, Brian Epperson, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 02655 (D. Tenn., September 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977. Volkswagen has been using what is known as "defeat devices" on the CleanDiesel engines, which reduce the effectiveness of the emissions control system during normal driving conditions. The Defendant, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business in all 50 states and is organized and incorporated under the laws of New Jersey. Its principal place of business is in Herndon, Virginia, and its Eastern Regional headquarters are located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted the Class Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the nation. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy R. Holton, Esq. HOLTON LAW FIRM 296 Washington Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 Tel: (901) 523-2222 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit for Fraudulent Concealment ------------------------------------------------------ Sean Kettley, Kelly Lee, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00386 (D. Hawaii, September 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for Fraudulent Concealment and Violations of the Hawaii Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act. Plaintiff alleges that by manufacturing and selling cars with defeat devices that allowed for higher levels of emissions than were certified to the EPA, Volkswagen violated the Clean Air Act, defrauded its customers, and engaged in deceptive acts and practices. Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., is a corporation doing business in the State of Hawaii and is organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20171. At all times relevant to this action, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names in Hawaii. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Lautenbach, Esq. STARN, O'TOOLE, MARCUS & FISHER 733 Bishop Street, Suite 1900 Pacific Guardian Center, Makai Tower Honolulu, HI 96813 Tel: (808) 537-6100 E-mail: alautenbach@starnlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Skye" Suit Seeks Actual and Punitive Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Skye, Michael Kang, Geoffrey Veith, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 5:15-cv-04482 (N.D. Calif., September 29, 2015), seek to obtain actual and punitive damages, restitution, and enjoinment for the Defendants' violations of the federal law, California and Pennsylvania's consumer protection statutes and common law, and for breaches of applicable warranties. Plaintiff alleges that Volkswagen had equipped its vehicles with illegal software designed to falsify the vehicles' emissions. The software automatically detects when a vehicle is undergoing emissions testing and activates the full emissions control system. Then, as soon as the test is over, the software switches the vehicles back into "road calibration," eliminating some pollution controls. Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia. Defendant Volkswagen AG is a German corporation and the parent company of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Its headquarters and principal place of business are in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and warrants vehicles in the United States under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Judith A. Zahid, Esq. ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP 44 Montgomery St., Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 693-0700 Fax: (415) 693-0770 E-mail: jzahid@zelle.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 350-9700 Fax: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com - and - Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (415) 692-0772 Fax: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Aprea" Suit Alleges Fraud -------------------------------------------- John Aprea and Nicole Kennedy, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-01607 (M.D. Fla., September 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for alleged fraud, violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs alleged that Volkswagen defrauded Florida residents by selling them so-called "clean diesel" vehicles that it represented to be less polluting than standard vehicles, but in fact emitted much greater amounts of greenhouse gases than other vehicles. Volkswagen purposely designed these vehicles to circumvent emissions testing to hide their true levels of toxic output. The Defendant Volkswagen Group of America is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171, and Eastern Regional headquarters located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted the vehicles with defeat devices under the Volkswagen and Audi names throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven R. Maher, Esq. THE MAHER LAW FIRM, P.A. 631 W. Morse Blvd., Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789 Tel: (407) 839-0866 E-mail: smaher@maherlawfirm.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Criminal Fraud Allegation ----------------------------------------------------------- Arash Badeanlou, Rachel Gourki, Gary L. Grela, David A. Licht, Alex Scull, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07108 (D.N.J., September 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for alleged criminal fraud. The Defendant designed and sold cars that were designed to, and did, mislead consumers and regulators about the vehicles' emissions, fuel efficiency and performance. Despite touting the "green" benefits of its diesel vehicles, Defendant sold cars that produced pollution up to 40 times higher than advertised, and then intentionally concealed the truth about those cars through a sophisticated scheme involving defeat devices. The Defendant Volkswagen Group of America is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171, and Eastern Regional headquarters located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted the vehicles with defeat devices under the Volkswagen and Audi names throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 994-1700 - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 338-1100 - and - Timothy R. Pestotnik, Esq. PESTOTNIK LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 1025 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (610) 237-5080 - and - Michael D. Singer, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 595-3001 - and - Jeff Holmes, Esq. HOLMES LAW GROUP APC 3311 East Pico Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90023 Tel: (310) 396-9045 - and - Debra L. Hurst, Esq. HURST & HURST 701 B. Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 236-0016 - and - Cameron Gharabiklou, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CAMERON J. GHARABIKLOU 530 B Street, Suite 1530 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (858) 412-0019 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Brilla" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud -------------------------------------------------------- Hope Brilla, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07122 (D.N.J., September 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for common law fraud, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, Magnuson-Moss Act -- implied warranty, unjust enrichment and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Since 2009, over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States were sold with a "defeat device" to create the impression of high fuel efficiency and high performance with extremely low emissions. A "defeat device" is nothing less than a software trick that was deliberately designed by Volkswagen's engineers to make the engine more cleanly when emission testing was being conducted, but otherwise to run more powerfully and fuel efficiently. Volkswagen marketed vehicles with these defeat devices as "green" and environmentally friendly, when in fact these representations were hollow. Volkswagen's vehicles possessed none of the promised attributes. Volkswagen Group of America is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171, and Eastern Regional headquarters located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted the vehicles with defeat devices under the Volkswagen and Audi names throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 994-1700 - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 429-2290 - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Tel: (865) 247-0090 - and - Edward A. Wallace, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 346-2222 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Covell" Seeks Actual and Treble Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Covell, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02132 (D. Colo., September 25, 2015), seeks actual and treble damages pursuant to the Colorado Consumer Protection Act for Defendant's false representation arising out of fraud. The Plaintiff alleged that the case involves a deliberate choice by Volkswagen to defraud American consumers and ignore American laws designed to protect all from harmful pollutants. Since at least 2009, Volkswagen has deliberately installed illegal "defeat devices" in several models of Volkswagen and Audi vehicles powered by the 2.0 Liter "Clean Diesel" engine. Volkswagen Group of America is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171, and Eastern Regional headquarters located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted the vehicles with defeat devices under the Volkswagen and Audi names throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jake C. Eisenstein, Esq. FISHER & ASSOCIATES P.C. 3900 E. Mexico Ave., Ste. 950 Denver, CO 80210 Tel: (303) 779-5300 Fax: (303) 779-5305 E-mail: jeisenstein@yourcoloradolawyers.com - and - Chris Hoffman, Esq. HOFFMAN, SHEFFIELD, SAUSEDA & HOFFMAN PLLC 600 Grant Street, Ste. 450 Denver, CO 80203 Tel: (303) 333-2200 E-mail: choffman@hsshlaw.com - and - Edward Tuddenham, Esq. 228 W. 137th St. New York, NY 10030 Tel: (212) 234-5953 E-mail: etudden@prismnet.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Roberts" Suit Alleges Fraud ---------------------------------------------- Preston Roberts, Amanda Elaine Davis, and all others similarly- situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 00220 (W.D. N.C., September 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for fraud, breach of contract, breach of warranty and violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The class action arises from Volkswagen's intentional installation of "defect devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009. Volkswagen marketed those vehicles as environmentally friendly vehicles with extremely high fuel efficiency and performance and very low emissions, but the vehicles did not actually possess those desirable and advertised attributes. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business in every U.S. state and the District of Columbia, and is organized under the laws of New Jersey, with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20171. At all relevant times, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the nation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mindy C. Fisher, Esq. DUNGAN, KILBOURNE & STAHL, P.A. One Rankin Avenue, Third Floor Asheville, NC 28801 Tel: (828) 254-4778 Fax: (828) 254-6646 E-mail: mfisher@dunganlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Common Law Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------- Katia Manuel-Adams and Gregory L. Adams, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 07183 (D.N.J., September 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for common law fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, violation of Magnuson-Moss Act, violation of The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Volkswagen has marketed its so-called "clean diesel" vehicles as high performing, fuel efficient, and environmentally-friendly. In truth, Volkswagen's clean diesel vehicles are anything but clean. Volkswagen installed a sophisticated software algorithm, or "defeat device," in the Class Vehicles that instructs them to cheat on emissions tests; that is, to engage full emissions controls only when undergoing official emissions testing. At all other times, the emissions controls are de-activated, and the vehicles emit extremely high, and illegal, levels of pollutants. The Defendant, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business in all 50 states and is organized and incorporated under the laws of New Jersey. Its principal place of business is in Herndon, Virginia, and its Eastern Regional headquarters are located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted the Class Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the nation. The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLDSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 994-1700 - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Tel: (415) 956-1000 Fax: (415) 956-1008 - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 429-2290 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Barger" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud -------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Barger, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07175 (D.N.J., September 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for common law fraud, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, Magnuson-Moss Act, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the defeat devices that Volkswagen designed and installed worked by switching on the full emissions control systems only when the car's emission systems were undergoing testing. When switched on the defeat device reduced the vehicles' performance, limiting acceleration, torque and fuel efficiency to clean up its act. The Defendant, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business in all 50 states and is organized and incorporated under the laws of New Jersey. Its principal place of business is in Herndon, Virginia, and its Eastern Regional headquarters are located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted the Class Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the nation. The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLDSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 994-1700 - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 429-2290 - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Tel: (865) 247-0090 - and - Edward A. Wallace, Esq WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 346-2222 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Suit Alleges Unlawful Trade Practices ------------------------------------------------------- Emily Downing-Moore, Thaddeus Moore, Zachary A. Blalack, Natalie B. Blalack, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft and Audi AG, Case No. 6:15-cv-01825 (D. Ore., September 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a domestic for- profit New Jersey corporation, and is headquartered in Herndon, Virginia. Volkswagen is a wholly owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, the world's largest automobile manufacturer. Volkswagen designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes and sells the Class Vehicles through the United States, including within the State of Oregon. Established in 1937, Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (hereinafter, "Volkswagen AG") is a German car corporation organized and existing under the laws of Germany, with its principal place of business located in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen AG is the parent company of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. In 1964, Volkswagen AG acquired Auto Union, and in 1969, Volkswagen AG acquired NSU Motorenwerke AG. Volkswagen AG merged Auto Union and NSU to create Audi AG, which has since been developed into Volkswagen's luxury vehicle brand. Audi is a German automobile manufacturer that designs, engineers, produces, markets, and distributes luxury automobiles, and is a majority owned (99.55%) subsidiary of Volkswagen Group. Since 2007, Audi has used the slogan "Truth in Engineering," and is among the best- selling luxury automobiles in the world. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer L. Jonak, Esq. JONAK LAW GROUP, P.C. 85100 Cloverdale Road Creswell, OR 97426 Tel: (510) 501-6276 Fax: (510) 291-2910 E-mail: jenny@jonak.com - and - Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 692-3606 E-mail: jberger@cpmlegal.com WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Cheese Products Due to Listeria ---------------------------------------------------- Whole Foods Market is recalling cheese sold in all stores nationwide that came from its supplier because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Consumers should seek immediate medical care if they develop these symptoms. The recalled cheese was cut and packaged in clear plastic wrap and sold with Whole Foods Market scale labels. Whole Foods Market decided to recall the cheese after routine sampling conducted by the FDA found Listeria Monocytogenes in a whole, uncut wheel of the cheese. The Papillon Organic Roquefort cheese product can be identified by the scale label that begins with PLU 029536. All sell by dates are affected. No illnesses or infections have been reported to date. Signage is posted on retail store shelves to notify customers of this recall, and all affected product has been removed from shelves. Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market stores may bring their receipt to the store for a full refund. Consumers with questions should contact their local store or call 512-477-5566 ext. 20060 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST. * Courts Issue Opinions on Class Certification Ascertainability --------------------------------------------------------------- Ira Neil Richards, Esq. -- irichards@schnader.com -- and Aaron J. Fickes, Esq. -- afickes@schnader.com -- of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that that "Ascertainability" -- that is, whether class members can be ascertained with administrative efficiency -- continues to develop as a significant issue in class certification. Two recent opinions, Brecher v. Republic of Argentina, No. 14-4385, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16493 (2d Cir. Sept. 16, 2015), in which the Second Circuit adopted ascertainability as a separate class-certification requirement, and In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 08-md-2002, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124799 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 2015), in which the court applied what has been called "heightened ascertainability" within the Third Circuit, demonstrate how the developing law on ascertainability can impact a class certification outcome. Ascertainability, though, is not necessarily developing uniformly or consistently as a distinct class certification requirement. Significantly, the Seventh Circuit has expressly rejected the concept. It has even come under criticism from judges within the Third Circuit. For practitioners, it is therefore critical to know the law of the circuit in which you are litigating and to continue to closely monitor developments in ascertainability. Brecher, from the Second Circuit, involved one of a series of class actions by holders of defaulted Argentine bonds. The district court had certified a class to include all holders of beneficial interests in the relevant bonds without limitation as to the time held. (Previously, the Second Circuit had approved a class that incorporated a time limitation). Argentina appealed. In reversing and remanding, the Second Circuit formally adopted ascertainability as a separate class-certification issue. Using language essentially identical to that earlier adopted by the Third Circuit, the Second Circuit held that a class is sufficiently ascertainable when it is defined by objective criteria that are administratively feasible, such that determining membership would not require mini-trials. Under the newly-adopted ascertainability requirement, the class certified by the district court failed. The class definition incorporated objective criteria, namely owning a beneficial interest in certain bonds. Nonetheless, the class failed because it was too difficult to determine who met the criteria. According to the Second Circuit, the secondary market for Argentine bonds remains active, and the bonds do not have a unique number. So, the court reasoned, it would be nearly impossible to ultimately determine who holds bonds that were opted into or out of the class by previous owners, especially if those bonds were subsequently co-mingled. In In re Processed Egg Products, the district court, following controlling Third Circuit precedent, applied heightened ascertainability in declining to certify a consumer class action. Three categories of plaintiffs alleged that the nation's major egg producers conspired to increase the price of eggs. Indirect purchasers, i.e., those who bought eggs at a supermarket but not directly from the producers, comprised one category of plaintiffs. As in Brecher, the putative class of indirect purchasers contained objective criteria, specifically, those who purchased certain types of eggs within a given time period. The class, however, presented an ascertainability problem. Those who bought eggs directly from the producers, typically in very large quantities, could readily demonstrate membership in the direct-purchaser class because the purchasers and the sellers maintained records. But how would someone who purchased one carton of a certain type of eggs from a supermarket several years earlier prove that they in fact made that purchase? In such a circumstance, the buyer or the seller is highly unlikely to have a receipt or other evidence of the sale. Counsel for the indirect purchasers proposed a solution: potential class members would submit affidavits swearing that they fell within the class definition. Moreover, because the Third Circuit had earlier held that ascertainability requires more than a putative class member's "say so" that he or she is a member of the class, the plaintiffs proposed that a claims administrator would screen and attempt to verify the affidavits. The plaintiffs' proposed solution fell short. The court held that it could not ignore the "core concern" of ascertainability: that a defendant must be able to challenge class membership. This the defendants could not do when there were no records to identify class members and the proposed methods to weed out unreliable affidavits still did not give the defendants a meaningful opportunity to challenge an individual's membership in the class. However, after applying Third Circuit precedent, the district court leveled in a footnote two criticisms against the heightened ascertainability requirement. First, pointing to language from a 2015 concurring opinion from Judge Rendell of the Third Circuit and a recent Seventh Circuit opinion rejecting the Third Circuit's approach, the court stated that heightened ascertainability is "disharmonious" with Rule 23's aims. Rule 23 requires that courts balance the difficulties in managing a class action against the countervailing interests of whether a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Heightened ascertainability, the Seventh Circuit reasoned, upsets this balance by placing too great an emphasis on managing the class action. The result is to effectively bar low- value consumer class actions. Second, the court questioned why affidavits are essentially considered incompetent evidence for class actions while they are competent evidence in most other settings. Brecher and In re Processed Egg Products provide key takeaways about ascertainability, but important questions remain. The Third Circuit's ascertainability standard continues to be a significant area for both sides to address in Rule 23(b)(3) class actions. This is especially true for consumer class actions involving relatively low-cost goods or services for which consumers are unlikely to keep a receipt after purchase. The Second Circuit's adoption of ascertainability as a separate class certification issue, not merely an aspect of Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, in a way that tracks the Third Circuit strongly suggests that the parties to class actions in that circuit will need to be prepared to address as an evidentiary matter at the time of class certification whether it is administratively feasible to identify class members. Objective criteria, long helpful in demonstrating ascertainability, alone may be insufficient for class certification if it is difficult to determine who meets the objective criteria. It remains to be seen whether other circuits will follow the Third Circuit's lead and adopt heightened ascertainability as a separate class certification issue or whether they will continue with the traditional approach of applying a lower level of ascertainability as part of Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance inquiry. The Eleventh Circuit in a non-precedential opinion recently tilted towards the Third Circuit's approach, whereas the Seventh Circuit expressly rejected that approach. * New Class Action Procedures in UK May Spark More Suits -------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Lee, Esq. -- andrew.lee@allenovery.com -- of Allen & Overy LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that new class action procedures was set to come into force in just four days' time on October 1. These will make the UK a more attractive forum for potential claimants and are likely to lead to an increase in the number of class actions being brought. Indeed, recent statements in the press by lawyers acting for plaintiffs in the class actions in New York against banks in connection with foreign exchange trading indicate that they intend to bring class actions in the UK under the new regime on behalf of investors based outside the US. Firms conducting internal investigations or being investigated by regulators for breaches of competition law also need to be aware of the new rules and consider whether taking a step during the investigation might harm their position in any future class action. The UK already has rules allowing "class action" type proceedings, but such cases have faced a number of obstacles. High Court claims managed by a Group Litigation Order first need to be issued separately and to a significant extent are still treated individually, making them expensive for claimants and complex to run. Collective proceedings can be brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) for damages caused by a breach of UK or EU competition law, but only one claim has been brought in the 12 years that the current rules have been in force. This is because only a "specified body" can bring collective proceedings, and is the only body that has been specified. Each claim must also be a 'consumer claim' by an individual for an infringement affecting goods or services they received outside the course of their business. The new class action regime will amend the Competition Act 1998 by replacing the current CAT collective proceedings rules. Below, Allen & Overy LLP considers the key features and changes, as well as some important differences with US class action rules. (1) Who can bring a class action? Class actions are commenced by a proposed class representative. Claims can be brought by any person who has suffered loss or damage, including both consumers and businesses. The claims sought to be included must "raise the same, similar or related issues of fact or law" for the CAT to make a collective proceedings order. Ultimately, the CAT rather than the claimants decides the description of the class. (2) What can a class action be based on? Claims must be based on an alleged infringement of competition law (referred to as "standalone cases") or a competition law infringement decision of the Competition and Markets Authority, the CAT or the European Commission (referred to as 'follow-on cases'). The relevant competition law infringements are infringements of the prohibitions on agreements which prevent, restrict or distort competition within the UK or the EU and abuse of a dominant position affecting trade within the UK or between EU member states. For follow-on cases, the CAT is bound by an infringement decision once it has become final, and these cases are limited to the infringements found by the regulator. (3) What types of class action are there? Two types of collective proceedings can be brought: opt-in proceedings (on behalf of each class member who opts in by notifying the class representative) and opt-out proceedings (on behalf of each member of the defined class except: (a) anyone domiciled in the UK who opts out by notifying the class representative; and (b) anyone not domiciled in the UK unless they opt in). Opt-out collective proceedings are a feature of US class actions, but were not previously permitted in the UK. They could increase the amount for which a defendant is potentially liable and make it easier for those who have suffered loss to recover damages. (4) What happens if the claimants win? A judgment or order given in the collective proceedings is binding on all parties represented by the class representative. The CAT can make an aggregate award of damages without first assessing the amount of damages recoverable in respect of each individual class member. Unlike in the US, the CAT cannot award exemplary damages or "treble damages". For opt-out collective proceedings, damages- based agreements (where the claimants' lawyers are paid a proportion of the damages awarded to the claimants) are unenforceable. In contrast, similar arrangements are common in US class actions. The purpose of this rule was to avoid the "litigation culture" in the UK, provide a safeguard against weak claims or speculative litigation, and avoid creating an incentive for claimant lawyers to focus on the largest cases. (5) What happens if the claimants lose? If the case is unsuccessful, the claimants will usually be liable for the defendants' costs in accordance with the normal UK costs rules. This increases the financial risk to claimants and should deter potential claimants from bringing weak claims. If the claimants are unable to pay, the claimants' lawyers may need to fund a payment to the defendants. In the US, each side bears its own costs, even if the defendants win, which has fuelled the commencement of class actions. Collective settlements are also possible in the UK. (6) What other rules are coming? The EU Damages Directive must be implemented in the UK by the end of 2016 and will assist claimants in collective proceedings in the CAT. It provides for a rebuttable presumption that cartel infringements cause harm. It also requires EU member states to ensure that a final infringement decision of a national competition authority or court of any EU member state is deemed to be at least prima facie evidence of a competition law infringement. (7) So what will all this mean in practice? The new class action rules will change the litigation landscape for potential claimants and their lawyers, as well as for defendants. It will be easier for claimants to bring collective actions, share and minimise their legal fees, and benefit from a successful result or settlement. Those who have breached competition law can expected an increased likelihood of a class action being brought against them, with a potentially considerable and unknown liability arising from any opt-out collective proceedings. However, the new rules provide some important controls regarding the award of damages and costs which should prevent the rapid growth of class action litigation, as has occurred in the US. Much will depend on how broadly or narrowly the class is defined, the merits of each claim, and the risk appetite of defendants either to settle or defend the case to its conclusion. * UK Consumer Rights Act Introduces "Opt Out" in Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Clive Coleman, writing for BBC News, reports that The Consumer Rights Act 2015 will make it far easier for groups of consumers to seek compensation from firms that have fixed prices and formed cartels. It introduces "opt out" actions where everyone affected is automatically a member of the "class" which is suing. Consumer groups say it is a huge step forward in helping secure compensation. Fixing the prices Previously, when groups of consumers or small and medium-sized businesses wanted to take action against companies who fixed the price of goods or services, on -- for example -- replica football shirts or air fares, it was very difficult. All of those affected had ether had to "opt in" to the action or bring a claim in their own name. As individual losses were small and legal costs and risks high, few did. Such were the problems with opt-in actions that there has only been one of note. This was when consumer body sued JJB Sports which had taken part in fixing the prices of some replica football shirts. The action was settled and consumers who joined it who had paid up to GBP39.99 for certain England and Manchester United football shirts, during specific periods in 2000 or 2001, received a payment of GBP20 each. JJB Sports also agreed to compensate those who bought one of the shirts but did not join the claim. They were entitled to GBP10 if they presented either proof of purchase or the shirt itself, with its label intact, at a JJB Sports store. It was all a bit messy and many who bought the shirts did not join the claim and so did not get any money back. Under the new law, everyone who purchased the overpriced goods can be automatically "in" the claim unless they opt out. It means there will be strength in numbers and consumers could get their money back without lifting a finger. "The new collective redress rules will give consumers more power against unscrupulous businesses that have been found guilty of anti-competitive practices," said executive director Richard Lloyd. "Now everyone who has been affected will be automatically included so more people should get redress and sooner." He added the move was good news for consumers and responsible businesses because "those caught acting illegally will be made to pay the price". 'Billions in damages' Under the new law, claims have to be approved by the Competition Appeal Tribunal. They can be brought by a suitable representative of the group affected by the price fixing, who then advertises the claim in order to make others in the group aware of it and would then distribute the money. Any residue goes to charity. Two kinds of claims can be brought. Firstly, so-called "follow on" claims that follow a competition regulator's finding that there has been an infringement of competition law. Secondly, "standalone" claims which are not based on an infringement decision. This frees up claimants to seek damages for any competition law violations -- not just those the regulators have chosen to pursue. In the US, class actions are far more widespread with damages awards running into billions of dollars. They are not confined to cases where companies get together and fix prices. Claims against retailers and manufacturers relating to faulty goods and services can also be brought. Class actions have been filed in the US by groups of consumers affected by the recent Volkswagen emission test scandal. In the US, juries hear the cases and set the damages, which can then be trebled by the judge. 'Safeguards included' So, will the new regime really see US-style class actions with huge pay outs? "The regime incorporates a number of safeguards against what are perceived to be the 'excesses' of the US system," said Anna Morfey, a specialist competition law solicitor with the London firm Hausfeld. "In particular, the fact that the losing party is typically required to pay the winner's costs acts as a deterrent to frivolous claims in the UK. "But there are other important differences -- no treble or 'exemplary' damages, and no jury trials of these claims in the UK, will mean damages awards really are compensatory and not windfalls for claimants." What is clear is that companies who fix prices now face a much greater risk of being sued by all of those who have paid the inflated prices. Class action explained The Competition Appeal Tribunal decides whether the "class representative" is representative of anybody else who would want to sue Safeguards to prevent frivolous claims include strict conditions to be met before a claim is approved as "opt-out" as opposed to "opt-in"; and rules governing damages and costs "Opt-out" provisions only apply to UK-domiciled consumers or companies. * UK Fund Managers Mull Suit as New Antitrust Rules Introduced -------------------------------------------------------------- Kristin Ridley, writing for Reuters, reports that large companies and fund managers in Britain looking to sue banks over foreign exchange rigging are eyeing a fresh route to seeking damages, as a new law ushers in U.S.-style class actions for antitrust cases on. Litigators are hoping to replicate from Britain the success of U.S. class action claims against banks such as Goldman Sachs, HSBC (and Barclays, that have yielded more than $2.0 billion for investors in settlements to date. With around 40 percent of the $5.3 trillion-per-day foreign exchange market traded in London, lawyers are jostling for position. UK firms that have traditionally brought group claims here, such as Stewarts Law, are seeing U.S. rivals such as Hausfeld launch hiring sprees and others opening shop in London. An official at one London-based fund manager, who declined to be named, said: "We are talking about it (a claim) internally and with our custodians. If we think it is in clients' interest, we would certainly consider being part of a class action." Britain's new Consumer Rights Act introduces the first "opt-out" class actions for breaches of UK or EU competition law from Oct. 1. In such cases, UK-based members of a defined group will automatically be bound into legal action unless they opt out, saving on hefty advertising costs. Overseas-based claimants, however, will still have to actively sign up. The regime is designed to offer a more effective route to compensation for consumers and businesses who fall victim to anti- competitive conduct. It will be overseen by Britain's freshly- empowered Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). Critics say opt-out regimes can fuel claims without merit. Others argue victims too often go uncompensated for injustice. Countries from Belgium and Italy to Australia and China are proposing and introducing similar systems. The banking industry, in the spotlight since the financial crisis, has paid more than $235 billion in fines and compensation over the last seven years. SIGNING UP CLAIMANTS Some lawyers admit to being tempted to grab the limelight with Britain's maiden class action lawsuit. But European antitrust authorities have yet to conclude their forex probe, law firms would need significant resources to litigate and early CAT cases could get bogged down in interlocutory fights about shaping the new regime, experts are warning. "We are in active conversations with a number of multinational companies and we have some who have already signed up to bringing this case," says Belinda Hollway, a London-based partner at U.S.- based law firm Scott and Scott, setting up shop in London after leading successful U.S. forex claims. "But the simplest and quickest route to obtaining compensation at this stage is a conventional (opt-in, group) action in the High Court," she added. A forex claim might not be launched in Britain until early 2016, she said. The work that precedes even a High Court case should not be underestimated - especially as the losing side foots the combined legal bill, said Stewart Law's Clive Zietman. "There is a very real possibility of claims. But claimants have to be pretty determined with rock solid facts," he said. Whichever route claimants take, lenders are braced. They have set aside billions of dollars to cover civil lawsuits after U.S. and UK authorities described how traders gathered in chatrooms with names such as "The Cartel". Seven lenders were fined around $10 billion and four banks have pleaded guilty to attempted market manipulation. Britain's former "opt-in" regime for antitrust cases, where each claimant has to be individually identified, has inspired only one claim: a football kit price-fixing case won by consumer organization a decade ago. It proved complex and costly to organize and few claimed the compensation won. But if the new regime is successful, it could be expanded to allow class actions on grounds such as product liability and securities fraud. Such claims drove the landmark U.S. tobacco settlement over cigarette-related public health claims in 1998, set at around $200 billion over 25 years, and the $7.2 billion Enron settlement with shareholders after the energy giant's collapse in 2008. * UK Legistlation Establishes Procedure for Competition Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn McCann, writing for Legal Business, reports that The Consumer Rights Act 2015, which was set to come into force (October 1), will for the first time establish a procedure for class actions for competition claims, giving consumers and small businesses an easier route to success for claims made over anti- competitive behaviour, including price fixing and market sharing. The legislation, which gives a number of new powers to the UK's specialist competition court the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), means there will now be collective redress system for competition claims. It also means individual consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) will not have to undertake significant financial risks to embark on expensive litigation. SMEs who wish to bring a case will also be considered for a fast- track procedure, which means trials will take six months at the most, making it both quicker and easier to seek redress. The CAT, which until now could only hear claims that followed on from infringement decisions by competition regulators, will now be able to hear stand-alone claims. The new rules also include a procedure for collective settlements and also empower the CAT to grant injunctions to stop anticompetitive behaviour. There are a number of requirements around the way in which claimants can participate in a class action. At a simple level, both opt-in (a claimant choosing to join the class) and opt-out (a claimant automatically being part of the class unless they take steps to opt out of it) may be brought in the CAT. However, opt-out class actions can be brought by UK claimants only. Foreign claimants must specifically opt-in to the class. Speaking to Legal Business Addleshaw Goddard competition partner Bruce Kilpatrick said the changes will make low-value, high-volume claims, such as the high-profile football kit price-fixing case, now viable in the UK. "It will act as a significant deterrent in practice for companies that are maybe engaged in anti-competitive activity particularly in those consumer-facing markets and also will help to bring an effective redress mechanism for consumers and small businesses for the first time,| he added. As expected, the Consumer Rights Act is likely to concern big businesses, due to the risk of increased litigation and those excesses experienced in US antitrust class action litigation. However Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer litigation and antitrust partner Mark Sansom maintains that there are safeguards in place for concerned clients. "The new regime includes some safeguards to keep things in check. In particular, the CAT has to authorise each and every claim and that is intended to weed out spurious claims or ones that are duplicative. Also we don't have US-style treble damages -- any damages at the end of the process would be compensatory only -- we don't have jury trials and we have the 'loser-pays' costs rule, all of which should disincentivise bad claims." One area that will benefit from the arrival of class actions for damages for competition infringements will be third party litigation funding, which will be used to underwrite many claims. This legislation could have a significant impact on the litigation landscape in this country, if these competition class actions are deemed a success. Rosie Ioannou, senior counsel at funder Vannin Capital, said: "What is clear, given experiences in other jurisdictions where class actions now operate, is that funding will be key to their success. It remains to be seen exactly how funding of class actions in the UK will work in practice: different approaches have been taken in other jurisdictions where class actions are currently permitted. We consider that the CAT's approach to certification of claims, including the funding element of such claims, will be key." * US Supreme Court Set to Tackle Labor-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------- Richard Meneghello of Fisher & Phillips LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the the first Monday in October is the traditional first day of a new U.S. Supreme Court term. As always, the 2015-16 term will have several cases that are of particular interest to the nation's employers. Here is a review of some of the cases Fisher & Phillips LLP is tracking: Attack On Public Sector Unions One of the more important cases to be decided this term is Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. This case could be a crucial stepping stone for those who want to further reduce the impact of unions on the American workplace. This case, or one like it, has been long awaited by those who hope to strike a critical blow against public sector unions. The petitioners in Friedrichs want to eliminate "agency shop" fees that public unions take from non-members. If a worker chooses not to join a union, a 1977 SCOTUS opinion still allows states to force those workers to contribute a membership fee out of their paychecks (Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.). If the SCOTUS overturns that case and allows employees to opt out of paying anything to labor unions, it could spell big trouble for public unions in the form of lower resources and reduced political clout. Private employers can only hope that such a development would eventually have a carryover effect on private sector unions, as the Friedrichs decision will have no direct impact on non- governmental businesses. Some observers believe that a pro- employer decision could lead to a further galvanizing of the "right to work" movement that has been slowly moving through state legislatures across the country. A Higher Bar For Class Action Lawsuits? Another case we are closely tracking is Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo. This decision could have major implications in the world of class action lawsuits, which have become a (very expensive) thorn in the side for many employers across the country. Under federal rules, a court can certify a lawsuit as a class action if it finds that there is sufficient similarity among all possible employees implicated by the claim; i.e., that they have suffered the same injury. In this case, a large multimillion class action alleging wage and hour violations was allowed to proceed, despite the fact that each of the employees had a slightly different claim that was averaged out to reach a consensus figure. Some employees, in fact, were permitted to join the class despite the fact they had never been actually harmed by the employer's overtime policy. Employers are hopeful that the SCOTUS has accepted this case to tighten the reins on class action certification, setting a more stringent bar for these kinds of claims. By requiring tighter rules on similarity, the number of class action lawsuits should be reduced by a sizeable degree. Class Actions, Part Deux The Supreme Court will further define the contours of class action litigation when it decides Campbell-Edward v. Gomez. The issue in this case: whether class action lawsuits become moot after a plaintiff receives a full offer of relief. The case itself involves a non-employment scenario; an individual launched a class action case against the U.S. Navy after receiving unsolicited promotional text messages. But the procedural maneuver at issue could aid employers looking for innovative ways to fend off costly class action claims. If the SCOTUS agrees with the defendant's position, employers could potentially disarm class actions by offering to make the named plaintiff whole through an offer of judgment. Class actions may start to look a whole lot less attractive to the plaintiff's bar if such a move could stop costly litigation in its tracks. Fair Credit Reporting Yet another class action case will be decided this term. In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, a claimant filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), claiming that he had been victimized by false background information and that harm was done to his credit, insurance, and employment prospects. The issue in this case is whether he can proceed with his claim without demonstrating proof of economic injury. The SCOTUS will decide whether or not an individual must suffer actual harm to bring a FCRA suit. Employers should take an interest in this case because of the increasing number of FCRA class action lawsuits filed against businesses alleging unlawful background screening practices. If the SCOTUS determines that employees or applicants can sue under FCRA despite having no demonstrable injury, a veritable tidal wave of class action litigation could result. When Does The Clock Start Ticking? Another interesting case on the 2015-16 docket is Green v. Brennan. This case will resolve a circuit split, where a few federal appeals courts have ruled one way, and a few other federal appeals courts have ruled the opposite way. The issue in this case is when the all-important clock starts ticking that provides the deadline for filing discrimination lawsuits. In some cases, employees will claim that they are "constructively discharged" from employment. In other words, they are not suing because they were actually fired, but instead they claim that the employer forced them to quit by making their work life so miserable that any reasonable worker in their shoes would have also quit. In these kinds of cases, there is an open question as to when the statute of limitations clock starts ticking. Five federal courts of appeal have held that the filing period starts when the employee actually resigns (which generally helps employees). Three others have held that the filing period could start way earlier -- when the employer last commits whatever discriminatory act that gives rise to the resignation (which generally helps employers). The SCOTUS will answer the question once and for all and (hopefully) provide firm guidance. Affirmative Action, Again If the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, looks familiar to you, don't worry -- you're not having d‚j… vu. The Supreme Court will once again consider the extent to which public universities can consider race and ethnicity in admissions decisions, and once again the same litigants are back before the Court. In 2013, the Supreme Court found that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had erred in not appropriately applying a "strict scrutiny review" to the university's race-conscious admissions policies. The 5th Circuit once again upheld the university's admissions plan, a decision the SCOTUS has again agreed to review. While colleges and universities are closely following the case, the decision may also have an impact outside the higher education arena. For instance, the outcome of the case could directly impact private and public employers with affirmative action programs designed to promote workplace diversity. Depending on the breadth of the final decision, it may also may have implications on the permissible scope of affirmative action employment programs designed to remedy historical effects of discrimination as well as executive orders dealing with affirmative action, such as Executive Order 11246. F&P SCOTUS Alerts As always, Fisher & Phillips will be there to issue same-day analysis and summaries of all of these cases, providing background and context for each decision, explaining the Court's reasoning in layman's terms, and discussing the impact on employers. There will almost certainly be additional labor and employment cases added to the Court's docket in the coming months, and you can look to Fisher & Phillips to get you up to speed on those, as well. ********* 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 * * *